Getting out of Cuba - Fast!

Follow this link for a short, but intriguing article from the Economist on the number of Cubans leaving the island. Apparently, Raul's much ballyhood reforms have done little to increase Cubans' confidence that life has any prospect of getting better.

It is amazing that thousands of Cubans continue to risk life to escape the oppression of the regime. Is this the regime we should sit down with?

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11546110

European Union Lifts Sanctions on Cuba

Jan Silva of the Associated Press is reporting that the EU has lifted it's diplomatic sanctions against Cuba. NOT good.

Here's a link to the article in the Miami Herald:

Click Here

Did CANF endorse Senator Obama?

Since Senator Obama visited with the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) a bit over three weeks ago, many have asked me whether his visit meant that CANF was endorsing his candidacy. Given the frequency of the question and the interesting discussions that have emerged from it, I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss the topic on this forum.

CANF has not endorsed Senator Obama or Senator McCain. Instead, consistent with its institutional mission, it is CANF's goal to be a good advocate for Cuba with both of these candidates and to inform our community about the positions that both of these candidates have taken on Cuba and how those positions may evolve over time.

As a non-partisan institution, CANF’s mission is to further freedom and democracy in Cuba by developing and advocating policy positions and strategies with members of all political parties, domestically and internationally, that are well-intentioned and can be effective in helping bring about a democratic Cuba. In order to effectively fulfill its mission, CANF has three important responsibilities. The first is to educate leaders throughout the world on how to most effectively support a free and democratic Cuba. Second is to inform our community about the positions that key leaders take on Cuba policy so that our community may cast its votes in an educated fashion. And, third, is to work with all world leaders that are well intentioned in their support of a democratic Cuba to transform good intentions into real action.

In order to live up to these responsibilities CANF, as its founder Jorge Mas Canosa understood, must never subordinate the issue of a free and democratic Cuba to any political party or to any individual politician. Doing so would be the surest way to be taken for granted by politicians and for our community to become ineffective as an advocate for a free Cuba. While this approach requires a higher than average level of political maturity and may at times be emotionally difficult to accept, it has been this which sets CANF apart as an issue-driven institution and it is this that has made it effective, even if not always popular. CANF’s work under Jorge Mas Canosa with Senator Robert Torriceli (Democrat) and with Senators Jesse Helms and Dan Burton (Republicans) are a couple of the many examples that exhibit the organizations ability to work with all that can be a friend of Cuba, regardless of their political party. This approach continues today with CANF’s efforts in the U.S. Congress, at international forums, inside of Cuba and with both U.S. presidential candidates.

Our community must realize that its electoral power and influence comes from its high levels of voter participation, from its being educated on Cuba policy and from being able to swing its vote in favor of candidates that are going to do the most on behalf of the issues that we care about most. Our influence does not come from always monolithically voting for any one party or supporting politicians who, while pandering, are not really willing to take decisive action to help Cuba regain its freedom. It is this perspective that has led CANF, as an institution, to always try to educate our community on the pros and cons of each politician without blindly following as party line, while working to influence all, who are, or can become, decision makers on Cuba policy.

If a politician, regardless of his party affiliation, is off the mark on his Cuba policy, it is CANF’s responsibility to highlight that to our community and work to bridge the gap if at all possible (as Tony’s post below highlights, it appears that some of the gap on the embargo issue has been bridged with Senator Obama). If said gap cannot be bridged, it is CANF’s responsibility to highlight that to voters in order for them to incorporate that information when casting their vote. Likewise, if a politician is willing to take real action to help bring about freedom and democracy in Cuba, it is incumbent upon CANF to applaud those efforts and for our community to take note when making its electoral decisions.

It was in keeping with this tradition that Senator Obama was invited to visit with CANF and our community. His visit was important because it furthered the dialogue between our community and the now presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States. We appreciate Senator Obama’s visit and his willingness to listen to our points of view in the same way that he appreciated the maturity that our community showed in being able to have a constructive exchange with him despite our views not being consistent with all of his. It is this same level of dialogue that CANF has had and will continue to pursue with Senator McCain - although not all of his positions are reflective of our views either.

Our community should continue to stay tuned and pay close attention to the positions both of these candidates take and the level of commitment they are each willing to make to take action to help bring democracy to Cuba. Our community’s vote will once again be a key swing vote in a crucial state. Whatever candidate and party we lend our support to needs to earn it and needs to reciprocate with real action.

With that, I leave you with two questions: What is your take on issue driven advocacy across party lines? And, what candidate / party do you think is more deserving of our community’s vote at this juncture?

Will Obama (if elected) lift the Cuban Embargo?

To be clear I don’t own a crystal ball and my middle name is not Nostradamus. However, in the interest of spurring some discussion I’d like to look at some of Senator Obama’s history as well as some of the recent history of the Democratic Party and discuss how likely it would be for Obama to lift the embargo against Cuba were he to be elected President this November.

An important fact to point out is that Democrats have lost five of the last seven Presidential Elections. The American people are clearly unhappy with the current representation coming from the Republican Party, but for how long will that last once Bush 43 and his neo-cons are no longer in the White House? The country has a strong conservative base and the Republican Campaign Machine is no foe to be taken lightly. Moreover, the country has a lot of holes to dig out from under; Iraq, Islamist extremist, the economy, oil prices, health care, global warming, immigration… there are a dozen major pitfalls that could damage a neophyte administration’s credibility with the people very quickly. Not to mention the pitfalls we cannot predict.

Speaking of unforeseen pitfalls, I recall Bill Clinton’s statements in an interview where he addressed the matter. He affirmed the difficulty a U.S. President has in focusing on his agenda and platform coming into office because he’s simply too tied up by events that are out of his control. A President elect can come into office with all sorts of aspirations and issues to target but world events can easily divert his attention and strain his resources. Let’s take Al Gore for example. Mr. Gore is currently the champion of the Global Warming cause and it undoubtedly would be one of the major focuses of his administration were he to have been elected President. Now the level of threat that Global Warming poses to humanity is debatable, what is not debatable is how Gore has been instrumental in advancing the cause through his efforts. So would President Gore have been able to accomplish as much for the cause? President Gore would have had 9/11 thrust on his plate, would be dealing with Iraq and Hussein (assuming Gore would not have invaded Iraq) , Iran, North Korea, at the time a bursting dotcom bubble, a resurgent Russia, a budding Super Power in China, Katrina, etc… Where would the time and resources to champion Global Warming policy be on his priority list?

Now on to the specific subject of the Cuban Embargo; here is a video of Obama’s take on the embargo in early 2004:



Here are Obama’s statements on the embargo at CANF’s 20 de Mayo Luncheon earlier this year:



So the switch of positions begs the question. Have meetings with distinguished Cuban-Americans like Jorge Mas and Pepe Hernandez opened Obama’s eyes to the need for the Embargo? Subsequently, leading to the shift in position; or, is Obama, playing politics and simply pandering to an influential community of voters in a swing state?

If Obama’s core beliefs and principles are that the embargo should be lifted (and I’m not saying that this is a fact, but it is a possibility based on his stated position of pro-dialog with ALL nations, friend or foe) then it stands to reason that he might move quickly to lift the embargo upon being elected President. Obama would find himself in an office that’s been difficult for Democrats to capture. He would be facing a dozen existing and potentially crippling pitfalls before a country whose patience with Washington and politicians has grown thin. Not to mention the hurdles of yet to exist and unpredictable pitfalls that will arise. Furthermore, he’ll have a democratic majority in the legislative branch to assist in pushing his agenda. I believe under such circumstances Obama would push hard and fast to institute the changes outlined in his platform and ideology.

Hopefully lifting the embargo is not one of them.

I'm curious to hear other's predictions on how this plays out.

Venezuela – is this where the “new” thinking wants to take Cuba?

The St. Petersburg Times recently had an article discussing daily life in Venezuela (see here http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/article612936.ece). It was the usual stuff, describing how mismanagement is destroying the economy and how Chavez’s vaunted programs for the poor are mostly fiction. Aside from feeling sadness for the Venezuelan people, two things immediately come to mind when I read these articles. First, how can someone like Chavez come to power in the 21st century with the same lies used in the 20th century? Second, how can people (especially those calling for unilateral submission to Cuba) fail to see the parallels between Venezuela and Cuba?

