As a Cuban-American, I read the Cuba position statements submitted by the Presidential candidates to CANF with great interest, seeking to gain a better understanding of how “America” currently views Cuba – as a synthesis of what America thinks, there’s no better source than the views expressed by Presidential candidates during an election year. So what do their responses tell us? In short, some things have changed, some have not.
What has changed? Mostly, the candidates are talking about Cuba in the minutia…wet-foot/dry-foot, family travel and/or tourist travel, allow/disallow remittances, etc.. While these issues are all of paramount importance to individual Cuban families struggling to reunite, or support, family members “left behind” in Cuba, they do relatively little to advance the overall goal of every Cuban in the US: a democratic and capitalist Cuba. By no means am I suggesting these are unimportant; what I am saying is that their discussion should not take energy and thought away from the broader goal. To use a twist on a popular analogy, do not forget how to get out of the forest because you are too focused on individual trees.
One thing has changed that brings us a step closer to the overall goal. Basically, the question of whether “we should negotiate with Cuba?”, or the stronger version “should we have open discussions with Cuba?” It is an interesting question (discussed most by Obama and Clinton), but one that cannot be answered without addressing a more immediate question: negotiate what? discuss what? Not sure how you enter a negotiation without knowing what you’re going to negotiate!!
This points us to what has not changed, mainly, the US strategy towards Cuba, and frankly, that of the Cuban-American community. As ever, the question revolves around whether the embargo has been “effective”, or not, and whether it should be repealed or changed. While the merits of the embargo itself can be debated (this debate is beyond the scope of this post), its central role in Cuba-policy discussions today is grossly misplaced. The embargo is by no means the only “leverage” point the US has over Cuba. Like any nation, Cuba strives for international recognition and respect; like many poor nations, Cuba yearns for financial and technical support. Only the US can truly provide these.
We need a strategy, not just a mission statement. A strategy that takes account of the present. A present that understands that Communist ideology is dead, Cuba is a failed experiment, the Cuban people (on the island) are finally beginning to demand something different, and that the Cuban regime is poised for change. Only Gulianni hints in this direction. But we need more, much more.
For too long, the US has allowed Castro’s regime to not only score continuous political points, but also allowed him to blame the US for all of its problems, as ludicrous, inhumane, and self-serving as that is.
We need to hold firm to our ideals and principles, and communicate them strongly. But we also need to show the “path forward”, in clear, small, indisputable steps. We need to provide a benefit (or reward, to use a different term) to those on the island who wish for something different, and are willing to sacrifice for change. We need to start small, but be aggressive. Push hard, then push harder. Always in a principled way, with the explicit aim of helping the Cuban people. For example, the US could agree to supply much needed medical aid to Cuba (non-withstanding Michael Moore’s absurd movie), if the government allows its citizens to enjoy tourist areas and pay with the Cuban Peso (see “Con la misma moneda”, a campaign supported by CANF). Alternatively, the US could also agree to supply Cuba with agricultural support (sorely needed, according to the Miami Herald) if the regime allows farmers to own the land on which they toil.
In short, the US should make it clear that it is willing to support and help the Island, in small ways if necessary, if the regime chooses to adopt changes leading to the direct benefit of its citizens. The Castro regime should publicly and morally be put on the defensive. They should have to answer why their people starve because of their insolence, not wanting to let farmers benefit from their work. Or explain why a Spaniard, Canadian, or Frenchman can eat Filet Mignon every day in the tourist hotels while Cuban citizens make do with a few ounces of black beans. Or why thousands risk death because merely asking “why” can put you in prison. The ever-stiff Castro finger pointing at the US must be broken.
This is not negotiation or discussion. This is making it crystal clear who is responsible for the continued suffering of the Cuban people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
How can people living in the United States talk about bringing freedom to Cuba when nearly all of them aren't free to go there and discuss freedom with the Cuban people?
My father and his parents lived in Cuba from 1939 to 1942. They were German Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, and not political left-wingers. That family history is where my own interest in Cuba comes from. My dad met my mom in the United States and that's how I came into this world.
Cuban society today represents an effort to build an alternative to the way life was under the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, who ran Cuba before Fidel Castro led a revolution there. No one complained about a lack of human rights and democracy in those days, but U.S. businesses were protected.
Some things work, some don’t. Like any society, Cuba its flaws and contradictions, as well as having solid achievements. No society is perfect. But we can certainly learn a few things from Cuba’s experience. I think we can learn more than a few.
If we want to bring freedom to Cuba, the best thing we can do is practice what we preach.
We should all be free to visit Cuba. We can visit China and Vietnam, even North Korea, Syria and Iran, why can't we visit Cuba and see it for ourselves? Cuba is our neighbor and we should simply normalized relations with the island.
Since August 2000, the CubaNews list, a free Yahoo news group has compiled a wide range of materials, pro and con, about Cuba, its people, politics and culture, and life within the island and affecting it in the Cuban diaspora abroad.
I know several American students that have visited Cuba, and I certainly wouldn't advise them to "discuss freedom" with the locals. That type of thing could get someone arrested, or worse (especially for your Cuban friend). The interesting thing is that all of them have returned with a much less favorable view of these Cuban "achievements" after witnessing them first hand.
The obstacles placed in front of those wishing to visit Cuba are intended do deter further tourist dollars and travel industry investment from continuing to prop up the regime. They're not there to prevent those hoping to "educate" and "learn from" their Cuban neighbors; in fact, if that is your mission, you can easily get a license from the Treasury Dept to travel there. So, happy trails to you.
When I'm in Cuba, I have no problem discussing the meaning of "freedom" with my Cuban acquaintances. I've been doing that for as long as I've been going to Cuba I take it, Pablo, you haven't been to Cuba, so you don't have that experience. I do.
So let's talk about freedom for a moment. After Elian Gonzalez had finally been rescued from those distant relatives who refused to recognize his father's rights, Elian's dad went on the CBS Sunday news magazine 60 minutes.
Here's an excerpt of his conversation with Dan Rather:
RATHER: Tell me why it wouldn't be best for you to say okay I'll, I'll stay in the USA, I'll stay here with my child, where there is freedom and may be more opportunity for him. Why not do that in the best interest of the child?
JUAN MIGUEL: Well, what do you call freedom and opportunity?
RATHER: But the question is, what do you consider to be liberty and opportunity?
JUAN MIGUEL: I ask you what's freedom? Well, freedom is for example, in Cuba, where education and health care is free. Or is it the way it is here? Which of the two is freedom? For example, here when parents send their children to school they have to worry about violence. A child could be shot at school. In Cuba, things like that don't happen. So you can go to work and not worry. Which of the two is freedom?
Back to you, Pablo.
Walter,
Thanks for your post...and glad to hear of your interest in Cuba.
I can understand your desire to visit Cuba, and I would echo Pablo's comments that you indeed can. Though I would also recommend that you heed his advice.
You do raise four issues which are often misunderstood.
First, yes, Castro replaced a Batista regime that was less than ideal. No question. But he replaced it with something worse. Along with the beatings, prison terms, corruption, etc., of Batista, Castro removed all semblence of human rights, drove the country into the ground, and worst, removed the people's ability to change the government - he is still there 48 yrs on.
Second, the "west" often gets critiqued for its behaviour back then. Keep in mind the context. The number of democratic and capitalistic societies back then was minuscile. The last fifty years have seen an explosion in both, as people all over the world have demanded more. Why should we judge 2008 with the rules of 1959?
Third, this idea of Cuban "achievements" won't go away. This is something that should not be discussed in the abstract, so please post your understanding of these.
Finally, you cannot compare Cuba to China or Vietnam, both of which are moving in the right direction. You also cannot compare Cuba to Syria, Iran, or North Korea. Like Cuba, US citizens can travel to them to "learn". Unlike Cuba, none of them are desirable tourist destinations for most tourists. They are also signficantly larger than Cuba in population, geography, and economy. Opening the tourist floodgates would provide more than enough capital for the Castro regime to maintain its hold on Cuba's 11m citizens.
I don't need to visit Cuba to know that its people do not possess liberty, human rights (as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) or a truly democratic system of government, just as the probable fact that you didn't visit pre-Revolutionary Cuba doesn't preclude you from passing judgment on a previous regime. I did not arrive at my views a priori.
I agree with you that Batista's dictatorship was terrible for Cuba and its people, but like Axel stated the communist revolution replaced it with something worse.
Although I know first-hand from people that have immigrated from Cuba that they sung a different tune about communism when they were in Cuba for fear of reprisal, I don't doubt that many of your Cuban acquaintances are true believers. But if they are (or ever were) in the majority, why then has the Cuban government never held free and open elections.
Anyways, if the goal is a free and democratic Cuba, I don't see what good normalizing relations with Cuba would do. Sure, some may say that China and Vietnam are on the "right path", but normalizing relations alone did not lead them there. Normalizing relations with communist countries will not, in and of itself, lead to them stopping the persecution of their citizens nor bringing about real change per se. Relations were normalized with China in 1972 (mostly to triangulate against the USSR), but it was the excesses of the Cultural Revolution that ended in 1976 and the CCP's own decisions to avoid collapse that have led to the reforms and the growing openness it has enjoyed more and more since tiananmen (although it still incarcerates its dissidents). And Vietnam also made the decision to free up their economies (and thus avoid collapse) before and independent of normalization in 1992, but is still ranked near the bottom on all measures of political freedom and human liberty. Normalization reinforces actions already underway, since it's mostly symbolic in nature, but is a weak spur to action.
I would like to see the US continue to hold normalization as a carrot for true political reform and liberty.
Post a Comment