Cuba Libre: What If Castro Didn’t Matter?
Apparently, Fidel Castro is not dead.
He watched the Olympics and he’s not happy about what he saw. Castro said that Cuban boxers were “robbed” by corrupt officials and he defended the Cuban Tae Kwon Do athlete who kicked a referee in the face.
We’ve been listening to this kind of blather from Castro for five decades now. Maybe it is finally time for the U.S. to stop paying attention to the incoherent ramblings of an ailing former dictator. Granted, the comments about the Olympics lend themselves to ridicule. But unlike the speeches and proclamations that Castro has spouted throughout the years, we now have the luxury of ignoring his words completely.
Maybe it is time to stop basing our Cuba policy on Castro altogether.
I know that there is more to our Cuba policy than our intense dislike of a single leader. But there is something about the U.S. view of Castro and the regime he personifies that is intensely personal, and that unfortunately clouds all policy decisions on Cuba. There is a long and sad history that must be respected, but it must not render us impotent to act.
Unfortunately, lifting the embargo on Cuba will take a supreme act of political courage. It will require bipartisan support in the Congress and a President who can ignore the howls of outrage that will resound after his opening salvo. Neither Clinton or Bush wanted to grab this political third rail. Obama and McCain use different words, but say the same thing: we’ll change after Cuba changes. This is one foreign policy challenge that has broad bipartisan agreement to do nothing.
That’s too bad. There’s an opportunity here. Maybe we just haven’t framed the debate correctly. Candidates need a message that scores applause on the campaign trail. Something that helps us achieve the catharsis we need on Castro. It is unsatisfying to watch him fade away without any consequences. Hit him where it hurts – his legacy and his ego.
Try this argument on for size: Now is our last best chance to stick a thumb in Castro’s eye. Lifting the trade embargo unconditionally would send a clear message to Fidel and the regime he’s leaving behind — You’re just not that important to us anymore.
By maintaining our trade embargo, we allow the regime in Cuba to grant itself a relevance that it does not deserve in the current geopolitical environment. Castro and Cuba have always been defined by allies and enemies in reference to their opposition to the U.S. Cuba is not a security threat to the United States. But because of our unilateral embargo, we continue to provide a symbolic calling card for people like Hugo Chavez. We practically write his talking points for him. If nothing else, a new U.S. Cuba policy could rob Chavez of one of his cherished propaganda stump speeches. Cuba only continues to hold such mystique on the world stage because our policy inflates its importance way beyond the reality.
With the exception of Iran, Cuba is the only country with which we have not reinvented our relationship since the end of the Cold War. A major reason for that is that there has been no change in regime – we are still faced with Castro. But now Fidel is a dying old man. There is still a Castro in charge, but Raul is no spring chicken. They are remnants from a different generation, a different era. Yet, our policy toward Cuba, and therefore our ability to affect any real change in that country, is also locked in the past with them.
So, let’s end the embargo. Let’s normalize relations. Let’s focus on having a voice in Cuba’s development rather than continuing to stay mute because of the past. Let’s continue to pound the regime daily on its human rights and anti-democracy record, but let’s do so from a position of strength with a strong Ambassador who is there to communicate our democratic ideals. Let’s admit that nearly fifty years of the embargo has not worked. Let’s force the new Cuban leaders to redefine their country in a context other than the Cold War.
But, most of all, let’s lay the groundwork to have a real influence on Cuba on that inevitable day when it finally has a leader whose last name is not Castro.
No related posts.
I am an avowed and proud unilateralist who does not believe that “compromise” or “consensus” or “negotiation” or “dialogue” are the proper responses when millions of people are enslaved by a dictator. We would be unanimously in favor of removing economic sanctions against Cuba under the following eight conditions:
1. That all Cuban political prisoners and prisoners of conscience be released immediately and granted an unconditional amnesty.
2. That all Cubans be allowed to move freely within the country.
3. That the existing system of apartheid-like segregation be eradicated immediately, specifically that all Cubans be treated as equals to their foreign counterparts, such as “prominent scholars and artists” from abroad.
4. That all Cubans be granted access to all sources of uncensored information, whether in broadcast, print, or Internet immediately.
5. That all Cubans be granted the freedom to express their opinions freely without fear of repercussions.
6. That all Cubans be allowed to travel abroad freely.
7. That all Cubans be allowed to live, work, and seek a better life for themselves as they see fit.
8. That all Cubans be allowed to elect their leaders through verifiable, transparent democratic elections as allowed for in Cuba’s last legitimate constitution, the Constitution of 1940.
There can be no negotiating with tyranny. Period. I’ll let someone else participate and write a response.
