Time to Retire America's Failed Cuba Policy
This is the event that fifty years of U.S. policy was designed to stop.
Fidel Castro has announced his retirement. He will be replaced in a peaceful succession, without the violent upheaval that U.S. policy makers have been predicting since the 1960s.
Now that Fidel Castro has announced his retirement, it's time to retire our Cold War era Cuba policy. It failed.
Every U.S. president since Eisenhower has tried to kill or topple Fidel Castro and replace Cuba's government and economic system with something more to our liking. They never succeeded.
It was the express purpose of the U.S. embargo, with sanctions more comprehensive than any we impose on Iran, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria to stop this transition. But it couldn't.
For years, the U.S. embargo has been rebuked in lop-sided votes in the U.N. General Assembly. On October 30, 2007, when we were last drubbed by a margin of 184 to 4 (and one abstention), not a single country in South America, Central America or the Caribbean supported our policy. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, three countries praised by President Bush one week earlier for their support of U.S. policy against Cuba, joined the condemnation -- so did Afghanistan, the United Kingdom, and South Africa, a nation whose democracy was born with the help of U.S. sanctions.
As the Cuba embargo sullies our image around the world, it undermines the national interest and our highest values here at home. The embargo sacrifices the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel. It cruelly divides Cuban families on both sides of the Florida straits. Trade sanctions cost U.S. businesses about $1 billion annually, and deny U.S. citizens access to vaccines and other medical treatments. Enforcing the embargo drains resources from the war on terror. By isolating the American people from the Cuban people, we stop our citizens from doing what Americans do best; we can't offer Cubans our support or our ideas, and we're unable to benefit from what they could offer us.
I have been to Cuba close to thirty times in the last seven years and I have spoken to Cubans of every stripe -- fans of the revolution and diehard opponents of President Castro.
Cubans by their nature have vastly divergent opinions, except on one fundamental point: it is Cubans living on the island -- not politicians in Washington, not their kinsmen in Miami -- who must decide for themselves what happens next in Cuba. They cherish their sovereignty, they reject violence and instability, and they want the United States to respect those values as much as they do, especially now that they can see a future past President Fidel Castro and beyond the 50th year of their revolution.
There is a debate happening in Cuba right now, triggered by Raúl Castro on economic reform that is remarkable in its sweep. Leaders have spoken to us with unusual candor about the inability of Cubans to keep pace with prices, but they are committed to raising living standards in ways that are consistent with the preservation of Cuba's political system. We have to have clear minds about their intentions for this debate, its limits, and where it might lead.
Now would be a perfect time to send the long overdue signal that the United States is no threat to Cuba's national security, that we honor the aspirations of average Cubans, and that we are capable of having a constructive relationship with their government.
If President Bush cannot answer the call to history that has been issued in Havana, perhaps his successor will respond with greater imagination when he or she takes office in Washington next year.
People here should not misunderstand this historic moment: the Cubans we know, even determined political opponents of Fidel Castro, are proud of their country, proud of its accomplishments, and persuaded that only Cubans in Cuba -- not politicians in Washington or hardliners in Miami -- have the right and responsibility to determine their own destiny. We owe them that opportunity, now more than ever.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What's curious, is that despite the embargo, and in light of Cuba's undemocratic status, they are vastly ahead of most Central and South American countries. There's leass poverty, better healthcare, less crime, and a higher literacy rate in Cuba than El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Honduras, Ecuador, and Peru.
It seems that the embargo is working, for Cuba. It's no secret the disaster NAFTA has been for Mexico's agrarian community. CAFTA will likely also have a similar effect on Central America. Lest we turn Cuba into a mindless consumerist state with a devalued sense of morals, perhaps a limited trade policy with Cuba will do.
We need to staop treating Latin Americans as our inferiors. That's the whole problem in a nutshell. We would never push around a majority white nation the way we do the majority Indian-African nations of the Carribean and Central America.
(gasp!) But...but...but they ARE inferior! They ain't AMERICANS!!!
If only the American media will as honest and objective as you.
.
the fact is that, in whatever condition, cuba has survived the past fifty years without any kind of involvement with the united states. as ms stephens says, the sanctions against cuba have been "more comprehensive than any we impose on Iran, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria..."
i am a pakistani and am painfully aware of the high cost of "friendship" with the united states.
cubans might well hope that the u.s. maintains its belligerent stance towards their country. that stance may actually have been the best thing that happened to them! my (far from infallible) instinct tells me that "normalisation of ties" would be of no benefit to the cubans, and would just end up turning cuba into a begging bowl-wielding client state.
.
More likely, it would result in it becoming a fully-owned subsidiary of U.S. corporate interests.
