Obama’s Golden Opportunity to Tackle the Castro Regime
One of the most oft-repeated anecdotes about the Castro regime in Cuba is that it has outlasted 10 U.S. presidential administrations. It’s within President Barack Obama’s power to ensure that it doesn’t become 11, but only if he resists the advice he’s getting from Democrats like Jose Serrano and Republicans like Richard Lugar. In fact, the quickest way to bring about the peaceful transition to a democratic Cuba — a goal that almost everyone claims to want — is to take the exact opposite approach to the suggestions he’s receiving. But I’m getting ahead of myself. First, some context.
The Castro brothers have been able to remain in power for five decades for two primary reasons:
1. They have been able to control the Cuban population through a series of strategies that include spying, harassment, jailing, torture, execution, and exile.
2.They have had the support of a vast majority of the countries on earth, most of which are motivated by latent or blatant anti-Americanism. The Castros have proven to be masters of shaping public opinion in their favor across the globe.
For those five decades it has been the official U.S. policy to isolate Cuba in a bid to force the desired change. It’s obvious that this hasn’t worked, and on that everyone agrees. But the question that is never asked is: why hasn’t it worked? Opponents of U.S. policy toward Cuba claim rather simplistically that such policies are always doomed to fail and give the Castros the excuse they need to perpetuate their rule. I submit for your consideration that the isolation strategy hasn’t worked because one country simply cannot isolate another country when there are more than 150 other nations that aren’t trying to do the same. There’s a huge difference between these two points of view. Depending on which one Obama adopts, his actions will vary dramatically.
It is a well-known fact that no American president has talked more about Cuba, spent more money on the Cuba issue, and been as preoccupied with Cuba’s liberty than George W. Bush. It’s also a well-known fact that George W. Bush was probably the president who was most hated internationally. Unfortunately, that created a scenario in which all of the truths George W. Bush made about Cuba were dismissed by the media and international community.
Enter President Obama. He comes into office with great popularity, not just at home but abroad. It is this popularity and his image as a thoughtful leader from the intellectual center-left that gives him an enormous amount of credibility among people who want to see a humbler United States of America. This rubs some Americans the wrong way, and I totally understand it. But a fact is a fact. When it comes to Cuba, this fact could be most useful if Obama plays his cards right.
In short, I believe that Barack Obama has the moral authority to rally the international community to join the U.S. in demanding freedom for Cuba’s political prisoners and concrete steps toward a democratic transition. There are of course precedents for such a thing. During the 1980s, the international anti-apartheid movement gained so much momentum that the South African government was no longer viable. The United States was late to that party and unfortunately Ronald Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, but his veto was overridden and within a few short years apartheid was dismantled.
Cuba presents a similar opportunity in reverse. It’s the rest of the world that needs to join America in denouncing an evil regime. While Congress was eager to use sanctions to isolate South Africa’s government during the 1980s, many in the current Congress are frothing at the mouth to dismantle the sanctions against Cuba. Which brings us to the president.
President Obama has several options available to him:
1. He can acquiesce to Congress and break his campaign promise to Cuban-Americans by capitulating to the Castro regime and lifting all of the current sanctions.
2. He can keep the promise of maintaining the overall trade embargo on Cuba with only the minor modifications that he indicated during the campaign and thus maintain the status quo.
3. He can take dramatic steps to bring the story of Cuba to the world, to champion members of Cuba’s political opposition like Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, the Afro-Cuban doctor who today rots silently in one of Cuba’s political prisons.
If Obama were to choose the third approach it would send a strong signal to countries that currently enable the regime. These countries should be negotiated with privately and shamed publicly if they refuse to answer the call. The same could be done with foreign corporations that partner with the regime and collaborate in the exploitation of Cuban workers.
Many observers claimed that Raul Castro would be more reform-minded and thus the time would be right to “negotiate” with the regime. The fact is that the repression under Raul continues as before. In fact, last week there was a significant purge in the Cuban government that resulted in the sacking of two of the younger and more highly visible leaders, Carlos Lage and Felipe Perez Roque, who were often touted by the self-styled “experts” as heirs apparent that perhaps might play the role of Cuban Gorbachev. The signal that this purge sends is clear: the regime is willing to accept U.S. concessions but unwilling to make any of their own. President Obama should not give in to the temptation to make those concessions without reciprocation.