Venezuela today enjoys exactly those things that the “new” thinking wants for Cuba: unfettered remittances, free movement of tourists and business people to/from the US, and very large and free economic ties to the “superpower”, to name a few. Interesting then, that rather than promoting democracy and capitalism, Chavez continues to forcefully concentrate power and is gradually eliminating all vestiges of freedom in Venezuela. Why hasn’t access to the US helped Venezuela…and how did Chavez come so close to actually establishing a dictatorship last year?

Venezuela continues its march backwards because Chavez is a wannabee dictator, pure and simple. And US carrots, regardless of the size of the pile, will not change that. Indeed, Chavez considers Castro/Cuba not only his ideological inspiration, but also his tactical mentor…allowing Chavez to leverage 50 years of experience oppressing the Cuban people while ostentatiously fighting the empire. It is little secret that his strategy is crafted in La Habana.

Curious then that the Castro regime has regularly called for a liberalization of US Cuba policy, calling for the same things the “new” thinking currently does. Those with this view assert that liberalization will spur change on the island, especially now that Raul has supposedly demonstrated a willingness to change.

Really? Does this make any sense? Cuba crafts Venezuela’s strategy towards dictatorship but we are expected to believe that a few Big Macs will compel Castro to move towards democracy and capitalism?

The reality is that arguing for unilateral capitulation to Cuba’s demands ignores this link, and magically assumes that Raul is the Cuban messiah.

Feeling for Stones, or Pulling the Wool Over Our Eyes?

Gauging by the tone of several news articles in the past 24 hours (e.g. The End of Communism?; UK Guardian Article; Miami Herald Article), you'd think that communism had been all but abandoned in Cuba. The introduction of a more incentive-based wage system and easing of wage restraints, which was announced in Granma on Wednesday, certainly diverges from standard Marxist economic policy and, in theory, is a welcome move. But if you look a little deeper than the couple of brief paragraphs that the average article describing this latest "reform" announcement contains, you'll just see more of the same cosmetic and overbought reforms that still do not address the large fundamental problems in Cuba, and they might actually cause other unintended problems given that the Cuban Economy is still centrally planned and lacks free markets and a proper price system. And while, at best, it can be viewed as an inching towards a more liberalized economy, it does not give hope that the Cuban state will follow with political reforms or cease its unremitting human rights abuses.

In practice, average bonuses of up to 5% for meeting production quotas and managerial bonuses of up to 30% for increased productivity, besides still being meager given Cuban's suppressed wages, will be difficult to properly award without a price system as these monetary incentives also incentivize managers to lie about production levels. In a centrally planned economy, the amount of information the economic ministries would need to attain in order to properly distribute these bonuses would require a great deal more "surveillance", as Dr. Purcell put it. Even then, without a price system, this increased surveillance will still not capture all economic information, truthfully and efficiently, and it is doomed for failure as it has in countless other communist economies. Changing small aspects within the economy, without addressing other interdependent mechanisms, is either a recipe for failure, or the sign of a tactical public relations move, one that befits its efforts to lift E.U. and U.S. sanctions.

If one were to take a Panglossian view, and believe that this move signals the start of incremental measures towards market liberalization (and I'm sure the Cuban state would vehemently deny this) as Cuba "crosses the river by feeling for stones", it still does not mean that Cuba has adopted the Chinese or Vietnamese models, which would require much more drastic and thorough economic reforms. It also does not mean that the Cuban people are any closer to enjoying the liberty, human rights, and political freedoms that they've long been denied, and which the Chinese and Vietnamese models have not provided for their own citizens.

Unhappy Cubans

On June 5th, the International Republican Institute (www.iri.org) published the results of a month long public opinion survey conducted in Cuba. This is the second such survey (the first was conducted in October, 2007), with hopefully many more to come. Needless to say, getting a glimpse of what Cubans are thinking is fascinating. It is a long survey, with many conclusions, but four overarching themes are clear:

· Cubans are overwhelmingly unhappy with the “status quo”
· The largest source of discontent is the economy/low wages
· There is a desire for political change, or at minimum, a government that can solve Cuba’s pressing needs
· Moods have soured since October, and are likely to get worse

Granted, its difficult to draw detailed conclusions (hence the themes above) from a survey done in secret, where both interviewer and interviewee risk prison if caught. That said, anecdotal evidence tends to support the highlighted themes.