Still, we need to normalize relations.
This STUPID Cuba 'punishment policy' still has 'hidden reasons' that have NOT yet been exposed. The EASY explanations for continued embargo that've been thrown at us over the years have just never added up. We can see for ourselves that the trade sanctions have ONLY ever hurt an already VERY poor people, and NOT Castro or his Government.
It's time to end OUR country's INSANE status-quo and blind-eye policies EVERYWHERE, especially those that recklessly HARM human beings ANYWHERE, ...for corporate profit margin$.
Iraq was actually NO threat to the USA, and NEVER part of the war on terror.
Cuba is even less threat - than Iraq was.
Irrational and illogical policies are MOST likely born of extensive corporate and industry BRIBERY, er...I mean, LOBBYING. It's a Pandora's Box that needs to be CLOSED forever.
Every US politician that has suggested changing our policy with Cuba has run into a buzzsaw of opposition from Cuban exiles in the US. So the ultimate question is...what does the cuban exile community think of Raul Castro and is there anything that Raul can do to change it?
Really, what does it matter what the Cuban exile community thinks? They left the country. All that matters is what the CUBAN people think.
A democratic election would probably be a huge blow to the ex plantation owners of America. The anti castro people are not there to vote. Maybe, since Fidel and Raul have children, they will follow the example of our staunchest ally, the Faud family of Saudi Arabia. Now there's a democratic nation that can barbq in Crawford whenever they want.
Exactly. My ancestors left Ireland because the British ruling class were more opressive than Castro could ever dream of being. So did they have any say as to what kind of government the U.K. should have? Do I have any say in Rep. of Ireland affairs?
let's get this straight: boycotting apartheid South Africa was good, boycotting communist dictatorship is bad. Makes perfect lefty sense.
Kundera. Since you dont boycot China i dont understand your argument.
Boycotting South Africa was right because it worked; boycotting Cuba is wrong because it hasn't worked. Simple enough?
Yes, a government that opresses its citizens based on race needs to be boycotted. A nation that uses a different economic system than ours should be left alone if we don't like it. That DOES make perfect sense.
"Now would be a perfect time to send the long overdue signal that the United States is no threat to Cuba's national security, that we honor the aspirations of average Cubans, and that we are capable of having a constructive relationship with their government."
Unfortunately, The United States IS a threat to Cuba's national security... and you DON'T honor the aspirations of Cubans, and you're NOT capable of having a constructive relationship. All the US government is interested in Cuba is allowing the American multi-national companies back into Cuba to rape and pillage the island and exploit the people. That's what the US does. The US is not a benign neighbor, it is hostile to anything that remotely smells like socialism.
Yes, the sanctions should be lifted, and the US should keep it's nose out of Cuban affairs and let the country chart it's own course. Really though, the chances of the US having a hands off policy about Cuba is slim to none.
Don't forget letting the Mafia back in Cuba.
When Cuba was liberated from the Spanish, the US saw to it that a white republic maintained power and stuffed the Platt Amendment down their throat. The revolution 60 years later (1959) remembered this as they remember it now. Cuba was to be an American Vassal and their various resources exploited.
If it were not for the fact that Cuba's defiance of our "Manifest Destiny" has prevailed for 50 years - relations would probably be different. In other words, had Castro been backed by the US and allowed to offer limited freedoms under the guise of preventing another "black republic" like Haiti (a real issue as regarded rebel support prior to the Spanish-American War) - we'd be the best of friends. Presidents would have said of Castro, "he's my kind of guy" - much as Clinton described the genocidal Indonesian dictator Suharto.
We'd have resort hotels filled with American lawyers in love.
:)
from what i understand, before castro cuba did have "resort hotels filled with American lawyers in love."
Yep, and the guys carrying their bags, and bringing their drinks got tired of watching them banging their sisters.
Then there was the cheap labor issues while the resources were being extracted at a tidy profit.
More like mobsters in love.
Run by the mafia may I add who were treated as good will embassadors from the States.
As Jeff Spicoli said when they were learning about the Platt Amendment--"learning about Cuba and eating some food."
We don't need Cuba. So we can afford to marginalize and bully them.
Did you see what happened the minute North Korea exploded a nuke? They got paid off bigtime.
The USA specializes in beating up on the weak like poor helpless Iraq. Then they crow about their "victory".
I said this about Iraq. I said this about Iran. I'll say this about Cuba. Much of America's foreign policy is based on little more than *spite*. If America's fragile ego was bruised 10, 20, or 50 years ago America will hold a grudge. I'm losing track - are we STILL supposed to despise the French after snubbing Bush's push for war with Iraq in '02?
America's policy toward Cuba is, and has been since 1959, schizophrenic. We purportedly want to condone and encourage democracy there, but forbid steps which might make that happen (restoration of trade, exchange of diplomats, etc.). We're letting a relatively small group of people (Cuban exiles) have entirely too much power in deciding how to relate to Cuba. Castro has survived 10 U.S. presidents and almost 50 years of power, and while Raul may make some changes, Cuba will still be Cuba. We may now have an opportunity to change things. Stephens suggests we take it, and I agree.
As a Republican and hard-boiled capitalist, I consider the Administration's hypocrisy toward Cuba injurious to our trade interests in Latin America, not to mention un-Constitutional to Americans who seek trade with other parts of the world. Further, Cuba has not only one of the best educated and highly skilled labor forces in our hemisphere, but shares our culture and religious backgrounds.I am particularly keen to introduce my product line there in the near future. Like everything else he did, Bush and his cronies hijacked American enterprise as well.
"Further, Cuba has not only one of the best educated and highly skilled labor forces in our hemisphere"
hehe not often you see a "Republican and hard-boiled capitalist" praise the results of a socialist government. Think about that for a while and you might begin to see the world in a different way.
I agree 100% with this article. Sort of like dogma that comes out of the Vatican, U.S. policy is woefully slow to change. The embargo grew out of Castro's refusal to bow down to the U.S. If communism was the issue, we would have santions against and travel restrictions to Vietnam and China. The fact that this is not the case shows the real reason.It has everything to do with Cuba's stance independent of the U.S. a stance he is applauded for throughout Latin America. The trade embargo has done nothing to weaken Castro's position. It has caused great suffering amongst the people of Cuba but somehow they survived. We must end the embargo and travel restrictions and normalize relations at once.
We have extensive trade and political relations with PRC, Russia, Vietnam, all with serious human rights issues, and far worse than Cuba. Still this is a happy day for the world and especilly the Cuban people.
We are going to have to develop a gradual normaliztion of trade and political relations with Cuba, starting with allowing US Citizen and residents to travel to Cuba for family and tourism reason without any special visas or other restrictions. That would allow our ideas of human rights to seep in. We should demand the release of non-violent political prisioners. In turn we should allow legal importation of Cuban cigars as well other farm products as well as allowing our farmers to export our food products to Cuba. I doubt we will allow sugar to be imported due to protections of our farmers. Then we could import all those old American cars to collecters here and sell our used cars and parts there. We should end immediatly the 'wet foot/dry foot' rule of people to enter the USA from Cuba but allow an expansion of legal immigation to the USA.
Two critical issues will need to be resolved before full relations. One is the state of the USA military base and the terrorist prison on Gitmo. If relationships are normalized, we may have to leave that base and more importantly, shut down the rogue 'terrorist' prison there and bring the prisioners to the USA proper with it's implications. The second will be the return of property to USA citizens, corporations and ex-citizens seized by the Cuban government under Castro.
I suspect that the Presidental Canidates will still pander to the too noisy and tiny number of ex-Cubans as to our relationship with Cuba.
"That would allow our ideas of human rights to seep in"... What makes you think the Cubans want the American Idea of human rights? You Americans don't have the best track record on such things.
"The second will be the return of property to USA citizens, corporations and ex-citizens seized by the Cuban government under Castro. "
To me thats the whole reason for the embargo. As long as economic progress is not made the idea is to restore pre revolutionary ownership of everything that has any value. It will be like what happened in Germany during the uniting of East and West 15 years ago but on a much grander scale. The Cubans will be screwed of course but who cares about what happens to them?
As I recall, Batista couldn't win an election so he was put into place by the U.S. and the Mafia. After 7 years of numbers, prostitution and other wonderfulness, the Cubans were so miserable that Castro and his folks won the fight. Then when Castro asked for help from the U.S., John Foster Dulles, total right winger and Mafia friend wouldn't allow Castro to meet with Ike. The Soviet Union saw a way to establish a foothold just offshore from us.
It was a similar situation with Ho Chi Minh. After WWII Truman was so overcome with learning the situation that was happening that he couldn't deal with Indochina even with Ho Chi Minh asking for help. Also, the U.S. was asked by France to "help restore law and order". Thus, eventually the Vietnam War.
Dajo has the right idea. Instead of sending Bush and his traitorous criminal cronies to Fort Leavenworth to pay for the evil they have done - Gitmo would be grand.
When the US backed Castro it was not with altruistic goals, the big money boys wanted Batista and the thugs that were running the casinos out so they could take over the very profitable enterprise themselves.
Didn't work out that way since Castro nationalized everything and set up a communist form of government. Sorry about that.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
