America's Cuba Policy is the "Edsel" of the US Foreign Policy Portfolio

Latin America policy uber diva Julia Sweig chaired a news-making gathering at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington yesterday morning. It was excellent, and the CFR has audio of the entire event here.

In response to a question I posed to Sweig's panel, Obama administration Summit of the Americas point man Jeffrey Davidow fell back on droopy anachronisms while Foreign Policy magazine blogger and best-selling writer and geostrategic interpreter David Rothkopf hit the ball out of the park with his statement:

"US-Cuba policy is the Edsel of American foreign policy."

The full line-up on Sweig's panel included Jeffrey Davidow, White House Adviser for the Summit of the Americas and former US Ambassador to Mexico; Luis Alberto Moreno, President of the Inter-American Development Bank; and David J. Rothkopf, President and CEO, Garten Rothkopf and visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The Summit of the Americas, which President Obama is attending, will convene in Trinidad & Tobago from April 17-19.

After Davidow successfully avoided mentioning the word "Cuba" in his primary remarks on the Obama administration's game plan for the Summit of the Americas, the former US Ambassador to Mexico finally offered in his penultimate exhale an acknowledgment that "Cuba might come up" in the meeting.

And then he finished stating that other "flamboyant personalities may 'flambay'" -- a clear nod to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

When I had a chance to pose a question, I pressed Davidow pretty hard on what he tried to avoid.

The exchange between Ambassador Davidow, David Rothkopf, and myself follows below.

What is interesting and disconcerting is that Barack Obama's point guy on this upcoming Summit gave the unreconstructed, neoconservative-friendly, ideologically vapid, 'unchastened by five decades of embargo failure' answer to my question on Cuba.

Does Obama read the brief that his people are preparing for him on Cuba?

Davidow embraced one of the worst single editorials I have read in years in the Washington Post titled "Coddling Cuba."

And Rothkopf did his part to say that on US-Cuba policy, the American position has no clothes -- and has become completely illegitimate in the eyes of the world and undermines America's own, parochial national interests.

Here is the exchange in full between Sweig, Davidow, Rothkopf, and myself:

Council on Foreign Relations - Washington, DC April 9, 2009

Perspectives on the Fifth Summit of the Americas: Cooperation on Development, Energy, and the Environment

Speakers:
Jeffrey Davidow, White House Adviser for the Summit of the Americas
Luis Alberto Moreno, President, Inter-American Development Bank
David J. Rothkopf, President and CEO, Garten Rothkopf

Presider:
Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Partial Transcript of Q&A Exchange

STEVE CLEMONS, Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation and Publisher, The Washington Note

I would like to just start with what David Rothkopf said about the Cuban embargo, "the beginning of the end" and ask Ambassador Davidow if you would agree with David's perspective on that, or perhaps his assertion.

It's very odd right now when one looks at Senator Richard Lugar and his statements on Cuba that seem to be running politically left of the President. Brent Scowcroft has said recently that Cuba makes no sense at all as a foreign policy problem. Russia's lack of patronage of Cuba has shown that we can't starve Cuba.

So, part of the question is if Barack Obama is the change agent he said, is Cuba more than Cuba? Is it a place where the steps you take there are so symbolic that they can have echo effects geostrategically on other parts of the world?

Or are we leaving this in the same arena where Senator Martinez and others would like to have it which is we are going to create opportunities for a class of ethnic Americans but not look at the broader geostrategic equation?

JULIA SWEIG, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Ambassador Davidow? It's the "four letter word" - not Peru - that you are asked to address now.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY DAVIDOW, White House Adviser for the Summit of the Americas

I will try to answer that question. . .

JULIA SWEIG, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

And other panelists can chime in . . .

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY DAVIDOW

Yes, why don't they!

Look it's obviously a highly contentious issue. From my perspective, a few points to make.

From my perspective, I think it would be unfortunate to lose the opportunity for this hemisphere, at the beginning of the Obama administration, to set down some guidelines and make some progress jointly by getting distracted by the Cuban issue.

