TW: Obama has slightly loosened our restrictions on Cuba but has extended the official embargo. The tiny minority of reactionary Cuban-Americans; tired, old anti-commies and probably a fair number of competitors for potential Cuban imports (perhaps the very powerful sugar lobby) continue to thwart America's greater national interests.
From Marine Lt. Col. Jeff Goodes via Tom Rick's blog at Foreign Policy mag:
"The Obama administration's decision to extend the U.S. economic trade embargo on Cuba for an additional year is detrimental to our national and regional security... What is most perplexing is the fact that earlier this summer the Obama administration decided to relax some of the regulations regarding personal travel and personal money transfers from Cuban-Americans to their relatives in Cuba, as well as telecommunication exchanges between private U.S. and state-run Cuban companies: all are steps in the right direction for U.S. interests - but are not enough. While these relaxed restrictions are certainly a step forward in normalizing relations, these steps do not outweigh the heavy diplomatic, information, and economic influence of Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Russia, India, and Iran, all of whom support the Cuban government and all of whom seek to be peer competitors with the United States.
...the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to retard regional security and stability, and further serve to erode our influence in the Americas at a time when U.S. credibility is globally scrutinized...the undeniably ineffective embargo will continue to halt progress at every turn;
...the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to encourage Cuba to partner with Russia, China, and Brazil for off-shore oil and natural gas exploration within the shared U.S. and Cuban economic exclusion zone. The U.S. embargo will continue to endear many of the poor Caribbean and Central American nations to the Chavez Venezuelan PetroCaribe initiative...
We must face the facts: the U.S. efforts to isolate and force a regime change in Cuba for nearly half a century have failed. These 50 years have successfully driven Cuba to aggressively seek support elsewhere, as is evident in their forming and fostering diplomatic ties, seeking infrastructure support, establishing military liaisons, and accepting economic support from every government in the Americas - to include Canada - with the exception of the United States.
...A less adversarial tone with Cuba will reestablish much needed dialogue in the region and help address shared national border security vulnerabilities, transnational and regional crime consortiums, and environmental and ecological initiatives. The necessity for the Obama administration to lift the U.S. economic embargo is painfully obvious. It would enhance the region's security, promote economic prosperity, establish shared environmental regulations, and help re-establish our credibility and leadership vis-à-vis some of our most prominent global allies and competitors. Lastly, let's ask ourselves, "Has our 50 year embargo brought Cuba any closer to democracy, or have we denied the Cubans an opportunity to see the best that our free and democratic society offers?"
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/23/marine_colonel_drop_the_cuba_embargo
Showing posts with label Cuba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cuba. Show all posts
Friday, October 23, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Some Barnett Thoughts
TW: A little smorgasbord of thoughts from national security analyst Barnett. He belongs to that group of analysts who are about as politically unbiased as humanly possible.
From Tom Barnett's blog:
On continued anti-American sentiment in Pakistan:
"Hard to see how, over time, if we are to succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan, that we won't be pushed in the direction of isolating Pakistan for its combined inability to police the FATA and unwillingness to let outsiders step in. I just don't see this bilateral relationship surviving--hence my continuing message to choose India first in whatever strategic decisions we make."
TW: Barnett is a huge fan of aligning the U.S. as closely as feasible with India, a nation which is growing almost as quickly as China economically but democratic, an Anglo legal system and even more people.
On the continuing diplomatic dialogue with Cuba
"I like the quiet approach on Cuba. Also the broad engagement.
The good stuff usually goes on quietly."
TW: As I have said before our closed door policies with Cuba are an asinine result a single interest group blocking a policy for the greater good. To the extent we can mitigate these policies so much the better.
On Iran getting nukes:
"My argument for five years now: Iran has maneuvered itself effectively into this position. We either deal with this reality or pretend the lid can be kept on the box. But just as important to realize: this is a failed revolution deep into its Brezhnevian funk, with a Solidarnosc-like popular rebellion in the works. In sum, this is a manageable problem. We've been down this path before. No freaking out, please!"
TW: Barnett is in the camp of accepting Iran is going to get nukes. Furthermore Iran attaining nukes is a containable development. Barnett also firmly believes Iran's governance will undergo major evolution away from the mullahs sooner rather than later.
And finally (referring to their recent "toughness" re Iran)
"The French are somewhat amazing: when you need tough, they disappear, and when tough is pointless, they're right up front. Amazing how they come up with these leaders!"
TW: This is America, we abuse the French (and vice versa) it is a true marriage.
From Tom Barnett's blog:
On continued anti-American sentiment in Pakistan:
"Hard to see how, over time, if we are to succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan, that we won't be pushed in the direction of isolating Pakistan for its combined inability to police the FATA and unwillingness to let outsiders step in. I just don't see this bilateral relationship surviving--hence my continuing message to choose India first in whatever strategic decisions we make."
TW: Barnett is a huge fan of aligning the U.S. as closely as feasible with India, a nation which is growing almost as quickly as China economically but democratic, an Anglo legal system and even more people.
On the continuing diplomatic dialogue with Cuba
"I like the quiet approach on Cuba. Also the broad engagement.
The good stuff usually goes on quietly."
TW: As I have said before our closed door policies with Cuba are an asinine result a single interest group blocking a policy for the greater good. To the extent we can mitigate these policies so much the better.
On Iran getting nukes:
"My argument for five years now: Iran has maneuvered itself effectively into this position. We either deal with this reality or pretend the lid can be kept on the box. But just as important to realize: this is a failed revolution deep into its Brezhnevian funk, with a Solidarnosc-like popular rebellion in the works. In sum, this is a manageable problem. We've been down this path before. No freaking out, please!"
TW: Barnett is in the camp of accepting Iran is going to get nukes. Furthermore Iran attaining nukes is a containable development. Barnett also firmly believes Iran's governance will undergo major evolution away from the mullahs sooner rather than later.
And finally (referring to their recent "toughness" re Iran)
"The French are somewhat amazing: when you need tough, they disappear, and when tough is pointless, they're right up front. Amazing how they come up with these leaders!"
TW: This is America, we abuse the French (and vice versa) it is a true marriage.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
We Know What To Do Just Not How To Do It
From Newsweek's review of Taylor Branch's new book on his Bill Clinton tapes taken during Clinton's presidency:
"...Clinton tells Branch that the embargo on Cuba is a 'foolish, pandering failure' but seems unable to do anything to lift it, while the ruling Assad dynasty in Damascus apparently has access to the State Department and the White House at all times. There is daily concern about the volatility of Israeli politics and the spread of irritating yet apparently somehow unstoppable Jewish "settlements..."
From Karen Tumulty at Time interviewing former Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist (TN):
"...Were he still in the Senate, "I would end up voting for it[health care reform]," he said. "As leader, I would take heat for it. ... That's what leadership is all about...
Frist also faults some in his own party for injecting alarmism into the debate. "Clearly, the death panels and public plan arguments have been overblown," he says. Frist noted that Republicans themselves voted for a Medicare prescription drug bill that would have established a version of a public plan--with the government negotiating directly with drug companies--if private-sector competition had failed to materialize. That is similar to the approach that Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is taking with her amendment to establish a public option with a "trigger."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216052
While Frist believes that the bill will pass, he worries that the Obama Administration and Congress have not given enough attention to what happens next: the implementation. The first few years are likely to be rough, he predicts. States will be struggling to set up new marketplaces for insurance coverage, their medicaid rolls will grow, taxes will go up, and consumers will not yet see the benefits. "The Republicans will go wild," using the start-up difficulties as a tool for fundraising and for making their case in the next election... "
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02/bill-frist-on-health-bill-id-vote-for-it/
TW: It is all very easy when out-of-power. Clinton states the obvious (and recall these were comments when he was still in office) on things like Cuba and Israel but could do little to shift policy. Frist sounds imminently reasonable on health care but I strongly doubt he would have stated the above had he still been in office. The solutions are not always the difficult part (AfPak is a likely exception). Getting democratic institutions to implement them is a different story. Why is that? Competing parochial interests (wanna lose several Florida house seats, open up Cuba), dysfunctional institutions (perpetual campaigning, what about actually governing for a bit) and a hundred other reasons.
"...Clinton tells Branch that the embargo on Cuba is a 'foolish, pandering failure' but seems unable to do anything to lift it, while the ruling Assad dynasty in Damascus apparently has access to the State Department and the White House at all times. There is daily concern about the volatility of Israeli politics and the spread of irritating yet apparently somehow unstoppable Jewish "settlements..."
From Karen Tumulty at Time interviewing former Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist (TN):
"...Were he still in the Senate, "I would end up voting for it[health care reform]," he said. "As leader, I would take heat for it. ... That's what leadership is all about...
Frist also faults some in his own party for injecting alarmism into the debate. "Clearly, the death panels and public plan arguments have been overblown," he says. Frist noted that Republicans themselves voted for a Medicare prescription drug bill that would have established a version of a public plan--with the government negotiating directly with drug companies--if private-sector competition had failed to materialize. That is similar to the approach that Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is taking with her amendment to establish a public option with a "trigger."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216052
While Frist believes that the bill will pass, he worries that the Obama Administration and Congress have not given enough attention to what happens next: the implementation. The first few years are likely to be rough, he predicts. States will be struggling to set up new marketplaces for insurance coverage, their medicaid rolls will grow, taxes will go up, and consumers will not yet see the benefits. "The Republicans will go wild," using the start-up difficulties as a tool for fundraising and for making their case in the next election... "
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02/bill-frist-on-health-bill-id-vote-for-it/
TW: It is all very easy when out-of-power. Clinton states the obvious (and recall these were comments when he was still in office) on things like Cuba and Israel but could do little to shift policy. Frist sounds imminently reasonable on health care but I strongly doubt he would have stated the above had he still been in office. The solutions are not always the difficult part (AfPak is a likely exception). Getting democratic institutions to implement them is a different story. Why is that? Competing parochial interests (wanna lose several Florida house seats, open up Cuba), dysfunctional institutions (perpetual campaigning, what about actually governing for a bit) and a hundred other reasons.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Engage And Change: Work With Cuba
TW: The Organization of American States voted to allow Cuba back into the organization from which it has been barred since 1962. This is merely one step amidst many to resume "normal" relations with Cuba. Of course, two nations remain opposed to Cuba's re-admission, the U.S. and Cuba. The U.S. because of our increasingly archaic stance towards the Castro regime. Cuba because- playing the victim is a core governing principal of the Castro regime and to actually re-enter the OAS Cuba would have to sign a pro-democracy protocol which would not mesh well with the current Cuban governance structure.
Cuba's governance is less than ideal but we have allied ourselves with far worse over the years and continue to do so today. Furthermore, if anything is obvious, it is that our policy of the past fifty years has not worked. Engage and change, not exclude and stagnate should be our mantra.
Cuba is a large natural, potential market and partner for the U.S. it is time we stop letting nearly every other nation in the world work with them while we suck our collective thumbs.
From the LA Times:
"...the rest of Latin America says it is time to end Cuba's isolation and rebuild hemispheric unity. The region's predominantly left-of-center governments also clearly see this as an opportunity to demonstrate their independence from the United States and to hold President Obama to his word to act in consultation with his allies.
Cuba's readmission to the OAS is overdue, its absence more a Cold War relic than a statement of modern diplomacy. But a short delay may be useful if it allows the Obama administration and Cuban President Raul Castro's government more time to tend to the bilateral relationship first.
Already in the five months since Obama took office, the administration has relaxed travel restrictions on Cuban Americans and limits on remittances to Cuba. The two governments have agreed to resume negotiations over mail service and migration rules that broke down in 2003.
Cuba said it would consider helping the United States fight terrorism and drug trafficking, as well as working together on hurricane disasters. Those are encouraging developments and may foreshadow further progress.
That's essential because Cuba remains an outlier nation. It is the only country in the hemisphere whose leaders are unelected. It has quashed freedom of expression and political dissent, and jailed its opponents -- human rights abuses that cannot be ignored in the pursuit of normal diplomatic relations. But exclusion from the OAS has not brought relief from those miseries.
Engagement, not isolation, will bring change to Cuba. We want to see the U.S. trade embargo lifted so that more U.S. businesses and goods may make their way to Cuba. All Americans should be allowed to travel to the island, to engage with Cubans and exchange ideas. And the multilateral OAS, with Cuba as a member, can serve as an instrument to nudge the country toward democracy."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-cuba3-2009jun03,0,7527373.story
Cuba's governance is less than ideal but we have allied ourselves with far worse over the years and continue to do so today. Furthermore, if anything is obvious, it is that our policy of the past fifty years has not worked. Engage and change, not exclude and stagnate should be our mantra.
