Talk Talk

It's Saturday, and I've made my weekly visit to Watching America. There weren't any surprises. Most of the articles selected were responses to the current Nobel Peace Laureate's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. One article, however, took on a different subject, that of normalizing US relations with Cuba..

From Honduras' La Prensa:

U.S. President Barack Obama reassured the Cuban blogger, Yoani Sánchez, that he wishes “increased respect for the human rights and for political and economic freedoms” for the island, as stated today in her blog, “Generation Y.”

In response to the inquiry Sánchez wrote to him, Obama also stated that he supports a direct dialogue with the Cuban administration presided over by General Raúl Castro, but doesn’t want to “talk just for the sake of talking.” ...

Obama told Sánchez that his “administration is ready to establish diplomatic ties with the Cuban government in a couple of mutual interest areas,” as has been done in the talks regarding immigration issues and direct mail.

“It is also my intent to facilitate greater contact with the Cuban people, especially among divided Cuban families, which I have done by removing U.S. restrictions on family visits and remittances,” the president added. ...

“We have already initiated a dialogue on areas of mutual concern—safe, legal, and orderly migration, and reestablishing direct mail service. These are small steps, but an important part of a process to move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new and more positive, direction.”

Now, I suspect a lot of people are going to be surprised that Cubans not only have access to the internet but also can have blogs. That doesn't fit the picture painted for us over the last fifty years. Me, I was surprised that President Obama, or one of his staffers, took the time to respond to Ms. Sanchez' inquiry. After all, this has been an extraordinarily busy eleven months for the White House. Even I have to admit that the mere fact that a response was made is gratifying.

President Obama has in fact initiated some positive changes in our relations with Cuba, even if they are "small steps." What Mr. Obama is calling for, however, is some movement from the Cuban government, especially in the area of human rights, before going further, and that is disappointing.

No such pre-conditions are in place with respect to other nations with human rights issues. We deal regularly with some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, among them China, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other nations in the Middle East. We even partner with them when it is in our economic and military interests to do so. The reasons usually given for such endeavors is that by engaging those nations in mutually beneficial projects we set the stage for substantive talks on the issues that worry us. Why should our relations with Cuba be any different?

Mr. Obama has done more than any administration since the Cuban Revolution to re-engage that island nation simply by talking to them on the limited issues mentioned in his reply to the blogger. Good on him. Now, however, it's time to move further and without any strings attached.

In other words, it's time for him to actually earn his Nobel Prize.

Engage

With all the horrific news of the weekend, it was encouraging to find one bit of sunshine: the relationship between the United States and Cuba is actually beginning to thaw, if only a little.

From the Washington Post:

Cuba has agreed to restart talks with the United States on immigration and has signaled its willingness to cooperate on issues including terrorism, drug trafficking and even mail service, a sign that the island's communist government is warming to President Obama's call for a new relationship after decades of tension, U.S. officials said Sunday. ...

The announcement of the talks could take the edge off what was shaping up as a battle over Cuba at a regional meeting of foreign ministers that Clinton is scheduled to attend Tuesday in Honduras. The ministers have been considering readmitting Cuba into the Organization of American States, the main forum for political cooperation in the hemisphere, for the first time since 1962.

While the restarting of these talks is a small step, it is significant. The Bush administration broke off talks on immigration in 2003 and there have been no formal contacts between the two nations since then. The timing is just as important. Latin America has evidenced its displeasure with the US insistence on isolating Cuba, and it was clear that much of the upcoming OAS meeting was going to be taken up with ways to increase the pressure on the US to roll back the economic sanctions imposed on Cuba.

What I consider to be the most important impact of the announcement is, however, a recognition of the change in US foreign policy with respect to Latin America, an area of the world pretty much ignored by the prior administration except when it came to jamming free trade agreements down the throats of various hemispheric neighbors.

...Obama pledged at a regional summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April that he would seek "an equal partnership" with Latin American leaders rather than dictating to them. [Emphasis added]

Admittedly, the Obama administration will have to tread carefully. There are still elements in this country which want no lessening of the isolation imposed on the Castro government decades ago, some of them with key positions in Congress. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will have to deal with the tough issue of human rights violations by the Cuban government. That said, human rights violations, including the imprisonment of dissidents, haven't stopped our engagements with other nations with poor records (China, Saudi Arabia), and it shouldn't stop engagement with Cuba, especially at this stage.

This is the kind of change I had hoped for. To see it come to fruition is encouraging.

It's about time.

Other People's Government

Positive developments in the direction of letting go of the failed embargo on Cuba are really welcome. It is past time for the U.S. to haul in its military and 'intelligence' in the operations of other countries. The posture that President Obama has taken of learning, not skulking about being divisive, makes that possible to hope for.