Cuba is not an issue for discussion at the Summit if one reads the Summit declaration and the documents on all the past year of negotiation. However, having said that, and given what we are reading in the press, it is probable that it will come up in some way.

The one point that I would respond to in Steve's question specifically is, "Is Cuba something larger than itself?" and the answer is 'yes, it is'.

And I think that whatever the reasons have been in the 1960s for initiation of elements of our Cuban policy, the fact is in today's Hemisphere, Cuba is the odd man out.

Keep in mind that this meeting in Trinidad is a meeting of 34 democratic states.

If we had been talking about a meeting of the hemisphere as little as twenty years ago, it would have been cast in a different light.

There has been a remarkable historical transformation in this hemisphere, and a laudable one, toward democratically elected governments.

We may have difficulty with some of the governments that have been democratically elected, of course, but this Summit is a reunion of countries and presidents, every one of which has been elected by their populations.

There is not one government represented at this Summit whose population would willingly accept the kind of restrictions on their civil, political and human rights that are commonplace in Cuba - and that remain commonplace.

So, I think as we talk about Cuba and talk about how we as a government deal with it and so forth, let's keep in mind that it is something larger than itself, it is in a way a memory of that which existed in the past and a caution of what may exist in the future unless we are totally committed to the question of democracy, human rights and representation of people.

And lest you think, and I'm sure some of you do, that I am some sort of ideologue on this, take a look at the lead editorial in today's Washington Post. Maybe you think they are a bunch of ideologues as well, but I think they say it much better than I do.

So, we have been struggling with Cuba as a nation for close to half a century and there is a real focus on what we should be doing, but to answer the question, it is an important place beyond a small island 90 miles off our shore

DAVID J. ROTHKOPF, President and CEO, Garten Rothkopf

If I may make a couple of brief comments on this- and I am unconstrained by affiliation with the United States government right now - so perhaps they will be in a slightly different direction.

The editorial in today's Washington Post was absurd.

The position of the Florida contingent on this is Paleolithic.

The policy is indefensible on any grounds,

The reality is that Cuba may be special, but you have to ask yourself why it's therefore easier to travel to or do business with the Stalinist, nuclear weapon-toting North Koreans, or whether it's more comfortable for us to be totally economically integrated with the Saudi royal family and their depredations, or if we are concerned about human rights, why are we so integrated with and why are we the sole supporter of a government in Afghanistan that has just made rape in marriage legal and denies women the right to go outside without the approval of their husbands?

So this notion that some how democracy alone is the only criteria that we should use in defining the nature of relationship doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever, and the reality is that only one country that has successfully been isolated by this fifty year embargo, and that is the United States of America.

Our [US-Cuba] policy dates back to the Edsel.

It is the Edsel of American foreign policy.

[END]

David Rothkopf is absolutely right.

Barack Obama has given few indications thus far that he is willing to move a five decade failed relationship forward in a meaningful sense -- with the single exception that he may ironically codify "relaxation" for a class of ethnic Americans in a way that crudely discriminates against all other Americans.

We did not open Vietnam by relaxing travel and remittances for Vietnamese-Americans.

And Obama's team -- for all of the ballyhoo about democracy promotion -- is promoting a policy of the United States government that restricts the American right of free travel anywhere.

I thought that we lived in a real democracy -- and that it was supposed to be Communist governments -- not democracies -- that restricted the travel rights of their citizens.

President Obama is a busy man, but he better take a look at the brief that his team is preparing for him -- otherwise he'll learn too late that he's driving "an Edsel" to the Summit of the Americas.

-- Steve Clemons directs the foreign policy programs of the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Comments

[LizM]

Here is an excellent counterpoint to any criticism of President Obama's position on Cuba, before and after his election..­.always a trustworthy source for words of reason and wisdom...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/04/14/the-last-relic-of-the-cold-war/

[sinope]

What the heck is an Edsel?

