 Hi, welcome to Global Connections on ThinkTech's live streaming network series. I'm your host Grace Chang, today here with Pierre Aslan, professor of history at Hawaii Pacific University. And we're going to be talking about Fidel Castro and his role in history. Welcome Pierre, nice to have you here to talk to us today about the late Cuban leader Fidel Castro who just passed away a few days ago. Very, very happy to be here, very happy to be here. And you're a professor of international history, especially the period of the Cold War where Cuba was a critical player, especially after the Revolutionary in 1959. And of course Fidel Castro was central to this period as well as to revolutions beyond the Western Hemisphere. So this is something that I think that we want to recount because many people regard him as sort of the last iconic revolutionary period from the 20th century. Just passed away a few days ago at the age of 90. So we're kind of, you know, sort of the end of an era that was very dramatic in modern history. No, absolutely. So yeah, I mean I'm a US diplomatic historian and I'm also an international relations historian. And I've been focusing on the Cold War and over the recent past I've been very, very interested by the internationalism that a variety of different leaders in a number of different countries embraced throughout the Cold War period, particularly during the 50s, 60s and 70s. And Castro really stands out among those leaders. And, you know, we have an image of Castro in this country that's been shaped largely by Cuban exiles in Florida, among other places. And it tends to be a negative image, which is certainly justified in light of some of Castro's domestic policies. More recently the President-elect referred to Castro as a brutal dictator and many Americans celebrated the death of Castro. But I think what many people fail to appreciate is Castro's activities and actions outside of Cuba, which are considering the size of the country and considering the use of the Republic, Castro, which set up, starting in 1959, are really impressive. And so I think, you know, it's important to address that particular aspect of Castro's role, is activities abroad and how they effectively attempted and to some degree served to change the world. Okay, so what are some of these interesting events that Fidel Castro had helped to kind of move into action in history? So, I mean, the Cubans are, Castro specifically, are kind of most famous internationally, particularly within the Third World for their so-called doctor diplomacy. Starting in the early 1960s, within four years of the revolution, starting in 1963, Cuba starts sending medical staff to other countries. It begins in Algeria and then from Algeria the program grows and we see Cuban doctors and other medical personnel working in Sub-Saharan Africa. We see them in Asia and eventually in the Asia Pacific region. Throughout the Cold War period, on average, Cuba had approximately somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 medical personnel overseas in any given year. So, and it's essentially philanthropic, right? Cuba doesn't really gain anything from it. It's part of Castro's belief in the merits of what he would consider revolutionary progressivism and socialist as well as national liberation solidarity. So, we have these doctors, this medical personnel being sent abroad. Eventually, Castro will begin offering full-right scholarships to young people from Third World countries, particularly from black African Sub-Saharan countries, to come to Cuba and study, specifically to study medicine so that as Cuba assisted those countries, they would become dependent on external assistance. But eventually, in time, would be able to look after their own people by producing their own doctors trained in Cuba. And then there would also be a rather significant Cuban military involvement in a variety of different causes, again, particularly in black Africa, but also, unbeknownst to many people, in Syria in the midst of the Yom Kippur War. In 1973, during the October War, Cuba sent 4,000 soldiers to help the Syrians contain the Israeli advance against their country. So, of course, within the context of the Cold War, we don't appreciate what Cuba does because he's on the other side. But for the people on that side, for people in communist countries, for people involved in national liberation causes, for members of the non-aligned movement, some of these activities undertaken by Castro are truly commendable and must be at least recognized by students of international affairs, by political scientists, and by historians, irrespective of their impact on the Cold War bipolar system. I mean, yeah, in Western countries, I think Cuba, after the Revolution, represents communism, bringing communism and the Soviet missiles to the Western Hemisphere. And also, kicking out a lot of the foreign investments many of the Americans that were in Cuba at the time. So, as far as his agenda, was it to promote communism? Why did he go over to Africa? Why did he go over to the Middle East? What was his interest to spread international communism like the Soviet Union? Was it in coordination with the Soviets or was it an initiative of their own? I mean, that's always one of those central questions when we look at