Yes, it’s audacious to hope that President Obama would take up the plight of the Cuban people as his personal mission, but if anyone knows about the audacity of hope it’s him, right? It’s often said that only Nixon could go to China. Perhaps only Obama can go to the rest of the world and ask for help on Cuba. Barack Obama has the political capital to do so. The question is: does he have the political will?
The main reason the embargo is doomed to fail is that countries will not join in (or what other reason could be cited as the cause of that failure?) Rather than a huge difference between two points of view, one is a consequence of the other.
That question has been asked and answered many times. The embargo started decades ago as -deserved and just- retribution for Cuba’s nationalization of American companies. Other countries didn’t have a dog on that fight and no reason to join. It was long after that the embargo became part of the political process, first as a piece of the cold War and later as a purported Cuba-change tool. Throughout the years the United States, all the administrations both Democrat and Republican, has made little effort to compel other countries to join in. Why should it fall to Obama to pressure countries that are US allies when other presidents including Bush who you said did so much for Cuba failed to do so? Bush was liked at least by the UK government for example, did he pressure them and shame them publicly?
Obama can’t lift the sanctions, as you know. The embargo, being legislation, can only be lifted by an act of Congress. So there’s no risk of Obama breaking any campaign promises. Obama’s other campaign promise was to vacate Bush’s executive orders limiting travel and remittances, which are not part of the embargo legislation, and he is going to do that soon.
Finally, Obama can very well lift those restrictions and still proceed in the course you suggest.
Excuse me Mr. Gomez,but freedom for Cuba,couldn’t be further from the Ohole’s mind. This is a marxoid thug, who wants to turn the USA into a North American version of Cuba,in stages.He is moving to beggar the American middle class, shut down talk radio and blogs, and disarm the american people. In fact, our home-grown Hugo Chavez imitator,probably thinks that Cuba has already been liberated! It is quixotic in the extreme to expect Obama to work for the Demise of a regime he secretly admires,and would love to imitate.
Cuba is an anti-American Communist dictatorship
therefore it has lots in common in various ways
with many regimes in the world. Raul is a
hardline communist.
Real change is not possible because the current
regime knows that it would be swept away.
Obama has the options of continuing the same
policy or surrendering without any consecions
from the other side.
The rest of the world will take anything
America gives and return nothing of value.
I think Obama is going to get disillusioned
real quick. His popularity in the world at
large is based on the belief he is going to
do what they want not vice versa.
Mr. Gomez,
The world loves Castro because they don’t know the horrible truth. Newspaper stories critical of Castro are rare,and books about the truth don’t get published in the mainstream.
My book, “Mercenary’s Tale”, tells of the bloody struggle to rescue Cuban refugees fleeing the island, and of the murderous policies Fidel used against those he called “gusanos”. Couldn’t get it published – the story of an ex-Marine hired by the CIA into Operation Mongoose wouldn’t sell they said.
Finally, after twenty years, Amazon’s publisher, Booksurge has published Mercenary’s Tale. Look it up, maybe the truth in 300 pages of fast-moving readable prose will wake people up.
Obama can’t lift the sanctions, as you know. The embargo, being legislation, can only be lifted by an act of Congress. So there’s no risk of Obama breaking any campaign promises. Obama’s other campaign promise was to vacate Bush’s executive orders limiting travel and remittances, which are not part of the embargo legislation, and he is going to do that soon.
Alex,
Of course there’s a risk of Obama breaking campaign promises. All the Democrat controlled congress has to do embed amendments in legislation that the President otherwise wants to sign. He can simply wash his hands and say that he was “forced”. There will be no comprehensive bill eliminating the embargo.
And yes, Obama did promise to change the restrictions on travel and remittances. A symbolic gesture as you know because any Cuban could travel to Cuba at any time. Can you produce one case of a Cuban-American being fined by OFAC for having visited Cuba outside of the regulations? Same with remittances.
