TheAgitator.com
Obama and Cuba
Monday, April 20th, 2009While I’m ragging on Obama, it seems to me he has America’s Cuba policy exactly wrong.
At the OAS meetings last week, Obama refused to denounce Cuba’s human rights violations, including its imprisonment of political dissidents. It’s usually risky to criticize someone for what they didn’t say or do, but in the world of diplomacy the absence of any explicit criticism of Cuba’s political suppression was conspicuous, and almost certainly wasn’t accidental. At the same time, Obama has backed down from his position in the Democratic primaries to open up U.S. trade with Cuba (he actually came down from that position during the general election campaign).
In other words, America’s new Cuba policy seems to be one of gradual rapprochement when it comes to engagement with Cuba’s authoritarian government, but continued isolation and punishment of Cuba’s people. That’s unfortunate.
Obama did allow for more visitation between Cuban-Americans and their families on the island last week, but while that’s a welcome change, it wasn’t particularly bold, brave, or risky. There was almost no political downside at all to the change.
I don’t disagree with Obama’s policy of dialoguing with foreign leaders who are hostile to America. But there’s a difference between conversing with thugs and dictators, and giving them a pass. We do need to pursue a less isolationist approach to Cuba, but it ought to be one that gives more freedom and access to the Cuban people, not one that legitimizes, even a little bit, the boot heel that’s been crushing them for a generation.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) put our Cuba policy into perspective when he noted at a Reason event last year that if one of the two governments is going to prevent peaceful American citizens from trading, visiting with, and engaging with peaceful Cuban citizens, you’d like to think it would be the brutal, authoritarian Cuban government that’s doing the prohibiting. It isn’t, of course.
Obama’s got it wrong on both ends, here.
Of course since it’s a Republican who criticized the Cuba policy the criticism will be dismissed as bitter racism by sore losers. I wonder if Sean Penn knew this was coming when he went down to commune with Castro last year?
Other than perhaps avoiding Durban (the anti-semetic hate-fest sponsored by the UN in the name of human rights) I can’t see that Obama has gotten much of anything right.
Its pretty clear already that Obama is a BIG gov’t person, hell callin him a socialist is almost mild while at the same time he is clearly a “blame America for everything” leftist. Finally the image of him bowing to the Saudis’ is even more disgusting than Bush’s playing kissy face with them. There is no doubt that he “will stand with Muslims” (as he stated in his book).
I find him pretty disgusting all around.
I find myself less and less inclined to take for granted that it’s the responsibility of our government to hound other governments about their human rights abuses? Despite the naive sound to it, I would prefer we lead by example and let the populations of other countries hold us up as a standard to strive for. Of course, that means actually behaving like an example, which gives us plenty to do without meddling in the internal affairs of other states.
Personally, I think nothing pisses people off more than some other country telling them what to do, especially when those doing the telling don’t have a particularly admirable record when it comes to respecting the dignity of other peoples and the sovereignty of other governments.
I’m for dropping all trade restrictions with Cuba.
I agree that Obama should denounce Cuba’s human rights violations, but he can’t very well “renounce” them, not himself being their perpetrator.
Who are we to lecture Cuba about human rights abuses? Sure, they have us beat on scale, but there remains this issue of “unclean hands”…
But Obama has forgiven our guilty. I guess it’s only fair to forgive Castro as well.
In all the discussion of “human rights” vis a vis Cuba, people seem to miss that the current policy infringes my right to travel, do business etc, as I please. I can understand narrowly tailored travel or investment restrictions. But Cuba? Please. Currently, Americans can visit and do business with countries ruled by far nastier regimes.
In many respects I agree with you. I do think our Cuba policy is twisted, and it would be nice to have Obama stake a clear and right-headed position, and then stand behind it forcefully. But then, he also has to achieve results and still get re-elected. He has to engage in politics. It may be disappointing or even seem sleazy, but what else is new. Obama is a politician – perhaps a brilliant one, as evidenced by the fact that even many of his opponents appear practically shocked when they realize he’s done something a politican might do.
I suspect Obama believes the following: (1) our Cuba policy needs to be completely reworked; (2) the embargo should end; (3) there is likely to be great hue and cry if he calls explicitly for an end to the embargo; (4) the people against ending the embargo are more emotional about it than the people for ending the embargo (thus giving the people against far more political clout); (5) he stands to lose more votes from an aggressive Cuba reformulation than he stands to gain from being aggressive; (6) his best bet to ensure change without harming his re-election chances is to engage in a drawn out process that will ultimately end with some concessions by Cuba (it sounds like the predicate is being laid for release of prisoners) that makes ending the embargo more politically palatable. Probably in second term and certainly not before 2010 mid-terms. Republicans are still stuck on “Obama is a tyrannical socialist” mode – so yes, the Republicans will try and scare supporters into thinking that Obama is the next Castro if they think they can make Obama look too eager to open up with Cuba. We’re already seeing what Republicans are doing with pictures of Obama shaking hands with Chavez (red alert!). So I would expect to remain frustrated at what appears to be a confused or too incremental approach to Cuba as Obama navigates the political waters.