[ObjectiveRealist]

quote:
The policy is indefensible on any grounds,

The reality is that Cuba may be special, but you have to ask yourself why it's therefore easier to travel to or do business with the Stalinist, nuclear weapon-toting North Koreans, or whether it's more comfortable for us to be totally economically integrated with the Saudi royal family and their depredations, or if we are concerned about human rights, why are we so integrated with and why are we the sole supporter of a government in Afghanistan that has just made rape in marriage legal and denies women the right to go outside without the approval of their husbands?
/quote

The difference -- the only difference -- is the number and political influence of Cuban refugees, which in turn carries a lot more weight with the general populations because of now-irrelevant history such as the Cuban missile crisis and the eagerness of voters, especially 50+ and low-information voters, to reduce politics to personalities of leaders. Former exiles and refugees from Cuba need to acknowledge that Cuba is not the worst foreign government and no longer the most immediate threat, or entry point of global communism to the United States.

[SOLERSO68]

Im conflicted over cuba. Our policy absolutely sucks and personally id love to be able to travel there On the other hand, would it be in cubas interest to engage in "free trade" with the US? i hate the idea of slimy american capitalists getting back in there, with all their bribe money,and political connections, and royally fvcking up Cuba.

[JoshSN]

Our Cuba policy predates the Edsel by decades.

If the topic is Cuba, I get to point to one of my favorite speeches in American foreign policy.

Stephen Grover Cleveland's 1896 State of the Union had exactly one topic, and which looks at the situation from both the Spanish and rebel sides. "American Interests in the Cuban Revolution" http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gc26.htm

There are so many wonderful gems here, like:

"Many Cubans reside in this country and indirectly promote the insurrection through the press, by public meetings, by the purchase and shipment of arms, by the raising of funds, and by other means, which the spirit of our institutions and the tenor of our laws do not permit to be made the subject of criminal prosecutio­ns."

and

"It has since been and is now sometimes contended that the independence of the insurgents should be recognized. But imperfect and restricted as the Spanish government of the island may be, no other exists there - unless the will of the military officer in temporary command of a particular district can be dignified as a species of government­."

and

"It is urged, finally, that, all other methods failing, the existing internecine strife in Cuba should be terminated by our intervention, even at the cost of a war between the United States and Spain - a war which its advocates confidently prophesy could be neither large in its proportions nor doubtful in its issue. "

[RickCadena]

One very big factor missing from public view is the history of US relations with Cuba throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

After purchasing Florida from Spain in 1819, the US chased after Spain throughout the 19th century trying to buy Cuba and Spain kept saying NO. In 1853, the US offered 133 million dollars, but Spain still said NO. Many people, including me, think that the sinking of the USS Maine in the Havana harbor in 1898 was a trumped up affair, just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, or the Nueces River and Rio Grande river caper in Texas in 1845 that the US used to start the war of 1846-48 and steal half of Mexico's territory on behalf of Manifest Destiny.

Through the Platt Amendment of 1902, the US unilaterally gave itself the right to interfere in Cuban internal affairs, without taking Cuba or the Cuban people into consideration. The US imposed right-wing dictators at will from 1902 up to 1959. There never was democracy in Cuba in the first place. Any attempt made by the Cuban people, mistaken or not, to govern their country in their terms was blocked by the US itself. The embargo imposed on the Castro regime is just another hypocritical chapter in the lousy track record that the US has had with Cuba and Latin America in general.

A change in US policy toward Cuba, Mexico, and Latin America in general, aka the Monroe Doctrine, is long overdue.

[JoshSN]

I don't think comparing Nueces, Tonkin and the Maine flies.

It looks like the Maine was an accident, our accident, that our feverish press quickly, and errantly, blamed on Spain.

In the Gulf of Tonkin our ship was a valid military target. It was reported to Congress and the American people as an unprovoked attack by the Johnson administration.

But Polk provoked the Nueces incident. He knew full well the treaty hadn't been ratified and that by sending troops to that location the result would be a war he wanted.

