Fidel Castro ( Getty Images)
Cuba’s revolutionary leader Fidel Castro has died at the age of 90. The legacy of Castro, the “commandante” is not just his revolutionary communism, but a grand and more disturbing stance, one that was characterized as an anti-American charismatic tyranny.
For years following the collapse of colonialism, communists, socialists, and radical Islamists have committed abhorrent crimes that have systematically been watered down by their supporters, under the pretext that America and other Western powers are worse. The depth of anti-Americanism has caused many to lose their moral compass. In the latest responses to Castro’s death, we see how many have turned a blind eye to Castro’s abhorrent, systematic repression of his opponents.
This has occurred not just for Castro, but also for Nasser of Egypt, Saddam of Iraq, and even the Assad regime of Syria. All still enjoy a good dose of popularity among many supposedly rational intellectuals, despite their remarkable failure, crimes, and dismal record in governing their respective countries. In the Middle East, many leftists and Islamists justify oppression, as long as it has been committed in the name of an anti-American leader. Hating Uncle Sam appears to be a blessing act that cleanses other sins.
Perhaps romanticizing Castro is understandable among his supporters. After all, supporters are by default biased and apologetic. More worrisome, however, is the response to Castro’s death from some of his natural opponents____ the [supposedly] progressive liberal leaders of our time.
In a statement by the European Commission , Castro was described as a” hero to many.” The Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau went a step further by describing Fidel Castro as a legendary revolutionary and orator, “who made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.” Even American President Obama didn’t just offer his condolences, but almost praised Castro, by noting the “enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.” Other world leaders joined in, showering Castro with praise.
Indeed Castro was a “hero to many,” with “legendary” credentials, and had an “enormous impact” on the people and the world around him, but so did Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Iran’s Khomeini, Al-Qaeda’s Osama Bin Laden and even ISIS’s Baghdadi. Judging with European, Canadian, and American leaders’ logic, followers of all those mentioned names should feel slighted, and wonder why Western leaders fail to acknowledge the “heroism” of their leaders? Where do Western leaders draw the line between various shades of oppression?
The responses to Castro’s death is yet another example of the crisis of the liberal western world and the moral bankruptcy of the global order in general. Glamorized regression is now branded as the new progressiveness.
The same leaders who claim to advocate for liberty, equality and human rights are now courting oppressive regimes like Iran and Cuba, failing to see how their policy is good news to every radical Islamist hiding in a bunker in the Middle East. Yes, communism is almost dead, but for the rise of radical Islamism, which is flexing its muscle around the globe, the lesson of Castro’s life and death is simple: live long, play hard to get, and the West will ultimately soften their stance and legitimize the illegitimate. The Cuban revolution has succeeded in winning Western appeasement, despite its failure to bring a promised utopia to many Cubans. Iran has already succeeded in gaining western concessions. Meanwhile, other Islamists, regardless of their style and affiliation, also dream to achieve similar gains.
Castro is dead, but the current misguided Western response to his appalling record means that his legacy will continue to haunt the Western world. Hasta la victoria siempre or should I say, “Hasta el Islamismo victorioso siempre?”