Jeffrey Goldberg is back from Cuba, where he was summoned by Fidel Castro after the former Cuban president read Goldberg’s recent article on the likelihood of an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program. Goldberg promises that his Havana adventure will be the subject of a forthcoming story, but in the meantime, he’s blogging about it, the highlight of which appears to be a dolphin show he watched alongside Fidel himself and the daughter of Che Guevara, whom we are told loved animals. And then there’s the dog-and-pony show, which was conducted solely for the benefit of The Atlantic’s national correspondent.
I have known Jeffrey Goldberg for several years and greatly admire his work. His lively and insightful reporting from and on the Middle East is distinguished, among other reasons, for a moral lucidity that is very rare in journalistic and academic Middle East circles: Unlike many other regional experts, Jeff never equivocates on fundamental issues – e.g., regimes that torture, rape and massacre their own people are bad, and murdering Israelis is not resistance but murder. It is disconcerting then to see him struggling for that same clarity when it comes to an authoritarian government outside of the Middle East, like that of the Castro brothers.
His choice of travel companion/Cuban affairs expert – Julia Sweig from the Council on Foreign Relations – didn’t help matters. Castro, writes Goldberg, “greeted Julia warmly; they have known each other for more than twenty years.”
You might well wonder what kind of researcher is on friendly terms with the head of the authoritarian regime that she writes about. I am pretty certain that if Jeff were to visit, say, Damascus, with a CFR scholar air-kissing Syrian president Bashar al-Asad, he’d get the picture. After all, it is Goldberg’s probity, as well as the pointed barbs he has directed at useful idiots, that have earned him the enmity of the creep parade – journalists like Roger Cohen and Middle East experts like Juan Cole, Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett who double as apologists for the region’s most murderous states and so-called non-state actors. So what is he doing on a “road trip” with Sweig? As the CFR website witlessly boasts, she is the “only scholar inside or outside of Cuba allowed access to the complete collection in the Cuban Council of State’s Office of Historic Affairs.” One needs only to understand that authoritarian regimes are the same across the world – Sweig has access to Havana’s classified records because Castro knows that she would not dream of challenging the revolution’s fundamental account of itself lest she forfeit her access. In other words, she’s Fidel’s Flynt Leverett.
Goldberg asks her to interpret Fidel’s "stunning statement" that "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore." Fidel, Sweig explains, is trying "to create space for his brother, Raul, who is now president, to enact the necessary reforms in the face of what will surely be push-back from orthodox communists within the Party and the bureaucracy."
This "old-guard" narrative that Sweig lays out is one of the oldest fairytales in the authoritarian regime handbook, a fiction popular with apologists around the world looking to portray their despot as an aspiring reformer caught in a tragic, inexorable bind – the real bad guy isn’t the supreme leader with the power to imprison, torture and execute on a whim; no, the source of the problem is actually the corrupt inner circle that is restraining the reform-minded Castro boys from unleashing the energies of the potentially dynamic Cuban economy.
After all, as Goldberg explains (presumably channeling Sweig), Raul