small states in the Cold War context, right? Are these smaller states agents of the superpowers? And if there's one country that persistently tried to assert its autonomy vis-a-vis a great power, it was Cuba during the Cold War. And because of the embargo imposed by the U.S. against Cuba in October 1960, Castro and Cuba will be forced to develop closer ties to the Soviet Union, to the socialist camp, if only to keep their economy alive. But despite the proximate relationship to Moscow, the Cubans will always maintain a tremendous degree of autonomy in both domestic and foreign policy. Castro will eventually get involved in Algeria and a variety of other countries, but always on his own terms. The largest Cuban military commitment would be made in Angola. Castro would send, I mean, at one point we've got 60,000 Cuban troops in Angola trying to assist a leftist movement prevail in a very, very nasty civil war, but what's interesting about the Cuban commitment in Angola is that it begins in 1975, but really against the wishes of Moscow. 75, the war in Vietnam has just ended, nobody wants another Vietnam, the Americans and the Soviets as well. The Soviets are committed to detente with the United States. This is supposed to be a new era in Soviet-American relations and yet here are these conflicts beginning in sub-Saharan Africa, in Angola and eventually in Mozambique. And leftists in Angola are in desperate need of foreign support. The Soviets provide advisors, but they're very reluctant to provide sufficient weaponry and military personnel because of this fear of compromising detente with the Americans. Castro refuses to abide that and effectively unilaterally sends in his own soldiers into Angola, which eventually compares the Soviets to become involved in Angola. So a state that many recognize as a puppet of the Soviets is really pulling the strings of Moscow in Angola, in Mozambique and eventually even in Ethiopia. So it's commendable. Again, however we choose to judge the outcome of these actions, it's kind of, to me, it's commendable to see such a small country dependent on a big power ultimately assert itself and engage the world on its own terms. And that's one of the interesting things about the Cold War that we need to recognize is that very often these smaller satellite states, often regarded as proxies or Soviets of the superpowers, were very often more autonomous than we believe. And in some instances ended up having more leverage over the big powers than the big powers ever had over them. Yeah, I mean it seems during the Cold War the two superpowers seemed to want to believe they could maintain their separate blocks and their rivalry and manage them in a certain way. For example, you're saying, you know, not get involved in wars in other regions where they didn't think, you know, it would be prudent given whatever the status of the relationship was. But that Cuba, certain smaller states were very committed to national liberation, which is what it seems in particular in the Angola, Mozambique, former Portuguese colonies in Africa you're talking about. Because they were, I mean, they were left leaning, but they were not necessarily Soviet-styled kinds of movements. Absolutely not. And we have to remember also, this is, you know, some of these things are unfolding within the context of detail, but also the Sino-Soviet split. You know, Americans often think of communism as monolithic, right, that there was just one Soviet-sponsored style of communism. And now we now know on the basis of evidence from former Eastern-Block countries, from China, from Vietnam, that communism was never monolithic, that each country and leader that would embrace communism ultimately embraced its own version of communism and that created tensions within the socialist camp. The most important of which ended up developing between the Soviet Union and China. Very, very nasty split. That ended up splitting Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, which is another thing I think most people are not aware of, that close as Che and Fidel were. Starting in the early 60s, we see them slowly drift apart in large, mostly because of this Sino-Soviet split. Fidel is more committed to Soviet-style communism, which is less inclined to advocate for violent revolution, whereas Che becomes kind of enamored by the Chinese interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, which really calls for violent revolution, particularly in the Third World. And so Che ends up in Africa in the mid-1960s before returning to Latin America, effectively trying to export violent revolution as Castro tries to be more consistent with Soviet wishes and kind of tone down his revolutionary rhetoric and try to achieve change in Cuba on more peaceful terms. And what about within Latin America? What were the Cuban efforts there, as far as exporting revolution or supporting liberation movements? So when we look at the emergence of leftist movements in Latin America, and there would be a multitude of them starting in the 50s and with this high tide in the 60s and 70s, again, for many Americans, this was the product of Soviet infiltration, of Soviet collusion with local allies. But the reality is very, very different from that, and it's something we could explore after the break. Okay, great. Thank you so much for that overview about Fidel Castro as leader of Revolutionary Cuba. Fidel Castro recently passed away at the age of 90. We'll be back to talk a bit more about his role in history. You're watching Global Connection. Aloha. My name is Carl Campania and I am the host of Think Tech Hawaii's Movers, Shakers and Reformers, the Politics in Hawaii series. Join us each week as we have guest after guest talking about the policy and the politics of our state, of our islands, and of what really matters to each of us. So please join us each week and engage in that conversation. Mahalo. Aloha. I'm Kaui Lucas, host of Hawaii is my mainland every Friday here on Think Tech Hawaii. I also have a blog of the same game at kauilucas.com where you can see all of my past shows. Join me this Friday and every Friday at 3 p.m. Aloha. Thank you Hawaii, Asia in reveal. I am Johnson Choi, the host. I'm looking forward to see you next month, December 15th, Thursday, 11 o'clock, right here again. Hi, welcome back to Global Connections. I'm your host, Grace Cheng, here with Professor Pierre Astel in Hawaii Pacific University. We're talking about Fidel Castro and his role in history. Fidel Castro just passed away as many of us know a few days ago at the age of 90, and comes to the end of a revolutionary era with the dex of this iconic leader. Thank you. Welcome back, Pierre. So we were talking before the break about Castro and revolutionary Cuba and in terms of its impact in Latin America. So as I was explaining before, there's a sense in the US that the Soviets were sponsoring these insurgencies, these leftist movements, and as it turns out, that wasn't the case at all. The Soviets recognized tacitly the Monroe Doctrine kind of kept a hands-off approach to Latin America because the Soviets recognized that this was America's sphere of influence. The last time they'd interfered in 62. I mean, it had been a disaster, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Beyond that, the Soviets feel that if they don't become involved in Latin America, the Americans will not get involved within the Soviets' own sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. So there's this kind of, you know, informal, this kind of tacit understanding between the two superpowers that I'm going to stay out of your back, if you stay out of mine. Castro, though, doesn't abide by that particular principle. As far as Castro is concerned, we must push revolution and through the 60s and 70s, we see him effectively trying to promote the sponsor revolution in Latin America when Che ends up getting killed in the Bolivian 60s and 70s, effectively there just for that purpose. But this is really a Cuban initiative. This is a Castro-Che initiative that really defied the wishes of Moscow because for the reasons that I was suggesting earlier, the Soviets were very, very reluctant to push hard for the revolutionary overthrow of pro-American governments in that particular part of the world. So whatever, you know, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, for example, their rise to power is greatly facilitated by Castro and not by the Soviet Union. So for a small country, Cuba under Castro did realize great things. I'm not saying they were positive or negative, but great in the sense that they had a dramatic impact on the course, in this case, of Latin American history, Cold War history, and the history of the world. And I mean, we often think of the revolutionary period as the 60s, the 70s, but Cuba also supported some of the anti-apartheid movements in South Africa and South Africa, which was occupying Southwest Africa now Namibia until it's supporting its independence in 1990. So Cuba's role throughout this 20th century was quite lengthy and not limited to the revolutions. And so again, right? So Cuba becomes, I mean, is a devout Marxist-Leninist, but he also believes in what the French called Tiers-Mondiz make, third worldism. He believes in non-alignment. I mean, he really believes in improving the human condition, particularly in semi-colonial areas and colonial areas and in former colonies. So we see a variety of progressive causes around the world. So there's much more to him than, again, we tend to believe. And while his policies and the impact of those policies can certainly and fairly be interpreted to judgment, the fact remains that this is an individual who really tried to practice a kind of internationalism that we're not really seeing these days. And yeah, we can address that issue if you're so inclined. Yeah, I mean, you know, we can have different judgments about his, I guess, his way of looking at the world, but it's interesting what you were talking about, trying to understand what motivates his actions, whether the outcomes were positive-negative, whether you judge them positively or negatively. I think that's a separate issue. But as far as, I think, the kind of internationalism that Cuba demonstrates under Castro, that's pretty interesting and remarkable as far as, what was the worldview that motivated that? Yeah, so everything I've read about Cuba, everything I know about Cuba, and some of the latest cutting edge research about Cuba, suggests that this is an individual who's highly ideologically motivated. Castro has a certain vision of the world of a just world, and much of what he does internationally is effectively intended to achieve a greater level of justice in the world. And again, I'm not saying that it is justice in a way that we Americans might define it, but it's definitely justice in the sense that he and many leftists at the time would have defined it. And so that's truly remarkable that of all the policies he undertakes internationally, it's very hard to see how some of these could have somehow been purely self-serving. I think it's a fair pair. We can almost compare Castro's brand of internationalism to, let's say Woodrow Wilson's brand of internationalism, different than the two men were. Each espouse has a particular vision of the world and effectively tries to pursue policies that will attempt to fulfill that vision. And the United States itself would kind of reject Wilson's vision. And we could argue that with respect to Castro's own vision, many people would reject it or refuse to buy into it. But I mean, it's interesting since his death, the media accounts, you know, of course in the U.S., largely quite critical. And in Canada, you know, the Canadian leader, Prime Minister Trudeau, tweeted something positive or, you know, somewhat praising the late leader of Cuba and the response from other public figures was very condemning of him. But then you see in the press, in other parts of the world, in Asia, in Africa and Latin America, the accounts are very, very different. There are memories of him or how they understand his role historically and his impact and legacy are different. So I think that's quite interesting as far as, you know, the different perspectives that we see from different parts of the world. Oh, yeah. I mean, you know, so reading the American press, right, I mean, it's not particularly possible. I was looking at the Algerian press, some Latin American newspapers, their websites, the Chinese press, the Vietnamese press, I mean, these glaring accounts of Castro. I mean, Castro gave them, tried to help them in various ways, despite having such limited resources. And that truly counts for something for these guys. And then you mentioned Justin Trudeau. Part of it is self-serving because his father, Pierre, actually went to Cuba in 1976. He was one of the first, yeah, yeah, yeah, kind of, you know, Western bloc leaders to visit Havana and to meet with Castro. And then in 1998, Jean Chrétien, another prime minister from Canada, also went to Cuba. So the Canadians have always been on better terms with the Cubans than the Americans. But I think, you know, looking at this and the response, it's important to recognize that, you know, Castro may well have been the last great internationalist for better or worse. Here's an individual who, like, you know, in the mold of Mao, of Tito, of even Ronald Reagan, embraced an all-encompassing view that was meant to change the world. The American policy of containment was not limited to the U.S. It was a policy undertaken for the sake of improving the world. Americans practiced their own brand of internationalism during the Cold War, right? But Castro definitely was kind of on the front lines of this effort to change the world. And to me, it's almost, you know, it's interesting to see Castro dying, the last great internationalist dying, as Donald Trump, an American nationalist slash nativist, gets voted into office. You know, the mood these days is very different, right? 60, 70, you have kind of a slew of leaders who are committed internationalists. Cold War comes to an end. We're searching for ourselves. And what are we seeing these days? The rise of a new nationalism. We see it yet a great show on the Philippines recently, the territory in the Philippines, Xi Jinping in China, a new brand of Chinese nationalism, complete distance from Chinese internationalism, Poland, Hungary, which during the Cold War really brought into this concept of proletarian international and social solidarity now have gone the way of nativism. And most recently in the United States, the U.S., which since 45 has been extremely engaged in the world, has tried to press for policies that were meant to benefit everyone, again, for better or worse. Now, you know, under Trump, quite possibly moving away from this to follow a more unilateralist, a more nationalist foreign policy. To me, I think that's why this show is a great idea. We need to recognize Castro as the product of an era and quite possibly recognizing his death as marking the literal and metaphorical end of that era, just as this era of a new nationalism seems to be asserting itself. So the end of an era of internationalism, which I think you see in many third-world country presses, they recognize Cuba's role throughout the world, national liberation, other movements. But with his death, not only the death of a revolutionary, but you're saying the death of internationalism. Well, I hope not, but it seems to be, instead of trying to help the world, now we're into helping ourselves, if we look at the U.S., the Philippines, and China, and the Russian also. Very interesting interpretation. Thank you very much, Pierre. Thank you all for watching us here on Global Connections. I'm your host, Grace Chang, and you can come and see us again here every Thursday at 1 p.m. Aloha.