I’m not at all sure what I feel about the Cuba situation, but I do make the following observation;
1) The embargo was put into place by JFK, as an attempt to save face over bungling the Bay of Pigs incident (there were two sensible courses of action possible – ditch the whole thing, or fully support it by whatever means necessary – Kennedy did neither). It is still in place because nobody on the Left dares touch anything with Saint Kennedy The Martyred’s fingerprints on it, and the Right just wants to stick Castro any way that comes to hand.
2) All the talk about Raoul being more “moderate” than Fidel is pigswill. Raoul has been his brother’s enforcer all his life, and has all the compassion one normally associates with a column of army ants.
3) Given 1 & 2, Obama’s reasons for ringing down the embargo will probably be as bogus as JFK’s for putting it in place. Symmetry, of a sort.
4) The Cubans I’ve spoken to seem to be of the opinion that one of the first effects of dropping the embargo will be the collapse of any degree of quality control in the Cuban cigar industry. They are already selling all the cigars they can make (if not slightly more), and having significant quality control problems with their most popular lines. So, expanding into the American market too fast could easily cause the near-collapse of the only industry Cuba has that produces anything anybody wants. .
A generation? Try 2-2.5 generations.
“America’s new Cuba policy seems to be one of gradual rapprochement when it comes to engagement with Cuba’s authoritarian government, but continued isolation and punishment of Cuba’s people. That’s unfortunate.”
That’s an understatement…but very well summarized.
I always thought that if I were Castro, I’d thank America every day for making it very easy to stay in power. Every American policy toward Cuba is as if it were designed by Castro himself.
Obama probably knows that, right now, our criticism of other nations’ human rights records is going to look mighty weak.
Apologize for the threadjack here but:
Has anyone considered the growing US involvement in the Mexican Drug War as a deliberate way to advance the drug war here at home? If we have soldiers on the ground in Mexico fighting an actual war against the drug cartels what new domestic prosecutions would that open up for users/suppliers? Treason? Trading with the enemy?
Off topic, but I thought some of you might find this interesting:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103276152
NPR does a “what if” marijuana were legalized.
The Castro’s arent my favorite people, but the embargo makes them look like heroes against the gringo oppressors. Relax the embargo, without conditions, and they will look like the petty tyrants of a third world nation that they really are. Why even give them the good press from negotiations–it only makes the Castros look like they are worthy of US time. Just drop the whole thing and move on.
As for those who say we need to free the Cuban people first, I hope you will be consistent and refuse to consume oil coming from Venezeula and the Middle East, refuse to buy anything manufactured in China or Vietnam, and advocate for complete non-engagement with Russia.
It’s quite shocking to see the number of presumably libertarian-leaning people here that are going out of their way to defend Obama’s current, morally erroneous stance on Cuba and the embargo (#7, I’m looking at you). It’s cute to pretend to play bare-knuckle realpolitik but the truth is the Cuban embargo is a life or death matter to a certain subsection of the Cuban population. The embargo has been linked to everything from malnutrition to the spread of infectious disease. It’s unjust and it’s killing people, and any self-respecting human being should be willing to gamble their political future to save lives and improve the quality of life for millions with a penstroke.
Radley, I respect your position and am grateful for the work you do, but… You’re an idealistic journalist, not a politician (and, please… don’t ever change that).
Would we all like to see Obama do a complete reversal on the inherited precedents regarding Cuba? Of course!
But it can’t happen. And you know that.
Obama has opened a small humanitarian and economic doorway to Cuba. After almost 50 years of open hostility, he has allowed for a foothold. This is exactly the right move.
He can’t denounce the Cuban government. It would require an equal–or greater–response from the Cuban government and we would be back where we started (if not farther into the hole).
The appropriate approach to Cuba is slow and well-defined: First, allow Cubans in the US to visit their families: It’s an humanitarian gesture which can’t be painted with a partisan or politically-aggressive brush. Second, open up trade with the nation: Liberals view it as an easing of hostilities, and conservatives view it as an expansion of US economic influence; both sides can portray it as a win.