As Diane noted earlier this week,The only ones who have gained under the embargo have been the emigre enclave in Florida and their bought and paid for politicians, giving them far more political power per capita than any group in the nation.

Our role as a self-proclaimed 'leader of the free world' was never good for this country. Now it is counterproductive. In the previous maladministration, our powers were so misused that any interference has become yet another expression of ignorant aggression. Michael Kinsley, writing in WaPo, has a few good observations about our misapprehensions that lasted for decades, a disservice to the country.

If you want to test a proposition about, say, the relationship between democracy and free trade, you can't just set up a bunch of countries to experiment with. You have to take what you find, and there will always be some exception or complication to defeat your pretensions to science.

For the past four decades, however, we have been conducting something pretty close to a scientific experiment on one of the most important practical questions the world has ever faced. This question has dominated American politics, off and on, for almost a century. We have conducted this experiment at no small cost and have ruthlessly ignored the results. The question is: What is the best way for free nations to defeat totalitarian regimes in general and communism in particular?

Communism was never a monolith. Even in its heyday it came in lots of flavors. There was Tito's Yugoslavia, which always kept a foot outside the Iron Curtain and turned out to be 150 or so countries united only in their loathing of one another. There was China, the subject of Americans' most paranoid Cold War fantasies and now the subject of paranoia of exactly the opposite sort. There was Albania, a black hole from which no information could escape. There was the romantic Latin flavor that was more about the revolution itself than about nationalizing the means of production.

And from 1917, when Russia went communist, to 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, the United States tried almost every conceivable variety of policies toward these various styles of communist nations. Sometimes we were hostile; sometimes we were friendly. We had summits, we had boycotts. We launched secret wars in Latin America, made secret visits to China, tore apart our own society through wars in Vietnam and Cambodia that can still break up a dinner party. (It's like arguing about the Civil War in 1905.)

To this day, there is one communist country toward which American policy has been unrelentingly hostile. One communist government with which we have never even attempted detente. One communist country that we invaded without even a fig leaf of an invitation from a legitimate government. One communist country where we have never tried the seductive power of capitalism and instead have maintained a total trade embargo. And now, 20 years after communism collapsed almost everyplace else, in this same country a communist government survives unreformed and unapologetic.

If any conclusion can be drawn with scientific certainty about any question in the field of political science (or maybe it belongs to "international relations," an even fuzzier academic subdivision), it surely is that the United States' Cuba policy has not worked.

Just as the war criminals in the White House over eight years of misrule insisted that they attacked Iraq because of WMDs, and al Qaeda was active there before their invasion, the increasingly ludicrous mandate was maintained - that direct shipping to Cuba would support an enemy government there. As our invasion in the Middle East invigorates dissidents there, our blind continuation of hostilities toward Castro's government does Castro no end of good in the eyes of his supporters. The beginnings of new world wisdom that President Obama is displaying gives hope that we can begin tunneling back out of the hole we've dug our country into.

Wisdom instead of belligerence would be a 180 degree turnaround that the U.S. badly needs.

It may be that our country can join with our neighbors to the south instead of endlessly trying to insert our puppet governments where their own choices should be respected.

Another Call To End The Embargo

President Obama will be leaving shortly for the Summit of the Americas, an important official contact with the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean. For eight years, our nation's relationship with our hemispheric neighbors have been strained because of neglect and the misbegotten war on drugs. The only time the Bush administration made any real effort in diplomacy with these neighbors was to push through "free trade" agreements, many of which sold out the working people of those nations and ours.

There is another issue, however, which has estranged the US from Latin America, one that has been around for even longer, and that is the economic embargo imposed on Cuba. By all accounts, that embargo has been a failure. The Castro regime has remained in power for fifty years now. The only ones who have suffered under the embargo, the citizenry of Cuba, have not been moved to "throw off the shackles of the communist dictatorship."

The only ones who have gained under the embargo have been the emigre enclave in Florida and their bought and paid for politicians, giving them far more political power per capita than any group in the nation. Well, those Cuban emigres and other nations who have cheerfully ignored the embargo, such as China.

It's time for a change in US policy in Cuba, and President Obama would do well to seize the moment and move for such a change, even if only incrementally. An op-ed piece written by Elizabeth Morrow, a graduate student at Tufts University, for the Boston Globe explains why it would not only be the right thing to do, it would also be the smart thing to do.

While the US government refuses to engage in trade with Cuba (though not China, a communist country that unquestionably poses a much greater threat than Cuba and its 11 million inhabitants), firms from Europe, Asia, and Latin America are signing lucrative contracts. Chinese oil companies have signed contracts to drill for oil in Cuban waters; not only are American firms prevented from bidding for these contracts, creating an economic loss, but offshore drilling is extremely risky environmentally. These waters are less than 100 miles from the Florida coast: if US companies were drilling, they would be accountable not only to their shareholders, but also to residents of the Gulf of Florida, who will be affected by any environmental fallout. The same argument can be adapted to construction companies, mining firms, and pharmaceutical outfits operating in Cuba: the self-exclusion of US companies from the Cuban market negatively affects both our economy and our security. ...

