In a letter that was broadcast on radio and television, Castro cited long-term illness as the reason for his decision. “It would be a betrayal to my conscience to accept a responsibility requiring more mobility and dedication than I am physically able to offer,” he said.
Castro’s brother, Raul, will likely formally take over the presidency, which he has held on a temporary basis since summer 2006.
While members of the University community hailed Castro’s resignation as an important milestone, they are hesitant to consider it a signal of dramatic political change for the Cuban people.
Wilson School professor Stanley Katz, who has spent time in Cuba and will be visiting the country during spring break, said that Castro’s resignation will not likely result in drastic changes in the short term.
“The transition has been going on for eight months now,” he said, adding that the announcement is merely a formal confirmation.
David Bejar ’09, co-president of the Cuban-American Undergraduate Students Association, emphasized that Castro has become a larger-than-life figure over the course of his years in power.
“He represents this bastion of communism on the island, socialist views, a sort of smack in the face to the people who’ve been in Cuba for so long who are trying to catch up to the ideas of liberty,” Bejar said.
Castro’s resignation is thus important for bringing hope to Cubans who are working to bring democracy to the island, though change may not materialize soon.
“Just because Castro’s gone doesn’t mean that the actual impediment is gone,” Bejar said. He explained that Castro’s economic and political policies, such as the dual-currency system that results in high food prices many poor Cubans can’t afford, will likely persist.
Raul Castro, however, may be “more inclined to begin market reforms than his brother,” Katz said, noting that “the only foreseeable short-term impact would be a very modest reform towards market reform and some opening up of the island to foreign investment.”
“The first chance for real change is in January 2009,” he said. “It’s quite clear that the Bush administration doesn’t want to and isn’t capable of coping with [Cuba] … they take such a hard line, and they are so much [in line with] the camp of Cuban-American hardliners that they have no flexibility to act.”
He added that he fears Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) “wouldn’t be better off” than the current administration on addressing Cuba and that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) are likely to be more responsive to the issue.
Katz also said that the more important turning point will be when Fidel Castro dies because only then would Raul Castro be likely to institute real reforms. “There won’t be that kind of inhibition [from Fidel],” he said.
Bejar expressed fears that the Cuban government will turn Castro into “some sort of pre-death martyr.” Castro has long served as an inspiration for some leftist political leaders, such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Tim Cheston ’08, a Wilson School major who is pursuing a certificate in Latin-American studies, noted that Castro’s resignation is, “a big loss for the radical left” in Latin America.
He explained that while many leftist leaders have been elected in the region, many of them are more moderate than Castro or Chavez. “It leaves a huge gap to fill,” he said.
While Castro’s resignation may not signal any immediate political transformation, students hope it may spur a change in relations between Cuba and the United States.
“I think that the resignation of Fidel Castro can definitely affect Cuban-American relations if the U.S. government takes on a more significant role in putting pressure on the island,” Bejar said.
President Bush has already pledged support to help a potential transition to democracy. “The United States will help the people of Cuba realize the blessings of liberty,” he said at a press conference while traveling in Rwanda.
Bush also urged Cuba to free political prisoners and start constructing “institutions necessary for democracy that eventually will lead to free and fair elections.”
Speculation that Castro had developed pancreatic cancer surfaced in December 2006 after a Spanish surgeon specializing in intestinal cancer was flown to Cuba to treat him. Government reports issued in 2007, however, stated that Castro was recovering well, despite his lack of public appearances.
The time between his departure from the public eye and his resignation has given time for Castro to effectively transfer power to his brother, Cheston said. “I think they’re a bit more prepared due to the circumstances,” he noted. “This [transition] has already kind of taken place.”
There was much speculation that Castro’s delegation of duties to his brother may signal a new hope for Cuban democracy. Cheston said, however, that this view has proven unfounded thus far. There were no massive uprisings or demonstrations that would indicate significant political change.
“No one really called for democracy,” Cheston said, because “many of the people who would want radical change have already left Cuba.”
Castro came to power in January 1959 at the head of a guerilla movement dedicated to ousting then-dictator Fulgencio Batista.
Though Castro initially promised democratic reforms, pledging to revive the Cuban constitution and reinstate elections, he soon allied with the Soviet Union and established himself as a totalitarian dictator.
In 1962, the discovery of nuclear missile installations being built in Cuba sparked the tense standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In 1959, Castro violated security regulations and delivered an impromptu speech before a crowd of about 1,500 people on Washington Road during a visit to Princeton during which he delivered an address before the American Civilization Conference.
Original URL: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/02/20/20171/