Only after the US has firmly entrenched itself into the community and economy of Cuba can the President (whomever that may be at that point) step up and openly insult the Cuban government. At any point before that, the Cuban government can shut us out and paint us with any evil brush they choose.
A denunciation of Cuban human rights policy at this point would gain us nothing and hurt us substantially.
We want to teach the Cubans, not conquer them.
@#15 – Thank you for reminding me of the moral thing to do. Based on your standard, however, there pretty much isn’t a “self-respecting human being” in this country, because I have yet to see anyone meaningfully put their political future remotely at stake to change our Cuba policy. It is all nice and good that a Congressman from Arizona calls for change, but he isn’t going to lose any votes over it. We can take the extreme position that either a person immediately sacrifices everything to change Cuba policy or they are evil. We can also be realistic and say that politicians do what politicians do, which is to try to win votes and to try and get re-elected. If the leader of the U.S. is setting the predicate for changing misguided Cuba policy, then I’m all for doing at least something, rather than pouting because he – like 9 presidents before him – thinks about the politics of the issue.
#17
You’re welcome! But I beg to differ – perhaps it only demonstrates that there isn’t a self-respecting human being who happens to be a politician in the country. But that’s hardly a controversial position.
I’m glad that YOU seem to have Obama all figured out. I’d like to know the manufacturer of that crystal ball, because I’m having a hard enough time figuring out which policies that Obama had _explicitly_ endorsed during his campaign are policies he intends to keep. I wouldn’t even begin to know how to figure out your six, unspoken “suspicions” regarding Obama’s “true beliefs.”
#8 C.S.P. Schofield wrote:
If Cuba used free market principles, the price would rise to meet the demand, and quality control would remain high.
Then again, if more Americans tried authentic Cubans, the demand would probably subside quite a bit. The fact that “Cuban cigars” carry a premium despite declining quality (most Dominicans and some Hondurans kick their butts!) shows that people are paying for the myth, not the actual quality. It’s the “attraction of the illicit” in action.
By the way, I hope everyone here realizes that the American embargo can’t be blamed for Cuba’s economic woes. There is exactly one country that doesn’t trade with Cuba: us. The entire rest of the world trades freely with Cuba; that they remain mired in hapless poverty is not our fault.
And yes, I do support establishing free trade with Cuba (it would neuter Castro’s “victim” status), while simultaneously condemning Castro’s policies that keep the Cuban people in abject poverty.
Obama seems to have it bass-ackwards.
Lecturing Cuba would serve no useful practical purpose. From what I can tell the average day to day existence of Cubans is no worse than their near neighbours, the Jamaicans. The problems are different, but commensurable. If Castro hadn’t been in power then Cuba would very likely look like Jamaica does today, i.e poor, corrupt and infested with drugs, crime and violence once you step outside the walled hotel compounds. But with fewer doctors and teachers.
Paul, we’re talking about Cuba, not Miami.
@#20 Paul
Do don’t see a lot of Jamaicans rigging together tire flotillas in hopes of escaping Kingston.
If Castro hadn’t been in power then Cuba would very likely look like Jamaica does today
Or like Peurto Rico. Or the Dominican Republic. Or Mexico. Or Aruba. Or Isla Noneofourdamnbusinesswhattheydo. We didn’t create Castro, but our actions have kept him in power.
More doctors! The perfect excuse for oppressive soul-crushing communism.
Communism is crime.
George Bush spent his term doing a whole lot of denouncing. Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Burma – if you’re a dictatorship that isn’t an American ally, George Bush denounced you.
What do we have to show for it?
I know, Barack Obama can denounce Cuba’s human rights record during a stop in Guantanamo Bay!
Perhaps when we’re a few years removed from Bush, Cheney, Guantanamo, Bybee, etc., we’ll be in a position where the President of the United States lecturing human rights violators will accomplish something. Right now, we have to build up to that.
#16: You advocate a slow process of opening up to Cuba. This makes sense if there was something to be afraid of. As it is, however, why continue to follow a stupid policy, albeit less stupidly.
If I am banging my head against a wall is it better for me to bang less often, or just stop?
At first glance Obama seems to have softened U.S. policy toward Latin America, especially when compared to his predecessor. There has been no shortage of editorials praising Obama’s conciliatory approach while comparing it to FDR’s ”Good Neighbor” Latin American policy.