· Cubans continue to leave the island in droves, whether in boats to Miami or as “representatives of the revolution” to Venezuela, etc.
· Every Cuban you speak to who just left (and who’s not going back) can quickly rattle off ten names of other people literally dying to get out
· The dissident opposition in Cuba, while muffled and periodically jailed, has not been wholly silenced – its hard to imagine Fidel tolerating this during better times
· The Castro # 2 regime seems critically aware of Cubans’ discontent, as evidenced by the recent rash of petty economic liberalization

To me, this just screams opportunity. Opportunity for Cuban-Americans, the United-States, and the World to unite, putting pressure on the regime to take the easy steps that will instantly improve the livelihood of its people. The regime needs to be put on the defensive and forced to answer difficult questions in the court of world public opinion. Cubans need to know that the World understands their unnecessary plight and is willing to ask for change.

The proper response to Kinzer

Stephen Kinzer writes in the Guardian Unlimited that "the next American president should offer to lift [the U.S. economic embargo of Cuba] as part of a broader accord that could pave the way for transition to a new era in Cuba..." Mr. Kinzer calls the embargo "a dumb idea, " "unsuccessful" and "counterproductive." He indicates that the embargo has provided Fidel Castro with a scapegoat, "by giving him a powerful enemy on whom to blame the country's problems." My problem with Mr. Kinzer's statements is that, like his claim that pandering to Cuban exiles by politicians during election periods is a "distasteful but familiar vice," his commentary is also distasteful and a very familiar vice. Distasteful in that his tone of reproach of Cuban exiles for espousing the cause of a free and democratic Cuba (and yes---whether Mr. Kinzer or anyone else likes it or not---a free and democratic Cuba where Cuban-Americans can also participate in a peaceful transition and rightfully so) is boring and cliche. Familar in that like most critics of the U.S. embargo against Cuba, Mr. Kinzer calls for dramatic change in long-standing U.S. policy without offering any credible indication of how a reversal of 47 years of policy and direct access to commerce with the United States will result in the new era he speaks of. Mr. Kinzer is certainly aware that Cuba enjoys and has long enjoyed normal diplomatic and economic relations with most other countries in the world and that these relations have done nothing to foster political transition in the country.

Take Mr. Kinzer's "happier" and "nightmare" scenarios, for example. Jubilation erupts in Miami, the next American president demands a regime change and somehow that results in the eruption of violence in Cuba. I agree with Mr. Kinzer that any sort of eruption of violence in Cuba, prompted by U.S. foreign policy or not, would be a nightmare. But, if Mr. Kinzer's argument is that the next American president should lift the embargo because violence in Cuba is certain to erupt if Cuban exiles are allowed to celebrate the death of Castro and the U.S. government, joining the long list of governments across the globe, once again calls for a regume change in Cuba, that is simply a pretty weak argument. With respect to his "happier" scenario where American leaders open talks with Cuba next year, assure them that the U.S. wants to avoid instability in Cuba, and agree to lift the embargo as part of a process of "thawing relations" with Cuba, I ask Mr. Kinzer "happier for whom?" Happier for the Cuban government which would be the major beneficiary of U.S. investments on the island. Happier for the U.S. agribusiness sector and other U.S. interests who will stand to benefit from the opening of commerce. Happier for U.S. tourists who can enjoy Cuba's beautiful beaches and hotels, beaches Cubans have only recently been allowed to enjoy by their own government and hotels the average Cuban earning a monthly salary from the Cuban government will never afford. Certainly not happier for the Cuban people whose standard of living is not likely to improve and who will continue to lack the basic freedoms their government denies them. A "nightmare" scenario is one where U.S. companies are sitting across the table from Raul Castro, entering into joint ventures with the Cuban government, while political prisoners continue to languish in Cuba's jails and the Cuban government continues its repressive tactics against the populace. Mr. Kinzer's statement that the lifting of the embargo "would allow democratic forces within Cuba to emerge and play a role in their country's future" is illusory without further justification. Mr. Kinzer is surely aware that harassment, beatings and imprisonment of dissidents and independent journalists on the island of Cuba continue today and that both Fidel Castro and Raul Castro have repeatedly indicated that they would never negotiate improved diplomatic or economic relations with the United States based on any conditions requiring changes in their policies. Indeed, the true "nightmare" scenario is one where Raul Castro finally has direct access to U.S. capital while continuing to repress the opposition and any political liberalization forces on the island.

