Friday, February 22, 2008

Debating Cuba policy

In the debate last night, Obama and Clinton addressed Cuba policy. I like the Obama quote: “But I do think that it's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference.”

Further, he supports loosening travel restrictions for family members and remittances, which shows he is reaching out to that new generation of Cuban Americans that is less ideologically rigid. It is also bold to come out and say current policy is a failure:

OBAMA: I support the eventual normalization. And it's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. I mean, the fact is, is that during my entire lifetime, and Senator Clinton's entire lifetime, you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba.

So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. But that's going to happen in steps. And the first step, as I said, is changing our rules with respect to remittances and with respect to travel.

And then I think it is important for us to have the direct contact, not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally. I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. And this moment, this opportunity when Fidel Castro has finally stepped down, I think, is one that we should try to take advantage of.

Hillary Clinton on the same topic, emphasizing the need to keep current policy going:

CLINTON: Well, Jorge, I hope we have an opportunity. The people of Cuba deserve to have a democracy. And this gives the Cuban government, under Raul Castro, a chance to change direction from the one that was set for 50 years by his brother.

I'm going to be looking for some of those changes: releasing political prisoner, ending some of the oppressive practices on the press, opening up the economy.

Of course the United States stands ready. And, as president, I would be ready to reach out and work with a new Cuban government, once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change that direction.

...

But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting, without preconditions, with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And it should be part of a process, but I don't think it should be offered in the beginning. Because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of somebody like Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad and others.

CLINTON: And, as President Kennedy said, he wouldn't be afraid to negotiate, but he would expect there to be a lot of preparatory work done, to find out exactly what we would get out of it.

20 comments:

Anonymous,  7:37 AM  

At some point in the night, Obama also trotted out US-Latin American aid numbers, comparing it to how much we spend in Iraq in a week or month. He said we have to engage in the hemisphere and that US inattention is the reason Chavez has so much influence.

Paul 8:48 AM  

"It is also bold to come out and say current policy is a failure:"

I'd say the Cuban communists are the failures. Blame Fidel for the lack of "political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba."
And how ironic of Obama to quote John Kennedy, the guy responsible for the failure of the Bay of Pigs, during this topic.

I did find it amusing Obama promised to "prepare" for his face-to-face meetings with the worst scum of humanity. Golly, he's going to prepare. I guess he thinks everyone else has a cheat sheet tucked into their sleeve.

boz 8:53 AM  

I'd say the Cuban communists are the failures.

It's not inconsistent to say that both the Cuban government and US policy towards the Cuban government have been failures.

Paul 9:20 AM  

"Failure" implies success was possible. Nothing we could have done would have persuaded Fidel to free the Cuban people.

Miguel Centellas 9:42 AM  

We could've influenced Cuba during the early years, rather than driving further into the hands of the USSR. And we could've engaged w/ them more, like we did w/ the Soviets & Chinese. So, yes, as bad as the Cuban regime has been, we are also partly to blame for our own bad policies. It is possible for both sides to be wrong (even if by different degrees).

boz 9:43 AM  

Nothing we could have done...

Of course, we'll never know if that is correct because we continued with the same failed policy for nearly 50 years rather than changing it.

Paul 11:10 AM  

"We could've influenced Cuba during the early years, rather than driving further into the hands of the USSR."

The only "influence" that would have made a difference to tyrants like Fidel and Che was the air support JFK cancelled at the Bay of Pigs.

Miguel Centellas 12:27 PM  

Well, Fidel's movement wasn't completely "communist" until after it was clear that the US would remain hostile. There is debate over this, of course. But (unlike, say, Vietnam) the USSR didn't give tacit support to Fidel's group for fear of drawing in stronger US involvement.

There is some who argue that had the US embraced Cuba (as we had earlier embraced some left-populist regimes), it could have at least remained "neutral".

But, as boz points out, we'll never know. We continuously drove Cuba further into the Soviet block and retained the same policies for half a century. Unlike, say, Vietnam, which we seem to have forgiven and embraced in trade.

The Cuban regime is clearly oppressive. But that doesn't mean that by default our response to the regime is the right one.

Greg Weeks 12:40 PM  

Regardless of historical counterfactuals, failure should be viewed in terms of whether any policy objectives were successfully reached.

Paul 2:03 PM  

"Well, Fidel's movement wasn't completely "communist" until after it was clear that the US would remain hostile."

I think you got that backward. The US became hostile only when it became clear Fidel was a communist who absolutely hated the United States. The CIA and NY Times(Herbert Mathews, specifically) helped and heralded the revolution. But the end was preordained. For example, Raul Castro, according to Humberto Fontova, joined the joined the youth wing of Cuba's Communist party years before the revolution, "and traveled with his ideological cohorts to a Communist festival in Vienna that same year." Thus, there's no "deeper" into the Soviet arms we could have driven them.

Tambopaxi 2:07 PM  

Fidel's pretty much out of it, and there will be change in Cuba, count on it.

My scenario is, Obama wins, waits for some time after his inauguration and pulls some sort of "Nixon to China" move.

McCain, of course, would never do anything like this, nor Clinton either, I'd guess, based on last night's and earlier comments. I think Obama is capable of this kind of out-of-the-box thinking though, and we need this approach.

