Election Amnesia: Cuba on My Mind

"Free Mandela!" Check. "Free Sharansky!" Check. "Free Suu Kyi!" Check (sort of). "Free Oscar Elías Biscet!" Who?

With the election in the air, there are many things we've forgotten to remember. But Oscar Elias Biscet isn't one of them because, sadly, we never remembered the good Doctor Biscet in the first place. The election, which could once again hinge on the Florida vote, should be more of a reason to remember this Cuban human rights activist and physician who has been thrown into a coffin-sized cell in the Kilo Cinco y Medio prison and forgotten. But it hasn't turned out that way.

Biscet's crime was that of thinking and expressing the notion that people have basic rights. After founding the Lawton Foundation, which champions "the study, defense, and denunciation of human rights violations inside Cuba and wherever the rights and liberties of human beings are disregarded", he drew the ire of the Castro regime. In 1999 they cracked down, arresting him while on his way to meet with fellow rights activists. Biscet was beaten, tortured, and released. He was picked up a few months later and sentenced to three years, a sentence befitting the crime (in Cuba) of hanging the Cuban flag upside down. A month after his 2002 release he was once again picked up, this time for "disorderly conduct", and slammed with a 25-year sentence that is slowly killing him.

Back in the US, the election has once again awoken the sleeping giant known as Cuban-American relations. Politicians are once again paying lip service to the "Cuban people", Cuban-Americans are once again wielding their impressive political abilities on the national stage, and, once again, any serious discussion of ending America's embargo on Cuba has blown away with the trade winds.

Obama came out quite courageously in 2004 when he said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba". He probably meant what he said at the time but, according to the Washington Post, by 2007 Mr. Obama was staring into the opened eye of the still half-sleeping giant and thought it wiser to hit the snooze button. So, at a rally for Cuban-Americans in Florida in August, 2007, he said he would not end the embargo since it's "an important inducement for change."

Needless to say, McCain (and Hillary, for what it's worth) never came anywhere close to this position. As recently as May, McCain was going on about the need to keep the embargo since he believes that "we should give hope to the Cuban people, not to the Castro regime" -- whatever that means.

Strangely, though, both candidates are partially right, but for totally wrong reasons. The history of the embargo is, surprisingly, a bilateral history. In the early "Fidelistas" days of the Castro regime, the US was still tentative about what its policies might be regarding the island. It was like two chess players trying to convince the other to move first. Well, it turns out, Castro didn't need that much convincing. His opening move was the confiscation of 3 million acres of American-owned farmland, which he quickly followed up with by forcing US oil refineries on the island to process Soviet oil. Finally, he just took those refineries for himself. And all this before Castro and the regime were officially (or even unofficially) communist.

The embargo hurts the Cuban people. Does it strengthen or weaken the regime? Who knows. A case can be made both ways. But for all the talk in the US about ending the embargo, there's no real discussion, since no one is serious about ending it. Be that as it may, there's not even talk, let alone discussion, about the one issue that would not only improve the lives of Cubans, almost without question, but also work towards weakening, or, I should say, democratizing the regime.

With the mainstream American media famously in love with Fidel, the Cuban people have gotten pushed aside as if they were Castro's ugly stepchildren. The result is that while today you can't throw a Nalgene bottle in the Bay Area without hitting a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker or t-shirt, no one really knows or cares about what's going on in Cuba, aside from the fact that an embargo exists. But the path to ending the embargo (which is really just a step on the path to helping our Cuban neighbors acquire the amount of freedom and prosperity they actually deserve) begins with getting the thousands of Cuban prisoners of conscience out of jail. One Dr. Biscet on the Cuban street is worth a hundred jabbering congressmen in the American political bush.

In this sense, the process of ending the embargo should be a bi-lateral one. With the resignation of Castro and the possibility for political change on the US horizon, the chess players are back at the board. Cuba must understand that if it frees its political prisoners (and keeps them free), the US will respond in kind, cutting back on the more draconian restrictions placed on the island. And the US must understand that it both can and should motivate this kind of change.

There can be nothing more tragic for a political prisoner than the realization that not only has nothing changed, but no one has cared. The US, it seems, is changing and Cuba can change with it. People at the next political rally in Florida should forget screaming either in support of or in opposition to the embargo and join together with a more simple, more effective, and ultimately more democratic call: Free Dr. Biscet.

Comments

[stucky]

Mr. Rindsberg's post rightly points out a critical issue which we are sometimes too quick to comment on. To what extent does the embargo actually weaken the regime? In reality, most of us just can't know. On this basis, there are other elements of Cuban policy which make sense to work on, for both sides of the aisle. Rindsberg's post would serve well any congressional or presidential speechwriter. Criticizing the regime, supporting dissidents, while easing some of the restrictions we impose on the Cuban street can be pursued simultaneously.

[Chickpealover]

Finally someone is writing about issues during this silly election! I wish Mr. Rindsberg would compare our relationship with China to Cuba and show the hypocrisy. And I agree - while I don't like Biscet's abortion stance, it is irrelevant to the issue. Nat Hentoff also doesn't support abortion and he's the most important Human Rights writer in the U.S.

[walterlx]

Ashley Rindberg omits to mention that Dr. Biscet is an anti-abortion fanatic. Cuba is the only country in Latin America where women have the right to decide whether or not to bear children.

Mainstream US media in love with Fidel? What's Rindberg been reading, National Review?

[AshleyR]

Waleterlx,

It's true that Biscet is anti-abortion. But what does that mean for him in terms of being imprisoned for human rights activism? That he should be jailed despite his human rights work but because of his abortion stance?

The reason I didn't write about his abortion stance is because it's not relevant to Dr. Biscet's imprisonment. What I'd say on this particular issue is give Cuban people the right to vote for their own government, first, and then let them decide as a country what they'd like to do about abortion. My guess is that they'd let the law stand.

[plato651]

It will be very interesting to see how swiftly the U.S. embargo is lifted now that 20 billion + barrells of oil has been discovered in Cuba. Many investors from around the world are already salivating at the very idea of more profits. When it comes to profits, American companies and their politicians put all politics aside. The US foreign policy stance will have to evolve with the status quo in regards to CUBA There are many other nations willing to disregard the US stance toward Cuba in exchange for oil exploration, exportation, and development access. Especially considering the weakened position in the United States. Ironically, the divisive nature of the current presidential/congressional races is only showcasing to the rest of the world the great ideological division in the United States. It is time for diplomacy and humane relationships with the rest of the world. Cuba would be a good starting point.

[AshleyR]

Good point. America does tend to act like a junky when it comes to oil -- enemies one day, friends the next. Or both at the same time. I wonder how the emerging push to real conservationism and environmentalism will affect the dynamic between Cuba and the US.

Venezuela is also interesting in this sense. Stratfor touches on the issue:
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20081015_venezuela_danger_lower_oil_prices

Relates to my previous post on America's enemies being affected by the downturn:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ashley-rindsberg/american-respite_b_134481.html