George Moneo
Contributing Writer
BabaluBlog.com
Comment on August 29, 2008 @ 11:41 am
What George said. No slack for tyrants.
Comment on August 30, 2008 @ 5:55 am
“Let’s focus on having a voice in Cuba’s development” How many foreign countries would you like to have a voice in America’s development. Would you mind if the Russians had a voice in your development? How about the British or French? Most Americans would not want any foreign government to have any such voice. But after calling Cuba the enemy for 50 years you are still surprised that the Cubans dont want your voice. It appears they prefer a tyrant to you.
Comment on August 30, 2008 @ 9:15 am
I fully agree with George Moneo’s 8 points. Tyranny in Cuba has gotten a pass from the leftist intelligentsia long enough.
Comment on August 30, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
In my heart I agree with George – it is a recipe for freeing the Cuban people. Yet, not only is it totally unrealistic, ultimately the best policy towards Cuba is one that protects our national interests. Our interest is for a stable Cuba to begin the road to development and democracy. Points 1 – 5 are valid but are will be difficult to monitor once agreed upon by the regime. Nonetheless they are excellent starting points. Point 6 – Allowing Cubans to travel freely abroad is nice but a nightmare just waiting to happen as long as the Cuban Adjustment Act is in force. I would actually add a sub point to 6 and that is for Cuba to comply with the UN Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees the right of exiles to return to their country.
Points 7 is horribly vague and 8 is a non-starter. I’m not even sure we want it. With no concept of civil society a giant leap to democracy could very well bring chaos and a flood of rafts. The question is it worth it for us to push for immediate elections? With too much uncertainty of what may occur it is best for us to assure ourselves the stability of Cuba rather than fight for the immediate adoption of the ideals that we obviously want to see enacted. The fight for a liberal democracy must go on but more importantly American interests must be protected. Elections must be held at some point but requiring Cuba to hold free and fair elections to lift the embargo is unrealistic and unfair. China, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam obviously don’t have free and fair elections. Mexico didn’t have a legitimately free election until 2000. The longest political party to remain in power in the world is not Castro’s commies but the Liberal Democrats of Japan. There have been elections in the West Bank, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia that have not gone our way. Let’s hold off on elections for now.
All that being said, throwing the doors open and normalizing relations without getting anything in return is a violation of Foreign Policy 101. Let’s go ahead and start dealing with Cuba but any opening on our part has to be a calibrated as a response to openings in Cuba – tit for tat. Free political prisoners – allow travel to Cuba, allow a free press – allow exports to Cuba, allow free travel within the island – allow direct investment.
Comment on August 30, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
[...] Henry Luis Gomez is right. My original post is probably no more than wishful thinking. Maybe there really is absolutely nothing that the U.S. [...]
Pingback on September 1, 2008 @ 7:44 am
[...] a wonderful world it would be if we could only wish our troubles away as Michael Landweber thinks we can. He wants the United States to declare victory over Cuba’s Castro regime while at the [...]
Pingback on September 1, 2008 @ 8:31 am
I woked up in front of my TV for two weeks last month every single day. Why? Well blame it on the Olympics. I am sure that many of those that support the embargo did as I. Do they question the validity of the Chinese goverment? Do they favor an embargo of China?
All they doing is the continuation of a failing policy that their parents put in place. I despise Castro, I do but that does not blind me from the fact that these Miami, Babalu Cubans are doing as mch damage to our people as Castro did for over 50 years.
A Cuban with his entire family inthe Island.
Comment on September 3, 2008 @ 7:11 am
I think Julio Calabaza is a recent immigrant from Cuba who likely grew up hearing nothing but anti-U.S. and anti-Cuban exile propaganda from the Castro government. As you know, when you tell a big lie long enough, people will start to believe it. There are likely many in Cuba who think like him – disliking the Castros but suspicious about the exiles who left many years ago, who they have been told intend to return to Cuba, dispossess the natives, and recreate their privileged lifestyles at the expense of the Cuban majority.
I don’t see how that can be done, when most of those who left Cuba in the late 50s and early 60s as adults, the ones who supposedly benefited from the Batista regime, are dead.
I often read that the Batista regime was “right wing”. Doesn’t part of that mean anti-Communist? How is it that he had the support of Cuba’s Communist Party for much of his rule?
I would like to add that any exiles who are filled with bitterness and hatred toward the Castros and anyone else in Cuba you are estranged from should let it go. By holding onto them, you are not only being self-destructive but giving the Castros and others a victory over you. Do the Christian thing and take that victory away by forgiving them. God bless you.
Comment on September 5, 2008 @ 9:27 am