Recall that Nixon's move spelled the beginning of the end of the (then) immensely powerful Taiwan/KMT lobby. Obama, in my mind, represents the first real possibility of doing something similar with respect to the Miami/Mas Canosa group (as I continue to call it). Sure hope it happens....

Paul 2:21 PM  

Greg,

"failure should be viewed in terms of whether any policy objectives were successfully reached."

Well then there are some successes, by that standard. The "embargo" means US taxpayers don't get left holding the bag when the Castro brothers stiff their creditors, as they routinely do. The "embargo" means less dollars go into the communist party owned hotels, restaurants, boutique health clinics, etc. In general, opposition to Fidel meant the US was ready and able to repel the advances of communism in places like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Bolivia(where Che met his demise), etc.

Greg Weeks 2:37 PM  

For fifty years, the Cuban political elite has benefited greatly from the embargo--there has been no shortage of dollars in their pockets. Opposition to Fidel had nothing to do with being "ready" for Central America, unless you mean that because of years of opposition to Fidel we had already established a pattern of celebrating brutality on a scale well beyond anything Fidel wrought.

As for debt, we dealt with defaults all over Latin America, with economies far greater than Cuba's.

I realize you disagree, but U.S. policy toward Cuba has helped Fidel enormously, and I have yet to see a compelling counterargument.

Paul 8:02 PM  

"there has been no shortage of dollars in their pockets."

Maybe, but then I can second guess too and say we didn't simply do enough to ensure the communists were broken. So then that's the failure. In any case, we do know the dollars they do get go almost completely into communist party pockets, and not into the average Cuban's. No reason to fill them any deeper.

"unless you mean that because of years of opposition to Fidel we had already established a pattern of celebrating brutality on a scale well beyond anything Fidel wrought."

Actually, no, I don't mean that at all. Give me an example of anyone "celebrating brutality," and that doesn't mean dealing with dictators
as part of cold war realpolitik.
Fidel spent his miserable career trying to stoke up insurgencies across Latin America. The United States countered, and the world is better for it.

"As for debt, we dealt with defaults all over Latin America, with economies far greater than Cuba's."

True, but that was never a reason to play Fidelito's sucker game.

"U.S. policy toward Cuba has helped Fidel enormously, and I have yet to see a compelling counterargument."

You can only say that because we can't see the alternate universe and policy. There's nothing in Castro's record that indicates he would have been malleable. In fact, everything indicates the opposite.

There are some levels of evil that can't be influenced with "diplomacy." Chamberlain proved that with Hitler. Clinton proved that with Arafat. Pastrana proved that with the FARC leaders. Fidel is in that same category.

Bosque 10:36 PM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bosque 10:39 PM  

The US was fine with Castro until he nationalized certain sectors. US never really had a problem with "commies", after all they were allies in WWII. Like today, the US has no problem doing business with China; they're still "commies".

US foreign policy is a total failure and it is exactly why Cuba is the way it is. It is why Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, etc are the way they are ... non-US "puppet" governments. No more "Jim Crowe".

It does look like Obama would be the best out of the bunch to mend foreign relations.

Miguel Centellas 10:42 AM  

Well, we could always try a carrot approach to Cuban policy, and see if the regime makes any changes. If it doesn't, there's no reason why we couldn't go back to the status quo.

As Greg and others continue to emphasize: Our policy towards Cuba has been consistent for 50 years. Yet Cuba remains. If our policies were designed to end the regime, then they've failed. Why not try a new approach? Continuing to do the same thing in hopes of a different outcome isn't rational.

Paul 12:39 PM  

"US foreign policy is a total failure and it is exactly why Cuba is the way it is. It is why Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, etc are the way they are.."

Actually, Bosque's attitude, so prevalent, is the reason why much of Latin America is the way it is.

Paul 12:43 PM  

"Well, we could always try a carrot approach to Cuban policy, and see if the regime makes any changes."

What's the carrot? How many tax dollars shall we pour down a rat hole? It's not exactly a mystery the US would like to see freedom in Cuba.
Do you think the communists just aren't aware of this?

Boli-Nica 11:41 PM  

I think Obama dumbly kept this box open. First of all, he already said he would meet with enemies, they and our allies got the telegraph - which IMO was a good thing first time around. But, getting sucked into it specifically on TV was bad.

Why? give you one good reason.
It created a "controversial buzz" around Obama all over the largest Latino media markets/voter concentrations. The topic is almost irrelevant, it was the amount of ink and airtime given to a "negative" Obama is playing catch up to Hillary in this demographic, and could get a hard time from McCain - who by virtue of his position on immigration has received a lot of positive airtime. McCain can also expect more coverage since the 3 Cuban-American congressmen and 1 senator who were critical, to his winning Florida, get a lot of national airtime due to immigration.


McCain, of course, would never do anything like this, nor Clinton either, I'd guess, based on last night's and earlier comments. I think Obama is capable of this kind of out-of-the-box thinking though, and we need this approach.

I think you are wrong (and I am an Obama supporter)
McCain was a critical player in helping to restablish relations with Vietnam in the 90's. It was politically risky for president Clinton, and for McCain. Given McCain's 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton, it was the type of statesmanship and outright courage, that few - if any - serving US politicians can claim to.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP