Driving in Reverse

Driving in Reverse / Miriam Celaya
Posted on April 13, 2014

(Originally published in Cubanet the April 11, 2014 , titled " Raul
Castro Goes in Reverse")

Clearly, the new Foreign Investment Law "approved" by the usual
parliamentary unanimity last March 29, 2014, has been the talk of the
town on the topic of "Cuba", for the Island's official as well as for
the independent and foreign press.

With the relaxation of the existing law–enacted in 1995–the new
regulation is aiming to throw the ball to the opposite field: if Cuban
residents of the US cannot invest in Cuba currently, it would no longer
be because the regime bans it, but because of the shackles imposed by
the embargo, a trick of the elderly olive green crocodile that continues
with its wiles and snares despite the collapse of the system.

Amid the expectations of the government's and of aspiring investors,
there stretches a wide tuning fork of the ever-excluded: the common
Cubans, or the "walking Cubans" as we say, whose opinions are not
reflected in the media, magnifying their exclusion.

This time, however, the cancellation of the innate rights of Cubans is
causing social unrest to multiply, in a scenario in which there are
accelerated shortages in the commercial networks and persistent and
increasing higher prices and a higher cost of living.

Rejection of the Investment Law

Shortages, as well as inflation, indexation and bans for certain items
of the private trade, have caused many family businesses to close since
January 2014 due to the uncertainty surrounding the heralded–and never
properly explained–monetary unification.

In addition to the lack of positive expectations, these are the factors
that thin out the social environment and lead to generally unfavorable
reviews of the new law and its impact within Cuba.

An informal survey I conducted in recent days in Central Havana after
the March 29th extraordinary session of parliament shows rejection of
the new Law on Foreign Investment, almost as unanimous as the "approval"
that occurred in the plenary: of a total of 50 individuals polled, 49
were critical of the law and only one was indifferent.

In fact, the issue has been present with relative frequency in many
cliques not directly surveyed–uncommon in a population usually apathetic
about laws–in which the dominant tendency was to criticize various
aspects of the law.

The main reasons for the people's discontent are summarized in several
main points: the new law excludes, arbitrarily and despotically, Cuban
nationals, which implies that the lack of opportunities for the Island's
Cubans is being maintained.

Foreign investors will not only have great advantages and tax
considerations which have never been granted to the self-employed,
tariff concessions with respect to imports (which is just what traders
in imported items asked for and was not granted); the State will remain
the employer of those who will labor in foreign-funded enterprises,
implying consequent hiring based on Party loyalty–be it real or fake,
and taxed wages; widening social gaps between sectors with higher levels
of access to consumption and the more disadvantaged sectors (the latter
constantly growing).

At the same time, many Cubans question the vagaries of government policy
which, without any embarrassment, favors the capital of the expats-–the
former "siquitrillados*, the bourgeoisie, gypsies, worms, traitors,
scum, etc."–over those who stayed behind in Cuba.

The logical conclusion, even for those who stayed relatively associated
with the revolutionary process, or at least those who have not openly
opposed the regime, is that leaving the country would have been a more
sensible and timely option to have any chance of investing in the
current situation. There are those who perceive this law as the regime's
betrayal to the "loyalty" of those who chose to stay, usually Cubans of
lesser means.

Another topic that challenges the already diminished credibility of the
government is the very fact of appealing to foreign capital as the
saving grace of the system, when, the process of nationalization of
1959, it was deemed as one of the "fairer measures" and of greater
significance undertaken, to "place in the hands of the people" what the
filthy bourgeois capital had swiped from them.

Cubans wonder what sense it made to expel foreign capital and 55 years
later to plead for its return. It's like going backwards, but over a
more unstable and damaged road. Wouldn't we have saved ourselves over a
half a century of material shortages and spiritual deprivation if we had
kept companies that were already established in our country? How many
benefits did we give up since the State, that unproductive, inefficient
and lousy administrator, appropriated them?

What revolution are you taking about?

At any rate, the majority has a clear conscience that the revolution and
its displays of social justice and equality are behind us, in some
corner of the twisted road. "Do you think this new law will save the
revolution?"

I provocatively ask an old man who sells newspapers in my neighborhood.
"Girl! Which revolution are you referring to, the one that made Batista
flee or the one that is making all Cubans escape? The 1959 revolution
was over the moment 'this one' handed over the country to the Russians,
now the only thing the brother wants is to give it back to the Americans
and to keep himself a nice slice."

I probably never before heard such an accurate synthesis of what the
history of the Revolution means today to many a Cuban.

*Translator's note: Those who lost investment and personal property when
companies were nationalized in 1959 and early 1960's. From one of
Fidel's speeches, "we broke their wish bone and we will continue to
break their wish bone".

Translated by Norma Whiting

11 April 2014

Source: Driving in Reverse / Miriam Celaya | Translating Cuba -
http://translatingcuba.com/driving-in-reverse-miriam-celaya/