This past Friday, Barak Obama addressed the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami, FL, where he disclosed not only his Cuba policy, but his policy towards all of Latin America. I had the good fortune to attend and hear Obama’s speech first hand. As most of his speeches, it was passionate and rousing…however, I was there for the details. On the details, he said some good things, and some potentially worrying ones. Here’s my take on his proposal (Obama, hope you’re reading this!), starting with the easy points.
· His policy will be based on “libertad”. Check. Love it. Who can argue with a policy based on freedom?
· When crafting the super-details of his Cuba policy, he will consult the Cuban-American community to get our input. Check again. Makes sense to consult the folks who obsess about the topic on a daily basis.
· He will maintain the embargo. Check yet again. Contrary to some current opinion, the embargo is a critical source of influence on the Cuban regime. In fact, since Castro took power, there has been one period of liberalization in Cuba: the beginning of the so-called “special period” after the collapse of the Soviet Union and before the new subsidies from Venezuela came in force. During this time, Cubans were allowed to start businesses for the first time and today’s dissident movement was born. Not surprisingly, this is when the full weight of the embargo was felt in Cuba.
· He will reverse Bush’s restrictions on travel and remittances by Cuban-Americans. This is more complicated. The “old-guard” is opposed to this since it certainly provides support to the regime. The “newer-guard” is in favor since a) many still have family in Cuba and b) conditions in Cuba are tough. For folks who don’t know, here’s what currently happens to a dollar sent to Cuba. First, you can use the US dollar to transact in the black market to buy whatever you can find, e.g., gas for your car, cement to fix your roof, or a haircut. (it is currently legal to hold dollars, though this has changed before) – these are things by the way, the State is supposed to guarantee. If you can’t find what you need, or are in need of basic staples (i.e, food) you need to convert the dollar to a third currency, commonly referred to as “chavito”. The government happily does the exchange, for a ~20% tax. Then you can use your 80 cents to buy products at state stores which charge an abomination for the product. So, you are cheated three times: scrounge for what the state is supposed to provide, if you don’t find it, pay an exorbitant fee, and then succumb to gouging. Nonetheless, the family receiving the dollar gets a little help. Back to Obama – rather than just lifting the policy, why not ask for something in return? Say, stop charging the freaking 20% fee!!
· He will engage with the Island. Ok, this is the biggest potential roadblock. What does that mean? What’s the worst case scenario? Obama meets with Raul to have a chat and tells him that it would be good if Cubans had a few more freedoms. This would be disastrous. What business does a US President have talking to a man who has personally executed God knows how many people, and ordered the execution of God knows how many more? Who, for 49 years, has made it his sole purpose to trample on every freedom that Americans hold dear? This is more so if it’s just a conversation so they can “exchange ideas”. Mr. Obama, you’re not going to learn much. Ok, so what would be good engagement? Send a mid-level State Department official to Cuba to reiterate that Cuba’s oppressive regime is unacceptable, and that change must happen. That’s keeping with the past. However, he should make a few changes:
o Publicly specify that the US has no interest in invading Cuba.
o Acknowledge that the death of Fidel (hopefully soon) is a historic moment, one primed for a transition to normalcy (i.e., democracy and capitalism).
o Confirm that the US is willing to be a partner in this transition, so long as Cuba acts in good faith.
o Present a holistic framework on tit-for-tat exchanges: reforms on the island for improved relations with the US (i.e., partial lifting of the embargo, etc.).
o Mr. Obama, the day Raul moves to free and fair elections, hey, have all the tea you’d like with him.
Ok, we all know that Presidential candidates are busy people, having hundreds of topics in their heads at any one time, and probably crafting their policies “just in time”. So it is a bit unreasonable to have expected Obama to share a super detailed approach. However, three statements would have gone a long way:
· My administration’s engagement will be objective-based, rather than just for the “relationship”.
· I, personally, as President of the United States, will not meet with Raul Castro until significant reforms in the island are underway.
· The embargo should be viewed as neither a failed policy nor an iconoclastic one never to be changed – it is one of the best negotiating tools the US has in its tool-kit.
Please share your thoughts…would love to read other opinions from readers.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Obama’s Cuba policy – more information needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Couple things about your three wishes: granted, I'm going by the "as prepared" speech. Maybe he changed something while delivering. Maybe he improvised. But to me:
"My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: Libertad. And the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba’s political prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections that are free and fair."
sounds pretty objective-based, unless you were expecting a detailed plan, with a timeline perhaps (which you say it's unreasonable). What can't be said is that he is aiming just for the "relationship".
He doesn't say anywhere he'll meet personally with Raul Castro right off the bat (or that he wants to have tea). Again, from the speech:
"Now let me be clear. John McCain’s been going around the country talking about how much I want to meet with Raul Castro, as if I’m looking for a social gathering. That’s never what I’ve said, and John McCain knows it. After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions. There will be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda. And as President, I would be willing to lead that diplomacy at a time and place of my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people."
There you go. No social gathering. Careful preparation. A clear agenda -which I'm willing to bet it'd be very close to the one you outlined.