[SOLERSO68]

it ws our "accident" all right. an intentional accident

[ObjectiveRealist]

All are examples of *trumped up* military actions, portrayed by corrupt United States presidents as aggression against the country, in pursuit of an imperialist and corporatist agenda. The comparison serves its purpose and the differences, though substantive, do not detract one iota from the similarity RickCadena noted, that all were *trumped up* for the sake of escalating military conflict to expand territory, and the profit margins of the worst Americans.

[Robster]

The Vietnamese resisted the US military but said they could not resist our "soft bomb" of capitalism. This would work in Cuba too. Relax relations and get the money flowing and victory will be ours. As they use to say: don't shoot bullets at them, shoot Cadillac’s".

[SOLERSO68]

"cadillacs"??

[ObjectiveRealist]

Anybody who has tried to keep a 1980s Cadillac running knows, nothing will incapacitate your enemies more effectively than giving them Cadillacs!

[magic3400]

I ask this question..­.why is Cuba to bad for Cubans but is just fine for Haitians. Lets face it Castro won.

Here's my 12 step Cuban program:

*Published by Alcoholics Anonymous (slightly modified)

1. We admit we were powerless over CUBA.

2. COME to believe that a PRESIDENT greater than ANY PREVIOUS ONE could restore sanity.

3. MAKE decision to turn our CUBAN POLICY over to the care of PRESIDENT OBAMA.

4. MAKE searching and fearless moral inventory of CUBAN IMMIGRANTS IN FLORIDA.

5. Admitted to ourselves and OTHER NATIONS the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. WHEN ready, have God remove all defects IN OUR CURRENT POLICY.

7. Humbly asked GOD to remove ALL REPUBLICANS FROM DISCUSSION.

8. MAKE a list of all NATIONS we've harmed and make amends to them all.

9. MAKE direct amends to THOSE NATIONS wherever possible, except when to do so would injure NATIONAL PRIDE (oops, scratch that one...that was the old policy).

10. Continue to take inventory OF CUBAN POLICY and when wrong promptly admitted it.

11. SEEK through prayer to improve our conscious contact with God, praying for knowledge TO CHANGE THE CURRENT POLICY.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, carry this message to ALL NATIONS.

And that's my Cuban 12 (err...11 Step Program)..­.Amen.

PS. In case of a Republican victory in 2012, only step 9 will apply!!!

[obamagal]

Well done!

[53YOWF]

Thank you magic 3400; this is hilarious and made me laugh loudly, along with objectiverealist's comment about outfitting Cubans with cadillacs. But I think maybe the ingenious & resourceful Cubans could keep even Cadillacs going that long.

[FearlessFreep]

Compare Washington's treatment of Cuba with its treatment of other dictatorships like China or Saudi Arabia.

Hypocrisy in action.

[obamagal]

Agreed.

Here's another thought. Much has been said about human rights violations in Cuba. Did America not just close black ops locations where torture took place? Pot, meet kettle.

[ChelseaC]

Good point.

[bighat]

It is time to end the embargo with Cuba. In my opinion an embargo either should be enforced (not letting anyone trade with Cuba) or not. Canada and others trade with Cuba. However, when it comes to extending credit that should be up to the companies that sell to Cuba and does not need U.S. govt backing.

We deal with many countries that are more oppressive to their people than Cuba.

We should remove all obstacles away from Cuban travel and trade

[Emlyn]

I think we should to.

[ChelseaC]

I think so too.

[langej]

You don't understand. Cuba is an evil empire that is out to defeat us with their.... with their....w­ith their... well, with their cigars, actually.

PS: We will have normal relations with Cuba as soon a Castro dies. He hurt too many people, many now resident in the USA and the rest Cuban relatives of those living in the USA, to be forgiven. Once he is gone, everyone will agree that the island should be treated like Venezuela or any other tin-pot regime: stop the sanctions, leave them alone and let grow the kind of system they want and deserve. (In the end, all countries have the government they derserve.)

[JoBangles]

FloresdelaHoz,

I guess we're to assume that you support US styled capitalism over Castro's version of Marxism.
But, one has to wonder how Cuba has survived sans US "help". The Cuban people have suffered
for many, many years because of our senseless sanctions. I can't quite understand our warped
foreign policies as it pertains to those we call "enemies". How can depriving innocent people of
the necessities of life be a policy that endears them to us? Isn't that really creating enemies of those people?

