Cuba Libre III: WAITING FOR GO … RBACHEV
Maybe 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. can do to influence change in our neighbor a mere ninety miles away. Maybe we have to just sit by idly and wait.
But contrary to what Mr. Gomez says, I’m not a believer in the mystical power of free trade to topple dictatorships. I don’t think that ending the embargo would lead to an instant dissolution of the regime. Everything Mr. Gomez says could be true. We could open the floodgates and get totally fleeced by the Cuban government. A huge influx of U.S. dollars probably could help the regime survive. American businesses might be willing to invest on Cuba’s terms to get a foothold in the market, even if it means participating in a corrupt system. Perhaps nothing would change.
But I also believe that U.S. engagement in Cuba, through private business interests and public diplomatic efforts, might actually influence how the government behaves. American businesses might actually create incentives through investment for the government to alter its economic policies. If we lift the embargo, even in stages, given our proximity and the certain demand that would arise for American goods and investment, it is possible that we could quickly become indispensable to the Cuban economy. And once you become indispensable, you have influence – something that we completely lack now. Perhaps there would be change.
There I go again with my wishful thinking.
Both Mr. Gomez and I have nothing to go on but assumptions. Neither of us knows what the effect of lifting the embargo would be. We do know, however, what the result of fifty years of maintaining the embargo has been. There has not been a day during that period when this regime was threatened. If the objective is to topple the Castro regime, then it is hard to see the embargo as anything but a spectacular failure. I don’t understand why anyone would think that continuing the embargo is going to have a different result in the next five decades.
So what do we do? How does the U.S. help create the environment for change in Cuba? Right now, without a voice, we are stuck on the sidelines. There is nothing for us to do but hope that a mythical Cuban Gorbachev appears one day on a street corner in Havana and leads a spontaneous march to democracy. That is what Mr. Gomez seems to be suggesting is our best course of action.
I’m not sure that any comparison to Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Union is actually useful, but the connection has been made so I’ll jump on board. The U.S.-U.S.S.R. relationship can be viewed as a classic example of how engagement does not necessarily equate with appeasement. We had full diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R. So when Gorbachev was ready for glasnost, we were ready to support him. Gorbachev himself was a party insider, a man who was deeply embedded within the system we opposed. He was a reformer, not a revolutionary. Gorbachev had a vision for the future of his country that finally held some common ground with ours, and because our policy toward the Soviet Union was constantly and obsessively recalibrated, the U.S. was in a position to react to him. We could have looked at Gorbachev and decided that because the Soviet Union had not undergone a wholesale shift to democracy on his first day in office that he was no different than his predecessors. Look at the new boss – same as the old boss. But we didn’t.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that Raul is Gorbachev. But given our lack of engagement, would we even know if the Cuban Gorbachev exists? If he does appear and opens the door ever so slightly to reform, will we be able to recognize the opportunity and have the political will to assist him, even if Cuba has not yet fully transformed into a democracy? Here’s a crazy idea: maybe if we reach out to Cuba through Cuban-American leaders, through active U.S. diplomats, through American businesspeople, we might encourage that person, Cuba’s Gorbachev, who has been silent up until now, to find the courage to speak out and lead.
So maybe what I’m really arguing for is flexibility. Maybe what I’m in favor of is engagement. Maybe my reaction to a deeply frustrating situation is to turn toward the possibility of a diplomatic strategy that seeks to create opportunities rather than remain determined to only react to concessions.
One thing that Mr. Gomez and I definitely agree on is that the American people don’t spend a lot of time thinking about Cuba anymore. Like I said in my original post, Castro can be ignored. And unfortunately, so can Cuba. U.S. politicians don’t talk much about Cuba either. Despite the flurry of commentary a few months ago when Fidel ceded power and the occasional stump speech on the campaign trail in Florida, Cuba is rarely part of our foreign policy conversations. After all, what is there to discuss when the answer to every question is to maintain the embargo. Why should we talk about doing something about Cuba when there is apparently nothing to be done.
So I ask Mr. Gomez, if we can’t lift the embargo until Cuba undergoes a full transformation, and if the embargo continues to be ineffective in forcing that transition, what is left to us?
You got it. Wishful thinking.
Related posts:
In my previous response I outlined eight conditions that we would require to be in place before lifting the economic embargo. These are:
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.
I have used these eight points to debate the wisdom of lifting the embargo without requiring a quid pro quo from the Cuban government. My question is very simple: Why is it that some folks are willing to play with the lives of the Cuban people without holding their captors to account? What is so wrong, so egregious, about demanding the same rights we have for the people on the island of Cuba? Nobody can argue away any of them. They are basic human rights. So I ask again: Is it misplaced admiration for the regime? Is it intellectual laziness? Or is it that most folks just don’t give a crap about the millions imprisoned on the island?
Why are these eight basic points considered such a “transformation”? We would demand no less.
Comment on September 1, 2008 @ 8:16 am
One day Cuba would be free of Castro and his regime. When that happens people like Moneo and Henry Gomez would think of themself as Hero. In many ways they will think that the Victory over Castro had many things to do with them.
I have news for them. People in Cuba hate Castro, most of them at the very least, but they also hate those whom for years have done nothing other than support an embargo that did nothing for them. The only thing the Embargo have done is make el Difunto Mascanosa a very rich person. The only thing the Embargo have done is gurantee Lincon Diaz Ballart a seat in Congress as well as Ileana Ros.
Comment on September 3, 2008 @ 7:20 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.
Remember that Canada, Great Britain, and other democracies traded with Cuba throughout the years of the U.S. embargo, and continue to do so, without any threat to the Castro dictatorship. Remember all the support that the Soviet Union gave Cuba over the years, much more than the United States ever did. Don’t blame the U.S. embargo for the Cuban people’s suffering. By the way, the Soviets dominated Cuban life in a way America never did.
I have often read that Batista was “right-wing”. Doesn’t part of that mean “anti-Communist”? How is it that the Cuban Communist Party supported him during much of his regime?
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 @ 9:38 am