Embargo as a tool: This one has me puzzled, because I read he said:
"I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations. That’s the way to bring about real change in Cuba – through strong, smart and principled diplomacy."
which is exactly what you wish he had said!
So I can only conclude the speech was completely different than the publishes "as prepared" speech. I wasn't there, after all. Or that you weren't paying much attention to the details.
(BTW, that ubertaxed 80 cents is more than "a little help". More like the only meaningful means of susbsistence. As bad as the combination of arbitrary high taxes and high prices at the CUC stores are, living on a Cuban-peso salary is impossible. The remittances are not help, they are a lifeline. That's why the "new guard" is so passionate about them.
I believe it is a positive step that Senator Obama is willing to meet with Raul Castro. We have already seen that "ignoring" or not trying to normalize talks with Cuba has been an ineffective policy. The US has been requiring preconditions for decades and there have been little noticeable changes. I believe Senator Obama will bring a new wave of methods in dealing with "enemy" countries.
If Sen. Obama thinks he's going to single-handedly change a dictator or other "problem country"'s course by rolling his sleeves and engaging in some direct diplomacy, then he is completely delusional. I think he has bought into all of the messiah hype that is surrounding his campaign.
After 8 years of Bush and his misadventures, what we need is a foreign policy REALIST, and not another deluded foreign policy idealist, who just waves a different ideological flag.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the post...and for the speech details! Your comments are certainly welcome and want to provide some additional thoughts.
As your pasted-in excerpts indicate, he certainly said some good things. However, I would have appreciated a clear, holistic approach towards Cuba, especially on his key point of departure with past policy, rather than general statements which weren’t as closely linked in the speech (happy to read the full transcript if you post it!).
The objectives highlighted in the first excerpt are not new – these could have been inserted into any President’s speech since Kennedy. His position on the embargo, (third excerpt), is also not new – the embargo would have been adjusted long ago if Cuba had taken “significant steps toward democracy”. This could have made many speeches as well.
The main source of innovation here is to actively use the embargo to encourage change in Cuba, as opposed to waiting for things to happen (second excerpt). Go on the offensive. Put Cuba on the defensive. Let them continuously have to explain why a free press (for example) is not worth explicit benefits for Cubans, such as medicines to help Cuba’s poor.
This is the missing link that I didn’t fully get from the speech. It was a start, but there was no force in his statements…which prompted my desire for three simple, direct, and unambiguous statements.
His description of potential engagement with Raul did not accomplish this. Taken as a whole, the engagement part of the speech did not come across as a stern, yet newly flexible approach towards policy. It was more of a “I’m new to the Office, things have been difficult in the past, lets have a fresh start”. This is a characterization I know, but it’s the “feeling” I got after the speech.
The speech also raised some concern, specially the part of him leading the diplomacy. The US has everything to lose, and Raul everything to gain, from a direct meeting between the two. Not to mention, the President of the US would be meeting with a murderer.
On the remittances point, no major disagreement, though we can debate the point on subsistence without the remittance. Nevertheless, my point is that the remittances are just as important to the regime (at the macro level) as it is to individuals – the regime is never more worried then when people are reach that breaking point. This is important to realize. Why couldn’t the US President publicly ask that the tax be reduced or eliminated in return for allowing remittances? Alternatively, the US could negotiate direct aid to the people and bypass the whole freaking system. Admittedly, this would be harder to do.
Axel: if it's a "feeling" then it must have been something in the delivery. On paper all three statements look clear and unambiguous as a speech goes. You say yourself it would have been unreasonable to expect a detailed plan from Obama.
Yes, those are standard starting points for every president since Kennedy -so why ask Obama what has not been asked and delivered by his predecessors? Then we ask for innovative positions, only to mock and doubt that innovation.
Let's not fool ourselves. 99% of the criticism of Obama's Cuba speech is US party politics. It's been said a million times that he will sit with Raul (he doesn't say that) or that he's somehow naive or believe he'll change Raul's ways (he doesn't say that either). Those two arguments are classic strawmen. I'm not saying your post in particular was one of those, but it comes in that context.
In short, give the guy a chance. He has to be elected before formulating policy. Many exiles expecting a miracle from him have been happy with just a pep talk from Bush every May 20th, so what's the rush?
Lastly, the remittances. If the president asks publicly (and I see you already elected Obama) for eliminating the 10% fee and the 8% exchange rate, the most probable reaction from Cuba will be an outcry of interference in domestic affairs. It may be BS, but the net result is no change. Direct aid to the people, bypassing the system? I'm not sure what that means. I send the money to my family directly. The system takes his cut when they spend the money.
Oh, sorry, here's the link to the speech.
Hi Alex,
There is certainly a "feeling"...but also, I just don't read his comments as unambiguous as you do.
I also hope my comments are not interpreted as "mocking" Obama, I meant nothing of the sort. I also did not mean to imply that he will be the next President - that was a hypothetical.
I also (a third also) do not wish to engage in a domestic US policy discussion, but as you can imagine, I'd love to hear McCain say he was going to take an aggressive "negotiation" posture with Cuba. I would not like Obama to meet with Raul.