I agree with Mr. Kinzer that we may have a unique opportunity in the near future with the passing of Fidel Castro to finally see some change in Cuba. I am also appreciative of the fact that in light of this potential opportunity a forward-looking dialogue with respect to U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba needs to take place. However, if the goal is a free and democratic Cuba, logic dictates that the lifting of the embargo without pre-conditions, which Mr. Kinzer and others support, would produce just the opposite result---solidification of the Castro dictatorship.

Conclusions from daily economic life in Cuba

For those interested in Cuba, the Miami Herald has been publishing excellent reports on daily-life in Cuba from their secret “man in La Habana” (could very well be a woman, but alas, that is not the phrase). The latest installment, in yesterday’s online edition, covers many Cubans’ unwillingness to work given the meager salaries and distasteful job opportunities (see article here http://www.miamiherald.com/581/story/552964.html). As I read the article, four points came to mind:

1. Cuba’s economic hardship is NOT a result of the embargo

“''I am not going to tell you something different. There are jobs here in Cárdenas where I live. Doing what? Cleaning hospitals for 150 pesos [$7] a month,'' said Loraicys, a single mother. ``For 150 pesos, I would rather stay home with my kid. I am willing to work really hard -- but not for nothing in return.''

“''Unfortunately there is not an inconsiderable segment of our society that wants to live without working and considers that through the black market, it will have everything by living off of others,'' Granma editor Lázaro Barredo wrote in a recent editorial.”

All news out of Cuba is consistent on two fronts. First, the Island has more than enough human and natural resources to be a solid middle-income country, regardless of the embargo. Second, Cuba does not achieve this due to the policies of its government. The government simultaneously fails to provide real jobs that would provide sustenance to its people (see other posts on the ability of Cuban’s to afford basic staples) and scorns those Cubans who operate in the black market to feed their families. Is this an implicit policy to starve the Cuban people? What does this have to do with the embargo?

2. Remittances can be a powerful tactical tool, but are also very risky

“Eduardo, 30, a stagehand who got his first job four years ago, said most of his friends worked for the first time when they were in their late 20s -- after emigrating to Florida. ''Why was I going to work? The money they would pay me was not going to meet my needs,'' he said. ``My mother in Orlando sent me $100 a month, and with that I was set.''”

Remittances have received much attention lately, thanks to CANF’s official position and Obama’s proposal to ease restrictions. As the quote above indicates, the prospect of a Cuban society economically independent of the state is tantalizing, and could indeed spur the change we all hope for. However, success via this avenue critically depends on speed and magnitude. How fast can Cubans become independent via remittances and what portion of the population can realistically be expected to achieve it. Move to slowly and the regime will adjust as it has countless times in the past, supporting the regime without making a dent. Achieve only 10-15% penetration and the “wealthy” Cubans will be ostracized, taxed, and harassed as always before. They will lose both their influence within Cuba and their ideological strength internationally.

3. Cuban generated data is worthless – how good is that healthcare system?

“Officially, Cuban government figures show its unemployment rate is just 1.9 percent, the lowest in Latin America. At the same time, government statistics show just 4.8 million of the 6.7 million working-age people are ''economically active.'' And a survey conducted by the state-run Juventud Rebelde newspaper showed that just in Guantánamo province, on the eastern tip of the island, there were 18 times more unemployed people than official figures reflected.”

This is a small example of how the regime manipulates data, especially when it communicates it to “outsiders” (i.e, the UN and those “enlightened” observers such as Michael Moore). The regime will manipulate data however it must to maintain its propaganda. Surprising that the world is so inclined to believe the Cuban healthcare and education miracles.

4. The regime does not care about ideology, just survival

“''For the first time, it is clearly and precisely stated that a salary does not have a limit, that the roof of a salary depends on productivity,'' Terrero said, according to The Associated Press. He added that he did not view this as a violation of socialism, but rather ``from each according to his work to each according to his ability.''”

This twisting of the communist ideal (to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities) demonstrates that the regime cares little about its people. Time and time again, the regime will change its philosophy, policies, and practices to ensure it stays in power. Surprising yet again how so many external observers continue to credit the government with ideological purity and a focus on its people.

Happy to hear other’s view on these or other points.