The United States cannot afford to maintain its embargo of Cuba, or its reckless immigration policy. We are in an economic crisis, but excluded from a market 90 miles off our coast, while other foreign entities sign lucrative contracts. We endanger the environmental security of the Gulf of Florida by not engaging with Cuba, with whom we share the waters, and instead leave this task to the Chinese. We create a profitable industry for smugglers, and distract the Coast Guard from dealing with the much more dangerous threats posed by drug smuggling and terrorism.

Common sense, buttressed by a rational argument with real facts: how refreshing is that? Ms. Morrow's column should be mandatory reading at the White House, the State Department, and the 111th Congress. And they all should take it seriously.

Kudos to both Elizabeth Morrow and to the Boston Globe for printing her piece. More like this please, even if it has to be via a samizdat medium.

That Cuba Visit

Recently a congressional delegation paid a visit to Cuba and met with both Fidel and Raul Castro. One of the more interesting articles on that visit was published by Cuba's El Economista de Cuba. The op-ed piece is one man's reflection on that visit and earlier visits by the Congressional Black Caucus. That man was Fidel Castro. Via Watching America:

...The first delegation of the caucus to visit us was led by Maxine Waters, in February 1999; the second, in January of 2000. ...

In May of 2000, another delegation from the caucus visited us, led by the person who was then their leader, James Clyburn of North Carolina, with Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, and Gregory Meeks of New York. These congressmen were the first to receive my gift from Cuba of scholarships for young people of low income for the purpose of studying medicine in our country, students who would be selected by the C.B.C. We made the same offer to the NGO, Pastors for Peace, led by Reverend Lucius Walker, who sent the first students to the Latin America School of Medicine.

The visits essentially stopped after George W. Bush took office and his administration tightened the restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba. The Congressional Black Caucus did not simply walk away from Cuba during those years, however. When those students sent to study at the Latin America School of Medicine were about to have their training interrupted by the new rules, the C.B.C. went to then Secretary of State Colin Powell and urged an exception for them. To his credit, Mr. Powell effectively interceded and persuaded the White House to allow the students to continue to study in Cuba.

Mr. Castro then proceeded to reflect on the current visit and what the US delegation did, saw, and said, and what that could mean for future American-Cuban relations. Apparently some members of the delegation were frank about the chances of President Obama lifting the economic embargo against Cuba (slim to none), but one senses that the aging Castro still maintains hope that improved relations would lead to such a move, if not in President Obama's first term, then perhaps in the second.

Although the glowing report of the poor but well-educated, well-fed, and healthy Cuban populace presented by Mr. Castro is no doubt some of the old Fidel's rhetoric, his reflections are a valuable piece of history. Those reflections also provide a perspective that has never really been fairly presented in this country.

Perhaps Mr. Castro's optimism that there will be a change in US policy leading to normal relations between the two nations is well-founded, especially now, with a president and a congress looking for a real change in foreign policy. If that is the case, we can thank the Congressional Black Caucus for their efforts over the past ten years.

A Baby Step In The Right Direction

According to the NY Times, President Obama is set to announce an easing of some restrictions with respect to Cuba.

President Obama plans to abandon longstanding restrictions on family travel and remittances to Cuba, an administration official said Saturday, fulfilling a campaign promise in a pivotal swing state and signaling a possible warming of relations with the Castro government.

As the article notes, Congress wants to go further and lift all restrictions on travel to Cuba for Americans. Neither the White House nor Congress, however, are willing to even discuss the lifting of the trade embargo against the small island nation just 90 miles offshore, and that's a shame.

The embargo hasn't worked. It didn't cause the Cuban citizenry to rise up and throw off the shackles of the Castro dictatorship, it just made them poorer. The current policy will stay in place until the Cuban government responds in some way to the easing of restrictions to be announced by the White House. While that may be how real politic is played, it is unfortunate and certainly inconsistent with a great deal of US foreign policy the last 40 years.

We don't have a trade embargo on China or Saudi Arabia, yet neither country is exactly a shining example when it comes to human rights. We never imposed economic sanctions or cut off diplomatic relations with the military dictatorships in Latin America when their leaders were busy "disappearing" their citizens. The difference, of course, is that Cuba is tiny, poor, doesn't have much in the way of oil or any other desired commodity, and it is communist.

Those other countries also don't have a sizable emigre community concentrated in an electoral swing state. At this point in history, however, the Castro brothers are aging and so is the current Cuban American leadership. I suspect that President Obama is mindful of the imminent changing of the guard, and this first, cautious step is a way to open the door just a crack.