It's time to end the insanity, and welcome the Cuban people back from a half century of isolation.
For those who support this sort of madness, I offer this old advise: You catch more flies with honey
than with vinegar.

[hankchifan]

Cuba has survived first with Soviet subsidies and now with Venezuelan subsidies. Their economic system does not work on its own. Although the embargo has hurt them, the real reason for the suffering of the Cuban people is the inefficient economy and the regime's repressive policies. Cuba can buy anything it wants anywhere else. Hopefully we will not be stupid enough to provide ExIm credit guarantees to Cuba business - they are not good repayers of credit. I don't have a problem with lifting of the embargo, but use this leverage to extract the liberation of political prisoners in exchange, and not just some unilateral move.

[jackwaddington]

The US governments of the past 50 years has been trying to destroy any (and all) governments that are not created in the image of the US. This is the bully tack-tick that the US got from the British when you guys broke away. That is now a world consensus of what we ought NOT to be doing to one another as either nations or as individuals. It is part of the gross American conceit.

[jane gutowski]

We were bringing supplies to Kenya when our unarmed ship was overtaken and our planes and ships are surrounding 4 pirates and an innocent man but we dont want to cause a death so we sit there.We let North Korea pop off missiles at us but we do nothing. Iran brags about their build up of nuclear power and supply our enemies but we do nothing. This is bullying?Our country helps any country that needs help and generously sends supplies and people to help but its never good enough. we are called conceited and bullies by people who couldnt last one month in another country .

[jackwaddington]

Jane,
The US has been popping off missiles for years: why can't N. Korea????
The US has been making Nukes (and also Israel) and even using them, yet Iran is not even allowed have a nuclear Power station.
Yes: repeat YES, the US bullies in the most egregious ways. The world knows it, but the citizenry here is brainwashed and doesn't see it ... yet.
These countries you are referring to have been around (and surviving: until the US and the West started exploiting them) for way longer than the US has existed.
Yes: and again I repeat: YOU ARE ARROGANT AND CONCEITED. The reason I know this is that I come from the country that taught you how to be that, before you decided that you'd like to do it on your own.

[rad21]

I think to move forward on Cuba, the administration should just appoint Senator Lugar as their point person on Cuba. This will save the Administration (Obama / Clinton) from the Cuban-American and the "too soft on Communism" charge likely to be banded by the Conservatives. Senator Lugar can use his seniority in the Republican party to bring along the other stodgy Republicans and move forward on the US-Cuban relations.

This should be a no brainier, especially given the opportunities for USA to trade / export to Cuba, something that could really benefit our economy.

[RRK70]

Agree completely. nice post.

[obamagal]

So do I. Good post rad21.

[NABNYC]

The U.S. Anti-Cuba policy is really just another corrupt criminal enterprise which lines the pocket of a few wealthy Cuban-Americans and some politicians in Congress. Here's how it works: some Miami or New Jersey local businessman (bar owner, real estate broker) pays fifty bucks to the state to incorporate a non-profit entity they call "Americans For Freedom," or some other ridiculous name.

Some politicians in Congress introduce a bill to "fund" freedom by giving money to anti-Cuban groups, and get the rest of Congress to authorize let's say $5.0 million. That money is given to these phoney front groups which, in turn, kick-back a percentage to the population. The locals use the balance to buy up real estate, open bars, and get even richer. Then their sons open up new groups called "Americans For Cuban Rights," and they start getting money and paying kick-backs too.

Once a year they gather 20 guys from barstools in the middle of the day and parade around Miami saying "Fidel No, U.S. Si," and the press always covers them as if they represent a "movement.­" Yeah, a movement of taxpayer money into the pockets of politicians and their local co-conspirator front groups.

[obamagal]

Seriously? Wow.

[zest]

I'll bet you could get government money to open an Edsel dealership in Miami.