On the remittances, not too concerned with how the regime will react. The whole point is to publicly attack their incredulous positions and put the burden of explanation on them.
Basically, here's the carrot...now explain why you want to let your people suffer by rejecting norms adopted by the vast majority of the world's population?
But doesn't "now explain why you want to let your people suffer" precisely concerns the reaction of the regime? mean, you'll do something knowing they'll react negatively -and thus be exposed to the world.
I find fault with that course of action for two things: first because there isn't a great need to show Cuba is a totalitarian society that denies its citizens "norms adopted by the vast majority of the world's population" (you may disagree with me on this). I think the problem isn't that the rest of the world ignores this, the problem is that they either don't care or explain it away using the regime's usual rethoric.
In other words, Raul will just say "we don't take away the tax because we are a poor country in war with the largest imperial power in the world which thinks it can even tell us what taxes to implement" and guess what, so far history shows it's a convincing argument -not correct and not convincing to you and me- but to many other countries and people.
The second reason is that if the intent is to have more help reach everyday Cubans instead of showing the hypocrisy of the regime, confrontation can only backfire.
I'm more pragmatic than that. I think the carrot you show Raul has to be under the table, otherwise he can't take it. Despite all of Havana's protestations, Obama just showed Raul a big carrot. Now he has to is follow through and really press him, not convince him, but make clear he only gets the carrot in exchange for real changes. You don't think Raul would jump at the opportunity to become a China or VietNam? Don't think of it as rewarding a tyrant, think of it as benefiting a country.
(No, I didn't think you were mocking Obama. I meant the political context in which the speech was received among the traditinal CA community was dubious. They don't give Obama the benefit of the doubt)
You don't think Raul would jump at the opportunity to become a China or VietNam?
What's stopping him? The onus is on him to liberalize the economy if he truly wants a Chinese model. I'll answer the question. What's stopping him is the fact that the regime would not last a year under a true Chinese model because Cuba is not China.
Don't stop there, explain why not.
I'll tell you what's stopping him: nothing. He's well on his way. But American trade is the icing on the cake (as it was for China). If that means he has to free political prisoners which will either leave the country or he can always jail again later, he'll do it.
The trick is taking advantage of this desire. Small steps are better than inmobility. Besides, the conversation is not really with Raul, is (as it has always been) with the technocrats that support Raul. Even if that conversation is by proxy. There's always an Egon Krenz or Gustav Husak looking ten years ahead.
Alex, I respectfully couldn't disagree more with your "nothing" comment. What tangible and "meaningful" empirical evidence do you have that suggests that?
Kimbo: what tangible evidence? I believe I said "I think" a dozen times in this thread. It is just my opinion.
Obviously Raul has not said it explicitly. But political analysis doesn't depend only on hard evidence. If you wait for evidence, you are behind the curve.
To me, the tentative signs are everywhere and have been for a while. They go from the retired Army officers in charge of much of the infrastructure and tourism to the quiet agricultural reforms (allowing farmers to buy tools and use vacant land), to the more ballyhooed recent market driven measures.
I'm the first one to say the latter are not meaningful. But they have to be seen as harbinger of things to come (eliminating dual currency, allowing more private and foreign investment) because they don't make sense otherwise and if there's one thing we should have learned is to not underestimate the enemy. Raul is many things, but he's not dumb.
Hi Alex,
First, sorry for the delayed response – had some work to do. :-)
I think the source of our disagreement on remittances is the "intent" you allude to.
I certainly would like to see the Cuban people better off today...but not at the expense of freedom and prosperity tomorrow.
I agree that most of the world knows, in its heart, that Cuba is a repressive, totalitarian state. The problem is that they file this information away deep in the mind, never to be used again. It is "easy" to forget the crimes of the regime and carry forward. The “Cuba issue” is also muddied in people’s mind from the continuous rabble from Chavez, and Cuba’s cronies in Africa/Middle East.
Also, I am not championing a policy of confrontation, though I can see how some could call it that. Essentially, I propose that we should take the offensive with unassailable proposals: will do x, if you do y. This is not confrontation, simply a proposal.
There are ways of framing/structuring the remittance issue to minimize the standard rebuke you highlight. For example, what if the US bought Pesos in the open market and then exchanged them for Cuban-American Dollars before sending to
Cuba? i.e., expanded remittances, but in Cuban Pesos. Sure, these are useless, but it would be pretty clear who’s responsible. Why can’t you buy milk with Cuban Pesos in Cuba? Would love to see the government answer these types of questions.
This is not necessarily the right answer – but its in the spirit of what I’m saying.
Alex,
Thanks for the clarification on your liberal use of "I think..." I refer you to the "compota" that I'm offering on the mainboard.
Never liked compota, nor the Russian ones got in Cuba or the Gerber variety.
I think on this point we have mixed agreement: I did not like the compota in Cuba if it was in fact that, but did enjoy the Gerber brand better than I liked the yellow government cheese and canned spam but I digress. In any event, I'll put some "compota" in a trust account for your future consumption.
That's very generous of you, but I prefer puré de malanga. Hope the Gerber didn't make you forget what a good Cuban puré de malanga tastes like.
Post a Comment