While attending the Cuban American National Foundation’s Cuban Independence luncheon, I heard Senator Barack Obama’s describe how he would be willing to meet with Raul Castro if such a meeting included a clear agenda that would lead to Cuba attaining democracy without accepting any compromise on Cuba’s freedom. He makes a nuanced distinction between requiring that the Cuban government take specific prior steps to earn such a meeting (preconditions) and setting an agenda narrowly focused on bringing democracy to Cuba.
Whether it is with preconditions or only with a defined agenda, the notion of meeting with Raul Castro is, understandably, emotionally and intellectually difficult for many, particularly us Cuban-Americans, including me, to accept as a fruitful approach to regain Cuba’s freedom. Both Castro brothers have been unwavering and ruthless dictators who betrayed the hopes of a revolution that they hijacked and took down a path that, over nearly fifty years, has brought nothing other than suffering, repression and destruction to our homeland. We all have stories about the damage that these tyrants have brought upon our families and there is a legitimate argument that an encounter with Cuba’s oppressors could potentially legitimize them and / or may demoralize the opposition movement on the island. As a result, it may be preferable for Senator Obama, should he become President, to instead extend repeated and overt invitations for dialogue to any true reformist who, from his current position within Cuba’s power structure, would be willing to organize a group to push Raul and his ailing older brother from power. This scenario could make things difficult for Raul Castro and, if successful, would be far preferable to negotiating with the principal culprits of Cuba’s tragedy. However, this approach requires persistence on the part of the U.S. and it may require it to burn political capital internationally. There is also a material risk that such an approach could ultimately bare no fruit given the strength of Cuba's police state and the vested interest that those in power have to maintain the status quo as a means to secure their well-being. If that is the case, should we just sit around with our arms crossed and keep waiting for a day of change that we do not help to precipitate?
As a Republican, I am frustrated by the fact that during the last two terms of a Republican administration not a lot has been accomplished to bring about democracy in Cuba. It is particularly frustrating when one considers that this particular Republican administration owes a lot to the support it received from the Cuban American community in Florida. As a result, I am quite tired of empty promises that lead to no action while Cuba continues to suffer.
If sitting down with Raul Castro meant his disgraced departure from Cuba and Cuba regaining its freedom, would it be worth to swallow the bitter pill of dealing with a malevolent despot for the sake of our 11+ million brothers and sisters on the island? This is not a pleasant alternative, but nothing would be worse than the Castro dictatorship transitioning from its current state of high dependence on its individual leaders to institutionalized communism that can lasts for many more decades. This is exactly what is currently at risk. The answer is not easy, but what is your take?
10 comments:
My perspective on this situation is as follows:
1. I am a veteran of the Bay of Pigs invasion - Brigada 2506 BN 1 Paracaidistas
2. I am not and have not been involved in US or cuban politics since my release from prison and have no relatives in Cuba (all passed away)
3. It is evident that after the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy entered into an understanding with the Soviet Union that resulted in a US policy of "non-agression" to Cuba
4. US presidents since - both republicans and democrats have followed a disastrous foreign policy towards Latin America that can best be described as do what we say or you get no aid
5. The cubans living in Cuba that do not belong to the communist apparatus or do not receive help from family members in the diaspora have paid a terrible price by having to live in a country that is governed by a group of ideologically motivated gangsters.
6. Most Western European countries, Canada and many Latin American countries and corporations have done business with the Castro dictatroship over the past fifty years and enjoy seeing the US squirm when the press reports on the evils of the "US embargo"
7. Cuban Americans are in danger of being marginalized in this country as dangerous right wingers if the democrats win the white house and congress as predicted.
It is in the best interest of Cuban Americans to influence their family and friends to elect a republican in '08
If these "talks" somehow would directly bring about democracy, human rights, and a market economy to Cuba, that would be one thing, but let's not kid ourselves, these are not likely to happen just from talking with the regime or capitulating to any of their other demands. The current Cuban regime wants none of these things, or else they would move towards them unilaterally (it's not like they need our consent to do that).
The possibility certainly exists that diplomacy can spawn positive and permanent reforms, but these things can be explored through diplomatic back channels, our respective interest sections, or by other means far short of a presidential or high-level sit-down, which will no doubt come with the normalization of relations (de facto, if not de jure). Such back channel diplomacy and lower level contact happens already and always has, and it would obviously be needed if the Cuban regime were about to collapse or transition in any meaningful way. But to hold high level talks without any show of true and irreversible progress is just another way to reward and prop up a faltering regime.
And just because current US policy hasn't brought about a change of regime doesn't mean that it failed (e.g. a totalitarian regime that oppresses its people and has fueled guerilla wars throughout Latin America and Africa has been marginalized and remains on the brink of economic collapse) and should be reversed. And it especially doesn't mean that the opposite policy would work either. Sometimes US policy and what it can accomplish are much more limited than we Americans imagine, although it can still be very powerful symbolically (the USSR and the Eastern Bloc did not fall as a direct result of our policy, but under the weight of their own contradictions and the long term un-sustainability of Marxist Economics, but the fact that we stood by their long-suffering peoples' side was still a source of hope and inspiration for them).
Change can only come from within and that will only happen if the right incentives are in place and not if all of Cuba's foreign policy goals vis-à-vis US policy (i.e., normalization of relations, lifting of the embargo, toning down of human rights rhetoric, foreign aid, etc.), have already been accomplished.
The thought of a relationship between Raul Castro and any American leader is difficult for me to fathom and accept. But this may need to be the reality for Cuba to ultimately be free. I would agree with the next US President to meet with Raul Castro and demand certain things from the Cuban regime. I would be completely against a formal relationship forming with any Cuban leader and any American leader.
Our brothers and sisters on the island need to know that they can count on our support to bring about true democratic change. Raul Castro is not willing to reform.
The main issue is that there is a difference between negotiating and holding a meeting with preconditions. Nowhere did Obama say he would compromise or negotiate on Raul Castro's terms. So long as Obama sets out clear preconditions I see nothing wrong with meeting with Castro.
I believe that the danger that many Americans feel with an American president meeting with a tyrant is that it will set a precedent for the future. Americans do not want to see future presidents meeting and negotiating with dictators. If there is a standard that the U.S. will not negotiate with terrorists, then why should a dictator obtain preferential treatment? The idea that needs to be stressed is that things in the political and international system are rarely black and white. It is wrong to generalize that if Obama meets with tyrants such as Castro or Ahmadinejad that he will always sit down and negotiate with similar deplorable leaders in the future. History has shown that often hard-line non-negotiating can lead to violence while holding meetings (not compromising make no mistake) can lead to a peaceful and fruitful outcome. History can also show examples that demonstrate how hard-line non-negotiation can prove to be a more effective method that meeting with tyrants. These situations need to be looked at individually and decisions must be made after rational reasoning, not set precedents. If not speaking to Castro has failed to produce liberty on the island, then is it wrong, morally and politically, to meet with Raul Castro?
A meeting between the next President of the United States and Raul Castro without pre-conditions would be interpreted by many across the globe (potentially even the Cuban people) as an act of legitimization by the US of a regime that has made no effort in almost 50 years to move towards democracy or ease its suppression of basic civil liberties, despite countless calls for it to do so--not only from the US but also from a number of other countries and organizations world-wide. Other than showing the world that the US is backing down from its long-standing policy towards Cuba, what would be the point of such meeting? What is there to be accomplished when Raul Castro has been clear that he will not reform as a condition to any such meeting? One thing that comes to mind is to show the Cuban people that the US is not its enemy, chipping away the dictatorship's ability to blame the US for the suffering of its people. However, we cannot forget that the media in Cuba is controlled by the government. Therefore, whatever spin the Cuban government gives such a meeting is what the Cuban people will likely take from it. Again, what is the US and those within and without the US who are interested in seeing democratic reforms in Cuba gain from such a meeting?
At times, especially changing times, we need to put our personal feelings aside. This is one of those times.
While the Cuban exiles, especially those who first arrived, myself included, have deep rooted pain caused, in part, by Raul Castro - we need to look at the big picture. The US has not and possibly will not do anything to cause change in Cuba. Change in Cuba will come from the people in Cuba, together with the ideas that Cuban Americans can nourish them with.
This change will only arise after restrictions are lifted by the US government. Embargo? Which one? American companis are becoming extremely wealthy today, countries such as Brazil, which country I believe was one of Gov. Crist's recent bragging article about wherein he is proudly advertising of new trade opportunities with Brazil), will come the Cuba's rescue, as we recently saw.
Cuban people are fighters, ideological, talented, educated citizens. They will not tolerate being told what to do. They will, nonetheless, see for themselves by examples what their God given life, their hard work, could give them.
Having dealt for several years with Cuban idealism in Cuba, I am convinced that Raul Castro will eventually change. While he is not changing today due to respect of his half-dead brother, he will change afterwards. However, if we refrain the US from speaking directly to him, well, we will probably set ourselves up for another 50 years.
Scene 1: The same, no direct communication (or better said - no admitted communication) between the US and Cuba.
Isn't that what has been happening with little or no change?
Scene 2: Direct communication, agreements, concessions, free travel to and most importantly FROM. Not attempting to verbally argue with Cubans who have lived in an idealistic regimen for 50 years but instead - giving them proof to see what freedom is all about. Person to person, group to group.
Respect is the answer, along with patience.
If the black community would still hate all whites - could we live in a peaceful environment? Remember the riots? We need to learn a bit from this community, their forgiveness, their courage, hard work and sense of DEFENSE for each other. I make this statement because I remember when I was 5 blacks being told to sit in the back of the bus or stand, I remember the signs on the restrooms "no negroes", I remember. I also remember having come to this country when I was 5 because a tyrant took over my birth land. Today - a black man wil possibly be elected as president of this country. Today - my birth land is still under the tyrant regime.
Anonymous,
Love one of the ideas buried in your post.
US lifts travel restricions IF Cuba does so as well, letting its citizens travel freely across the world.
Great idea!
Anonymous,
Love one of the ideas buried in your post.
US lifts travel restricions IF Cuba does so as well, letting its citizens travel freely across the world.
Great idea!
I believe that it would be a great idea for Barack Obama and Raul Castro to speak since Raul Castro is a lot more flexible than his brother Fidel Castro. To me it seems like Raul is willing to negotiate and if Obama is open to meeting with him something good might come out of it.
Post a Comment