The embargo is a failure and the rest of the world is not remotely interested in joining up because they have a vacation spots that’s cheap, easy, and free of Americans. It’s ridiculous we keep this up with Cuba, while we let the Chinese tie the noose of our debt around our necks and cozy back up with Vietnam. Lifting the embargo won’t be a loss, but a gain. The flooding of American goods and pop culture into Cuba would deliever the final hammer blow to the regime, just like it virtually has in every other part of the global. Pop culture and goods are the American weapon that few can resist. Time to swallow the pride, step back and play it smart.
The flooding of American goods and pop culture into Cuba would deliever the final hammer blow to the regime, just like it virtually has in every other part of the global. Pop culture and goods are the American weapon that few can resist. Time to swallow the pride, step back and play it smart.
Perhaps you aren’t aware of this but it’s a totalitarian dictatorship. Just because you want to “flood” Cuba with something doesn’t mean the tyrants in charge will allow you. In fact I’m sure that they won’t let American companies “flood” Cuba with anything more than they have allowed Canadian, French, British or Mexican ones.
That’s a wishful thinking slogan that doesn’t take into account the fact that the regime is interested only in its self-preservation and will not allow even the most minor reform that would “corrupt” (liberalize) the citizenry.
Europe has been doing business with Cuba for close to 20 years. Why hasn’t Europe been able to “flood” Cuba with pop culture? Don’t they have any?
I’m a. Afro-Cuban American.
However I disagree with many of the Batistiano right-wingers in my party.
What Cuba needs is economic growth by lifting the embargo. An impoverished people can not resist a dictatorship. I also do not want to see my beloved Cuba, become another Haiti.
Henry,
Europe isn’t 60 miles away from Cuba. What I expect to happen may not come true with the embargo being lifted, but then the ball would then be completely in Cuba’s court. All this time their argument has been they’ve survived despite the embargo. Once you put that argument to rest then whatever short term satisfaction they may have won’t last because they either have to open the flood gates or close themselves back up. Quite frankly I think the embargo is the one thing that’s kept Fidel alive.
My family owned property in Cuba before the reds took over. It would be nice to try to reclaim it, but the embargo isn’t getting us closer to that goal.
So, short of actually invading the country under that moronic “regime change” doctrine, this half-assed embargo fails in two key ways: 1) It’s a very toothless embargo if not observed by most other countries on the planet 2) All it does is play into the Castro’s hands, leaving them the leaders heroically standing up to the big bully Americans.
Christ, we don’t even have an economic boycott with Venezuela because we know that implementing one now would only make Chavez stronger. Too bad we let a buch of elderly Batista cronies dictate our policy here.
Presidents sign bills all the time that contain items they don’t personally want. It’s up to Congress to get them out, not to Obama. Eventually the legislation will be there, piecemeal or complete, and you know the effort to take down the embargo has boosters on both parties and a majority of the US population.
It’s moot anyway, campaign promise or not. Obama should not be tied to a policy that has not work and whose main boosters oppose him stridently. His charge is not regime-change in Cuba but to watch for Us interests.
re. the restrictions: doesn’t matter if they were not enforced, the point is that they were there and everybody who defied them was breaking the law and at risk of being fined. It also increased costs significantly. I don’t travel to Cuba but i send money every month; it costs me 10% more than it cost before, thanks to Bush, the equivalent of one month’s Cuban salary. If what you are saying is that they were ineffectual, I agree -then what was the point if it wasn’t purely political?
In short, I believe that Barack Obama has the moral authority to rally the international community to join the U.S. in demanding freedom for Cuba’s political prisoners and concrete steps toward a democratic transition.>>
====================
Why would a Marxist like Hussein want to do that? What he is trying to do is bring Cuban Marxism out of the U.S. cold and use it as a exmple of how Marist governments are best for the people that they rule (Hugo Chavez and VZ being anoather), which he intends to bring about in the U.S.
The content of Mr. Gomez article is based upon a false premise regarding Hussein’s intentions.
In short, I believe that Barack Obama has the moral authority to rally the international community to join the U.S. in demanding freedom for Cuba’s political prisoners and concrete steps toward a democratic transition.>>
====================
Why would a Marxist like Hussein want to do that? What he is trying to do is bring Cuban Marxism out of the U.S. cold and use it as a exmple of how Marist governments are best for the people that they rule (Hugo Chavez and VZ being anoather), which he intends to bring about in the U.S.