Cuba is a large natural, potential market and partner for the U.S. it is time we stop letting nearly every other nation in the world work with them while we suck our collective thumbs.
From the LA Times:
"...the rest of Latin America says it is time to end Cuba's isolation and rebuild hemispheric unity. The region's predominantly left-of-center governments also clearly see this as an opportunity to demonstrate their independence from the United States and to hold President Obama to his word to act in consultation with his allies.
Cuba's readmission to the OAS is overdue, its absence more a Cold War relic than a statement of modern diplomacy. But a short delay may be useful if it allows the Obama administration and Cuban President Raul Castro's government more time to tend to the bilateral relationship first.
Already in the five months since Obama took office, the administration has relaxed travel restrictions on Cuban Americans and limits on remittances to Cuba. The two governments have agreed to resume negotiations over mail service and migration rules that broke down in 2003.
Cuba said it would consider helping the United States fight terrorism and drug trafficking, as well as working together on hurricane disasters. Those are encouraging developments and may foreshadow further progress.
That's essential because Cuba remains an outlier nation. It is the only country in the hemisphere whose leaders are unelected. It has quashed freedom of expression and political dissent, and jailed its opponents -- human rights abuses that cannot be ignored in the pursuit of normal diplomatic relations. But exclusion from the OAS has not brought relief from those miseries.
Engagement, not isolation, will bring change to Cuba. We want to see the U.S. trade embargo lifted so that more U.S. businesses and goods may make their way to Cuba. All Americans should be allowed to travel to the island, to engage with Cubans and exchange ideas. And the multilateral OAS, with Cuba as a member, can serve as an instrument to nudge the country toward democracy."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-cuba3-2009jun03,0,7527373.story
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Prying the Window To Cuba Open
TW: Have been on this one for awhile and thankfully Obama is doing the right thing. I would be for opening things up fully but I understand things do not work in such a straight line fashion. Our Cuba policy has been the hostage of certain reactionary Cuban-Americans and knee-jerk anti-communists for fifty years. Few even try to point to the embargo policy as a success, merely settling for supporting it as some kind of ill-defined necessity in the face of Castro's leadership.
Is Castro a liberal democratic leader? Far from it, but then neither were Somoza nor a plethora of right-wing south of the border leaders over the past decades. But most importantly the series of embargoes are antiquated because of one feature- they have failed miserably to alter the political dynamic in Cuba. Meanwhile, America cedes trade and cultural opportunities to the rest of the world almost none of whom abide the embargoes. It is time to move on with an alternative approach, one that might actually accelerate the day when Cuba becomes more pluralistic.
From NBC:
"The White House now is confirming a Miami Herald report, outlining what President Obama will announce with regard to Cuba. Here are some bullet-point details from the report:
- Lifting travel restrictions for Cuban Americans, allowing them to travel more freely to the island
- Lifting gift restriction for Cuban Americans, allowing them to send additional financial help to family members. (-- Expanding the items that can be sent to the island, including clothing, personal hygiene items and fishing equipment."
- "Licensing steps to open up greater communication to the island"
But:
-The trade embargo remains in place
- And still prohibited: "Sending items to senior government officials and Communist Party members"
The Herald calls the policy "the most significant U.S. gesture to Cuba in decades."
"This is an effort to reach out to the Cuban people in an effort to support the Cuban people's desire to freely determine their country's future," a senior administration official told the paper. "The president has said this is the most direct means to open up the kind of space that is necessary to see democratic change in Cuba."
Is Castro a liberal democratic leader? Far from it, but then neither were Somoza nor a plethora of right-wing south of the border leaders over the past decades. But most importantly the series of embargoes are antiquated because of one feature- they have failed miserably to alter the political dynamic in Cuba. Meanwhile, America cedes trade and cultural opportunities to the rest of the world almost none of whom abide the embargoes. It is time to move on with an alternative approach, one that might actually accelerate the day when Cuba becomes more pluralistic.
