The situation in Cuba within recent weeks continues to look more dire. Not only are anti government protests large, but the state-sponsored police pushback against demonstrations continues to grow in hostility and retaliation. With thousands of Cubans joining the protest against the Communist government, several dozen have been arrested due to the restricted ability to protest in Cuba, including around 100 individuals, on the third Sunday of July alone. This story, although on the surface could be easily blamed on the communist government, given the apparent shortage of medical supplies, basic resources like food and water, as well as a growing number of Covid-19 cases, it is much more complex than the communist scapegoat.

In 1902, Cuba was granted status as an independent state after a brutal war between the Spanish and the US. Even though the war for Cuba ended in 1898, a four year occupation by the United States until 1902, began what would become an oppressive and restrictive relationship that continues to this day (1). Legal Independence for Cuba was a facade, a coverup for a scheme the United States later showcased with its passage of the Platt Amendment which “grant[ed] the U.S. the right to intervene militarily in Cuba to protect its interests there.” intentionally vague to allow intervention at any time viewed necessary (2). This abhorrent, undemocratic policy resulted in numerous interventions, including those in 1906, the 1950s, and beyond. Despite this clearly interventionary set back and after 4 decades worth of political turmoil and exploration, 1940 saw the election of Fulgencio Bautista, widely viewed in his first term as a progressive and pro-demoratic individual. His administration saw the expansion of party diversity, including the allowed participation of the party that would later assume commuinst control (3). When Bautista later stepped out of the political spotlight, the growing instability at the turn of the decade worried the United States. The increasing popularity of the left wing ideology heading into a democratic election in 1952, in which Bautista once again ran, served as the focal point for a focal point in the relationship between Cuba and the United States. As a far third in the race for office, Bautista was far from the favorite to win. However, the more popular the Ortodoxos and Autenticos became, left wing parties, the more anxious the USA became. This culminated in the USA engineering of a successful Coup D’etat in support of Bautista. This time as leader, his previous track record of progressivism did not repeat, and Bautista became a brutal American supported dictator. 

This behavior exhibited by the USA, especially during the Cold War, became all too common. The United States in its frenzy to prevent the expansion of communism would meddle in elections in order to illegitimately arm a government into becoming such a brutal totalitarian system, that the result would often be worse than the communsit growth, especially legitimate commuinst growth like that of Cuba. Unhappy with the USA and its manufactury of democracy, Fidel Castro later led a successful communist revolution. Even though the United States recognized the Communist government as the legitimate power, almost immediately restrictive economic and political policies took place. Amidst the confusion of the Cuban missile crisis, the disastrous Bay of Pigs, and more in the 1960s, the USA took a more direct policy towards Cuba with JFK establishing a Embargo that still endures today. Even as the policy and embargo have changed overtime, becoming increasingly more aggressive with time especially under conservative presidents like George W Bush and Ronald Reagan, and somewhat less impactful under the Obama Administration only to be re-emphasized again under Donald Trump and Biden, there has been an undoubtable effect on Cuban ability to work towards self-governance (4). 

Ultimately, the question is however, what is the underlying cause of not only protesting in Cuba, but the increasingly harsh conditions of citizens during the pandemic? First, it's important to understand that Cuba, even under Communist power, often characterized as unjust, has one of the worlds most successful literacy programs with upwards of 99% literacy, an incredibly robust and free primary healthcare complex, and rigorous educational investment of 13% of the annual GDP (5). Each of these problems has been a pinnacle for protests against the government, however the problems associated with many of these are not the fault of the government, but rather a history of American interventionism and continued economic deprivation. During the pandemic, resources continue to stretch thin, in many ways because of the lack of access to supplies die to the sanctions from the USA. In fact, Cuba’s healthcare infrastructure is well equipped to handle dire epidemiological disasters given that the small country has 449 multispecialty clinics that employ between 15-40 doctors for specific communities each (6). With successful training programs for doctors in the country, the healthcare response which since the 1980s has been free, was prepared for the pandemic even before cases began to appear. To date even, Cuba has administered 3 million doses of its own vaccine, defying the odds (7). But, these impressive systems require more resources the longer the pandemic continues, and the already low economic power of Cuba due to decades of sanctions has almost entirely limited its somewhat tourism dominated economy to find little relief. 

The problem with the situation in Cuba is ultimately Western biases. Reporting on the Cuban protests frequently cite that the embargo could not possibly cause the problems taking place in the country, but rather its the inability of Cuba “to adopt market-oriented reforms that other remaining communist countries have taken” or something of the sort (8). Although it is truthful to say that the Cuban government has faced some difficult choices, its 100 year existence has been marked with consistent intervention and setbacks often supported by the United States that in no way enable growth. The communist system here is not to blame, as a market based approach with similar economic restrictions would face the same fate. The United States is holding Cuba underwater until it complies with its demands of democratic reform and is turning a blind eye to the clear humanitarian injustices the embargo has placed on people that once lived in a state growing in its productivity. 

Despite protests in Cuba, many of which have been misreported by the media and are actually pro-government events not even occurring in the country,  many Cubans and international community as a whole more progressively have called for an end to the United States oppressive embargo. In June, the United Nations for the 29th year in a row called for an end to the embargo with a vote of 184-2-3 (9) and Cubans alike are beggin for its end (10). Even as President Biden begs Cuba to listen to its citizens, most of which beg for an end of American sanctioning, another 2 million dollars was granted to projects for the “promotion of democracy” on the island, serving as a counterrevolutionary attack. Unfortunately Al-Jazeera Columnist Belen Fernandez summarizes the situation best, “Whatever the human cost of the embargo on Cuba, it is safe to surmise that the price will never be high enough to deter US capitalism from its path of vengeance against a tiny country that dared to remove price tags from basic rights like healthcare and education.” (11). 

As long as the United States is to remain a superpower, and one that does not tolerate opposing political philosophy, communist or leftist countries will never be free from its grasp. How are we to even make statements on the efficacy of Communism when it is never allowed to function outside of the confines of external intervention? Free-Market based capitalism did not form instantaneously and certainly was not established without its flaws either. What hypocrisy exists when Communism is not allowed to properly experiment and showcase its true, uninterrupted potential, but market based capitalism which was allowed that freedom is uncontested? Opposition and change does not mean the disintegration of the existing systems and until the USA can understand that ideology, Cuba will continue to face a difficult road.