It’s important to remember, however, that FDR’s vision of being neighborly meant that the U.S. would merely stop direct military interventions in Latin America, while reserving the right to create and prop up dictators, arm and train unpopular regional militaries, promote economic dominance through free trade and bank loans, conspire with right-wing groups, etc…
And although Obama’s policy towards Latin America has a similar subversive feeling to it, many of FDR’s methods of dominance are closed to him. Decades of U.S. “good neighbor” policy in Latin America resulted in a continuous string of U.S. backed military coups, broken-debtor economies, and consequently, a hemisphere-wide revolt.
Many of the heads of states that Obama mingled with at the Summit of the Americas came to power because of social movements born out of opposition to U.S. foreign policy. The utter hatred of U.S. dominance in the region is so intense that any attempt by Obama to reassert U.S. authority would result in a backlash, and Obama knows it.
Bush had to learn this the hard way, when his pathetic attempt to tame the region led to a humiliation at the 2005 Summit, where for the first time Latin American countries defeated yet another U.S. attempt to use the Organization of American States (O.A.S.), as a tool for U.S. foreign policy.
But while Obama humbly discussed hemispheric issues on an “equal footing” with his Latin American counterparts at the recent Summit of Americas, he has subtly signaled that U.S. foreign policy will be business as usual.
The least subtle sign that Obama is toeing the line of previous U.S. governments — both Republican and Democrat — is his stance on Cuba. Obama has postured as being a progressive when it comes to Cuba by relaxing some travel and financial restrictions, while leaving the much more important issue, the economic embargo, firmly in place.
When it comes to the embargo, the U.S. is completely unpopular and isolated in the hemisphere. The U.S. two-party system, however, just can’t let the matter go.
The purpose of the embargo is not to pressure Cuba into being more democratic: this lie can be easily refuted by the numerous dictators the U.S. has supported in the hemisphere, not to mention dictators the U.S. is currently propping up all over the Middle East and elsewhere.
The real purpose behind the embargo is what Cuba represents. To the entire hemisphere, Cuba remains a solid source of pride. Defeating the U.S. Bay of Pigs invasion while remaining fiercely independent in a region dominated by U.S. corporations and past government interventions has made Cuba an inspiration to millions of Latin Americans. This profound break from U.S. dominance — in its “own backyard” no less — is not so easily forgiven.
There is also a deeper reason for not removing the embargo. The foundation of the Cuban economy is arranged in such a way that it threatens the most basic philosophic principle shared by the two-party system: the market economy (capitalism).
And although the “fight against communism” may seem like a dusty relic from the cold war era, the current crisis of world capitalism is again posing the question: is there another way to organize society?
Even with Cuba’s immense lack of resources and technology (further aggravated by the U.S. embargo), the achievements made in healthcare, education, and other fields are enough to convince many in the region that there are aspects of the Cuban economy — most notably the concept of producing to meet the needs of all Cubans and NOT for private profit — worth repeating.
Hugo Chavez has been the Latin American leader most inspired by the Cuban economy. Chavez has made important steps toward breaking from the capitalist economic model and has insisted that socialism is “the way forward” — and much of the hemisphere agrees.
This is the sole reason that Obama continues the Bush-era hostility towards Chavez. Obama, it is true, has been less blunt about his feelings towards Chavez, though he has publicly stated that Chavez “exports terrorism” and is an “obstacle to progress.” Both accusations are, at best, petty lies. Chavez drew the correct conclusion of the comments by saying:
“He [Obama] said I’m an obstacle for progress in Latin America; therefore, it must be removed, this obstacle, right?”
It’s important to point out that, while Obama was “listening and learning” at the Summit of Americas, the man he appointed to coordinate the summit, Jeffrey Davidow, was busily spewing anti-Venezuelan venom in the media.
This disinformation is necessary because of the “threat” that Chavez represents. The threat here is against U.S. corporations in Venezuela, who feel, correctly, that they are in danger of being taken over by the Venezuelan government, to be used for social needs in the country instead of private profit. Obama, like his predecessor, believes that such an act would be against “U.S. strategic interests,” thus linking the private profit of mega-corporations acting in a foreign country to the general interests of the United States.
In fact, this belief that the U.S. government must protect and promote U.S. corporations acting abroad is the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, not only in Latin America, but the world.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13281
[...] Marijuana Policy 2. Cuba Policy 3. Transportation Policy 4. Bush Torture Policy 5. Economic Policy 6. Armenian [...]
[...] "Obama and Cuba" Originally published: 20 April 2009 Submitted by: U.S. Common Sense Summary: Questioning the past and current approach towards Cuba, and what more than just increased visits to the island nation should Obama do to bring about change. [...]
[...] Marijuana Policy 2. Cuba Policy 3. Transportation Policy 4. Bush Torture Policy 5. Economic Policy 6. Armenian Policy 7. [...]