From NBC:
"The White House now is confirming a Miami Herald report, outlining what President Obama will announce with regard to Cuba. Here are some bullet-point details from the report:
- Lifting travel restrictions for Cuban Americans, allowing them to travel more freely to the island
- Lifting gift restriction for Cuban Americans, allowing them to send additional financial help to family members. (-- Expanding the items that can be sent to the island, including clothing, personal hygiene items and fishing equipment."
- "Licensing steps to open up greater communication to the island"
But:
-The trade embargo remains in place
- And still prohibited: "Sending items to senior government officials and Communist Party members"
The Herald calls the policy "the most significant U.S. gesture to Cuba in decades."
"This is an effort to reach out to the Cuban people in an effort to support the Cuban people's desire to freely determine their country's future," a senior administration official told the paper. "The president has said this is the most direct means to open up the kind of space that is necessary to see democratic change in Cuba."
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Tyranny of the Minority: Opening Up Cuba
TW: There is a bill pending and likely to pass that will open slightly travel restrictions on folks going to Cuba and make it easier to export American products to the island. All rational steps if too cautious, we should open things up fully. The measures have bi-partisan support but the a couple of prominent Senators are fighting to hold up the process because they cling to the old trope of having the Cuban government cave to all of our demands for reform before allowing any openings.
Robert Menendez Democrat New Jersey in the most prominent critic of the Obama approach. Shame on him.
From USA Today:
"The ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar of Indiana, issued a report pronouncing the 47-year-old U.S. embargo of Cuba a failure.
A group of diplomats, activists and academics working with the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, released a "road map" calling for the removal of all restrictions on humanitarian travel to Cuba, more diplomatic dialogue and an easing of sanctions for art, movies and music. The group included Francisco Hernández, president of the Cuban American National Foundation, which has for years backed a tough stance.
Obama has more political leeway than any president in recent memory because he won Florida in the election despite advocating more engagement with Cuba, said Sarah Stephens of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, which favors lifting the embargo. In contrast, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush campaigned on a tough Cuba stance.
The U.S. stance towards the island nation, now governed by Fidel Castro's brother Raúl, was forged at the height of the Cold War and has been sustained in part because of domestic politics. Many in the Cuban-American community have long rejected efforts to moderate Cuba policy. Given Florida's importance in presidential politics, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House have tended to stand with them.
Yet opinion among Cuban Americans is shifting. A poll last month by Florida International University found that 55% of Cuban Americans favor lifting the embargo...
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who is co-sponsoring the bill to allow American tourism to Cuba, said he believes such visits would lead to the lifting of the embargo, which he says merely bolsters Cuba's repressive government..."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-03-01-cuba_N.htm
From Miami Herald:
"New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez...reportedly is blocking two presidential nominees to protest the change to U.S.-Cuba policy... Obama promised on the campaign trail to relax travel restrictions to allow Cuban Americans to visit family on the island. But Menendez, who was born in New York after his parents left Cuba, implored Obama Monday not to sign the bill.
...Menendez warned, ``he will be extending a hand while the Castro regime maintains its iron-handed clenched fist.''
Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martinez echoed the remarks, saying the legislation fails to require Cuba to change its behavior."
Robert Menendez Democrat New Jersey in the most prominent critic of the Obama approach. Shame on him.
From USA Today:
"The ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar of Indiana, issued a report pronouncing the 47-year-old U.S. embargo of Cuba a failure.
A group of diplomats, activists and academics working with the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, released a "road map" calling for the removal of all restrictions on humanitarian travel to Cuba, more diplomatic dialogue and an easing of sanctions for art, movies and music. The group included Francisco Hernández, president of the Cuban American National Foundation, which has for years backed a tough stance.
Obama has more political leeway than any president in recent memory because he won Florida in the election despite advocating more engagement with Cuba, said Sarah Stephens of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, which favors lifting the embargo. In contrast, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush campaigned on a tough Cuba stance.
The U.S. stance towards the island nation, now governed by Fidel Castro's brother Raúl, was forged at the height of the Cold War and has been sustained in part because of domestic politics. Many in the Cuban-American community have long rejected efforts to moderate Cuba policy. Given Florida's importance in presidential politics, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House have tended to stand with them.