It's only a baby step, but at least it's movement. For that I guess we should be grateful.

Whoa, Surprising!

Well, smack me upside the head with a fresh halibut and call me Hanna. A Republican has gone on record for taking a few steps towards normalizing relations with Cuba.

Restrictive U.S. policies toward Cuba are ineffective, have failed to achieve their stated purpose of promoting democracy and should be reevaluated to take advantage of recent political changes on the island, according to the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The views of Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) are appended to a report by minority committee staffers that calls for lifting Bush administration restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, reinstituting formal bilateral cooperation on drug interdiction and migration, and allowing Cuba to buy U.S. agricultural products on credit. Scheduled for release Monday, the report stops short of proposing that the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba be lifted.

I anticipate great amounts of fevered fanning and pearl clutching from some segments of the Grand Ol' Party, but I also think the pragmatists still hanging around in those parts won't be too terribly upset, especially by the part that recommends loosening of the agricultural trade restrictions. And pragmatists in both parties have to be aware that there are some significant shifts on the horizon when it comes to leadership in Cuba as well as shifts in Florida where some of the die hard anti-Fidel forces are also, well, dying out. Now is a terrific time for Congress to review some of these regulations born of unseemly fears over a 50-year-old revolution in a tiny island 90 miles away.

It appears that the first step will have to be taken by Congress, however. Right now, President Obama apparently has his hands full with the economy and Afghanistan. His Secretary of State is doing good things, but she is doing them in Asia, and perhaps for good reason. That region and our economy are, unfortunately, inextricably linked because of the policies of the last eight years.

...Cuba, and Latin America in general, has so far received little attention from the Obama administration amid the turmoil of the economic crisis at home and the Afghan war and other pressing issues abroad. No director for the region has been named within the National Security Council staff, and regional officials at the State Department have remained in place.

At some point, the current administration is going to have to pay attention to our neighbors to the south. This is as good as any way to begin the process, but I think it will take Congress to push them in that direction. And that means, that it will take us to push Congress in that direction.

It's the right thing to do.

And Senator Lugar, thank you.

To-Do List: Cuba

There is no question that President Elect Obama has a full plate facing him at Noon on January 20, 2009. The economy is sinking fast, both domestically and internationally, and that appears to be number one on his list of issues to address. However, foreign policy, complicated by two wars, a new flare-up between Israel and Palestine, and the overt testing of Mr. Obama's character by Russia, has to be a close second. Hopefully the new administration is prepared not only to deal with these crises, but also to put forward a new and more reality based policy throughout the world.

One area of the world the Bush administration ignored, except when it wanted to consummate a new trade deal or to destabilize a government, is Latin America. Our relations with the leaders to our south is in desperate need of repair, and I can't think of a better place to start than with Cuba, which is celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of its revolution.

I came across an interesting op-ed piece written by Richard Gott for the Guardian (U.K.) in which he proposes that the time is right for opening relations with Cuba.

Compared with the experience of Latin America, their half century of revolution has been a peaceful affair. Latin America fell under the control in those years of vicious military dictators, often over decades, where people were imprisoned, tortured and "disappeared". Nothing comparable happened in Cuba. Eventually civilian regimes re-emerged in Latin America, and they once again made friends with Cuba. Fidel became recognised as the greatest Latin American figure of the 20th century, an emblematic leader comparable with the heroes of the 19th-century struggles for independence.

It now falls to Barack Obama to follow where the Latin Americans have led, and to abandon the mistaken US policies of the past half century (and of the century before that). The Cuban lobby in the United States has lost its political clout, and there is now no domestic reason why an American president should not re-establish diplomatic and commercial relations with Cuba. For the black population, an Obama visit to Havana would be an especially magical time, an event as spectacular as that moment 50 years ago when Fidel and Guevara acknowledged the plaudits of the crowd: the dawn of hope.

Mr. Gott is correct in assessing that our policies over those fifty years have been sadly mistaken. Our attempt at isolating the island has resulted in poverty that need not have happened. It also ensured that some of the excesses of the Castro regime could not have been tempered because we had no legitimate way apply pressure.

For those who would argue that we have no reason to do business with the Communist regime, I would simply point to a much larger and more distant nation: China. Even Richard Nixon could see the wisdom of bringing the Chinese back into diplomatic contact with the rest of the world.

Fidel and Raul Castro are both elderly and there will no doubt be a transition to new leaders in the foreseeable future. Now is indeed the right time to initiate diplomatic and commercial relations with Cuba in anticipation of that event. Such a move will also demonstrate to our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors that we are ready to move on from our xenophobic and racist policies towards a more balanced policy in trade and diplomacy.

And, let's face it, after the last eight years we need all the good will we can garner.