The content of Mr. Gomez article is based upon a false premise regarding Hussein’s intentions.
Hey Henry…you sure get around.
Good article.
Alex,
No, it’s up to presidents to tell congress what they will regard as poison pills that they won’t swallow. That’s why none of that crap ever made it to George W. Bush’s desk and you know it. No te hagas el bobo. And my heart doesn’t break for you or anyone else who could LEGALLY send FIVE times the Cuban average monthly salary every month.
And what you’re saying is that campaign promises don’t matter especially one that was so distasteful for him to make in the first place. It just reaffirms the fact that Obama is not change, he’s not a superhero, he’s a lying sack of crap.
Middleman,
Proximity has nothing to do with it. Mexico is just as close to Cuba as the U.S. is. The “remove the excuse” argument is hollow. Let’s say we remove the excuse. What then? An revolt by the populace? Please. The people with the power to influence change in Cuba are the international community and they, like you, know the embargo is just an excuse. Removing it won’t change their hatred for the U.S. and support for the regime.
“President Obama has several options available to him:”
There is only one:
” lifting all of the current sanctions.”
9. Middleman:
“My family owned property in Cuba before the reds took over. It would be nice to try to reclaim it, but the embargo isn’t getting us closer to that goal.”
Gomez: What did I say?
Just so long as he doesn’t decide to emulate Ken Livingstone (and I’m only half-joking):
http://trackacrat.com/2009/03/09/foreign-leftie-award/
Henry,
Mexico doesn’t project power outside of it’s borders like the US does. It holds as much sway over Cuba as Jamaica. With the embargo lifted I don’t expect any popular revolt. What I do expect is that the Cuba population will slowly but surely drop the Communist doctrines because of what is becoming more available to them in terms of goods and services. It’s what happened in China, Vietnam, and every other former communist state that has not completely isolated itself. China and Vietnam still have a regime, and Cuba probably still will have the regime in some form, but it will lose the grip it enjoys. Better that than giving Fidel and Raul what they want- a reason to fight.
Middleman: oh yes it does,through its drug cartels, and the illegal invasion of the US,and the allied greed of sleazy US sweatshop owners and their lobbyists, like the moron Bush,and the even more moronic Obama.
Well, my heart doesn’t break for you or anybody else who thinks can tell me how much money is enough to send my family without ever setting foot in Cuba, not knowing how much that salary really buys or going hungry one day of your lives. It doesn’t break for anybody who ran away like cowards leaving my generation and the generations afterwards to deal with the mess they created and now have the gall of telling us we must suffer for them to get their island back. Fight Castro, don’t fight the Cubans. And it certainly doesn’t break for those who use Cuba as an electoral tactic to get elected in Miami -y no te hagas tú el bobo and don’t make me laugh with the “Obama is breaking a promise, oh how distasteful” whine, when there have been thousands of those and 99% of them are given by Republicans.
I agree with you on this. But I also think that Raul will be more inclined to take bolder steps once Fidel is dead. It’s very hard to gauge what’s going on down there right now. I believe Obama is in a wait a see mode, besides, he has a full plate of pressing global issues to deal with. I am more than confident that there will be major positive changes in US/Cuban relations b4 his first term ends.
By all accounts the Cuban people are far better under Fidel then Batista. No more is the country the highly segregated and oppressed land where the soldiers marched through the rural areas killing and burning at will. No more is the average citizen underfed and illiterate. Fidel introduced free education and free health care to all people, and gave the poor families children an education.
For every literate Cuban under Batista there is 3 Cuban DOCTORS under Fidel. Also, Cuba sends more doctors overseas to help with disaster relief then any other country, usually ten to twenty times as much as most Europian countrys and much more then USA’s number of 0. He also builds hospitals and sends medical supplies for them to use. The amount of Cuban doctors in Africa alone is staggering, and is the only reason that real progress is being made in the backward and damaging medical condition of their tribal areas.
Maybe that is why Fidel is a long- standing member of the UN’s Human Rights Commitee. That is something you can’t say about an American president. Not bad for an “evil dictator” under a 40 year trade embargo.