Yet opinion among Cuban Americans is shifting. A poll last month by Florida International University found that 55% of Cuban Americans favor lifting the embargo...
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who is co-sponsoring the bill to allow American tourism to Cuba, said he believes such visits would lead to the lifting of the embargo, which he says merely bolsters Cuba's repressive government..."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-03-01-cuba_N.htm
From Miami Herald:
"New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez...reportedly is blocking two presidential nominees to protest the change to U.S.-Cuba policy... Obama promised on the campaign trail to relax travel restrictions to allow Cuban Americans to visit family on the island. But Menendez, who was born in New York after his parents left Cuba, implored Obama Monday not to sign the bill.
...Menendez warned, ``he will be extending a hand while the Castro regime maintains its iron-handed clenched fist.''
Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martinez echoed the remarks, saying the legislation fails to require Cuba to change its behavior."
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Things I Would Like To See Happen In 2009: Open Up Cuba Relations
TW: It has now been 50 years since Castro ascended to power in Cuba. Our 49 years of sanctions have made the reactionary Cuban exiles feel empowered but have accomplished little else. Yes Castro has some repressive policies but if you think that is why we have maintained the sanctions then you would be wrong. It is time to move on and perhaps provide a nice economic stimulus for our own economy in the process.
From Eugene Robinson at WaPo:
"President-elect Barack Obama will have more urgent matters to deal with after he takes the oath of office. But somewhere on his long to-do list, he should make a note to finally bring five decades of counterproductive American policy toward Cuba to a definitive end...
The laws and regulations that prohibit U.S. companies from trading with Cuba and forbid U.S. citizens to travel there made little sense during the Cold War. It was ironic that when Ronald Reagan went to Berlin and implored Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," our government was maintaining an analogous wall -- one made of rules, not of concrete -- between the United States and Cuba.
U.S. policy for dealing with the rest of the communist world was always to push for more contact and exchange, on the theory that exposure to Western ideas, freedoms and prosperity would hasten communism's demise. It worked.
I'm convinced that it would have worked in Cuba, too. At the very least, if the U.S. government had treated Cuba the way it treated other communist nations, the onus would have been on Castro. If he wanted to keep Cuban society from being infected by democracy, consumerism and other yanqui diseases, he would have had to justify measures to keep Americans and American products out. Instead, he has been able to portray his revolution as a noble David, menaced by a hulking, aggressive Goliath to the north.
Over the years, I've made 10 reporting trips to Cuba. I've been struck by the fact that even Cubans who are harshly critical of the Castro regime -- privately, of course, since public criticism is not allowed -- are equally scornful of the U.S. trade embargo and travel ban, which they believe have hurt the Cuban people while bolstering hard-liners in the leadership..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101784.html
From Eugene Robinson at WaPo:
"President-elect Barack Obama will have more urgent matters to deal with after he takes the oath of office. But somewhere on his long to-do list, he should make a note to finally bring five decades of counterproductive American policy toward Cuba to a definitive end...
The laws and regulations that prohibit U.S. companies from trading with Cuba and forbid U.S. citizens to travel there made little sense during the Cold War. It was ironic that when Ronald Reagan went to Berlin and implored Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," our government was maintaining an analogous wall -- one made of rules, not of concrete -- between the United States and Cuba.
U.S. policy for dealing with the rest of the communist world was always to push for more contact and exchange, on the theory that exposure to Western ideas, freedoms and prosperity would hasten communism's demise. It worked.
I'm convinced that it would have worked in Cuba, too. At the very least, if the U.S. government had treated Cuba the way it treated other communist nations, the onus would have been on Castro. If he wanted to keep Cuban society from being infected by democracy, consumerism and other yanqui diseases, he would have had to justify measures to keep Americans and American products out. Instead, he has been able to portray his revolution as a noble David, menaced by a hulking, aggressive Goliath to the north.
Over the years, I've made 10 reporting trips to Cuba. I've been struck by the fact that even Cubans who are harshly critical of the Castro regime -- privately, of course, since public criticism is not allowed -- are equally scornful of the U.S. trade embargo and travel ban, which they believe have hurt the Cuban people while bolstering hard-liners in the leadership..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101784.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)