Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FOR CASTRO IS A COLOR, IS A REDDER THAN RED.
By Dylan Matthews
It appears Fidel feels left out:
Fidel Castro says President Barack Obama "misinterpreted" his brother Raul's remarks regarding the United States and bristled at the suggestion that Cuba should free political prisoners or cut taxes on remittances from abroad as a goodwill gesture to the U.S.
Raul Castro touched off a whirlwind of speculation last week that the U.S. and Cuba could be headed toward a thaw in nearly a half-century of chilly relations. The speculation began when the Cuban president said leaders would be willing to sit down with their U.S. counterparts and discuss "everything," including human rights, freedom of the press and expression, and political prisoners on the island.
Obama responded at the Summit of the Americas by saying Washington seeks a new beginning with Cuba, but he also said Sunday that Cuba should release some political prisoners and reduce official taxes on remittances sent to the island from the U.S.
That appeared to enrage Fidel Castro, 82, who wrote in an essay posted on a government Web site that Obama "without a doubt misinterpreted Raul's declarations."
Obviously, responding to an offer to negotiate on "everything" including human rights and political prisoners with a willingness to negotiate on "everything", including human rights and remittance reform is not a "misinterpretation" or even particularly out of line. But more to the point, why are we supposed to care what Fidel says? Sure, he was president until recently, and sure he may be a decent proxy for his brothers' viewpoints, but when he and his brother clearly disagree, as in this case, I'm hard-pressed to see the political significance of a statement like this. Interesting? Sure. Newsworthy? Perhaps. Likely to effect the chances of rapprochement? I doubt it.
COMMENTS (6)
But isn't Fidel still the actual person running the country, kind of like Medvedev/Putin?
Posted by: MNPundit | April 22, 2009 1:11 PM
moreso, actually. Raul is running things only as much as Fidel will allow him to.
Posted by: alex | April 22, 2009 2:19 PM
Likely to effect the chances of rapprochement? I doubt it.
You want "affect" here, not effect.
Posted by: Madison | April 22, 2009 3:30 PM
Experience suggests that the relevant question is: who runs the secret police, Fidel or Raúl? All else is window dressing...
Then again, the question may simultaneously be: who is the secret police choosing to 'obey' today, Fidel or Raúl? Those secret police guys have a way of turning the tables on their 'bosses'? (cf: ISI in Pakistan).
Posted by: PQuincy | April 22, 2009 11:19 PM
What PQuincy said.
The question comes down to who controls the coercive apparatuses and who wields the most influence amongst the elite. And it's a serious question. There's pretty much zero chance of a power struggle, but Raul has headed the military for years, and is currently head of state. Fidel is the head of the Communist party and is clearly still the icon of the revolution. Total amateur conjecture, but it seems like Raul is calling most of the shots with Fidel occasionally weighing in publicly to steer things when he thinks they're veering too fast too quickly. Raul's no angel, but everything I've seen indicates he wants reform. Even with Fidel occasionally refocusing on old revolutionary talk, Cuba is likely going to end up where Raul is steering.
Posted by: loc | April 23, 2009 12:17 AM
My money's on Fidel. Raul has wrecked the revolution in many incremental ways, e.g. by allowing limited private ownership of cell phones and personal computers. Fidel was always too smart for that. Bourgeois renegades will inevitably misuse the electronics for counterrevolutionary purposes and then will need to be shot. A difficult operation to carry out quietly.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2009 1:33 AM