http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/publications/0413_RapprochementCuba_TampaConference.pdf
A
recent conference on Cuba, coordinated by the CIP, Center for International
Policy ad specifically, by Wayne Smith, contained both positive and negative aspects.
I would say that calling for a more friendly relationship between the two peoples
is positive. The Cuban people, suffering already 60 or more years of extreme
poverty and political repression at the hands of the Castro brothers, need all
the empathy and solidarity they can get. However, using the conference as a political
weapon to promote, in no subtle ways, the survival of the dictatorial regime in
the island is negative. The U.S. has to be loyal to its democratic creed, not
to pragmatic accommodation with rogue regimes. The conference had a strong
political component, which became stronger as the presentations progressed.
Some
of the statements made in the conference deserve some comments:
1.
In 2012, nearly
400,000 Cuban-Americans and Americans visited the island. With such a surge of
individuals traveling to Cuba, more and more Americans are recognizing that the
United States’ policy towards Cuba is injudicious. I would comment that the
many visitors to Cuba do not automatically represent a criticism against the
U.S. policy towards Cuba but, rather, the product of the liberalization of travel
restrictions decided by the U.S. government as a humanitarian gesture.
2. “We don’t need to agree with [the Cuban government] on
everything,” said Smith, “but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have diplomatic
and trade relations. The U.S. has relations with other countries who are more
threatening than the small island off the Florida Straits. These countries
include Iraq, Libya and China. So why is Cuba any different? I would say
that the U.S. cannot afford to accept
the manner the Cuban regime treats its people and denies democracy to the
nation. This should be a matter of principle. As long as the regime continues being
repressive and undemocratic, the U.S. has to maintain its policy of antagonism.
As for the comparisons Wayne Smith makes with other countries, it is not the
same. Iraq is no longer under Hussein, Libya is no longer under Gadhafi, China
has opened up politically and economically in a way that Cuba has not.
3.
Colonel Larry Wilkerson
closed the conference. Colonel Wilkerson, a respected military officer, told the
audience that Cuba is not a threat to the United States. [he said] Most people in the Pentagon believe
that our policy towards Cuba is stupid…. They (the Cuban government) are not
promoting revolution; they are promoting healthcare”. He added: “With the majority of governments in the
Western Hemisphere threatening not to attend the next Summit of the Americas
unless Cuba is invited, as well as the Community of Latin American and
Caribbean States (CELAC) recently nominating and electing Cuban President Raul
Castro as its president, Wilkerson said, “We (the United States) are becoming
an isolated party in our own hemisphere!” Is this what we want?
I would say that Colonel Wilkerson’s presentation really
politicized the conference. Calling the U.S. policy towards Cuba “stupid” Is
not conducive to friendly dialogue. Moreover, Wilkerson is dead wrong when he
says Cuba “is not promoting revolution but health care”. Has he ever heard
of Cuban intervention in Venezuela? I doubt it. There are 50,000 Castro-Cubans
in Venezuela, inserted in most sensitive areas of Venezuelan administration:
military, intelligence, electricity, agriculture, security, ideological
indoctrination, you name it. The Cuban pseudo-doctors in Venezuela do other
things besides prescribing aspirins to the Venezuelan poor. Many defect but
others exercise open indoctrination while “curing” people. In fact, medical
attention by these Cuban pseudo doctors is not the best. Deceased President
Chavez might have accelerated his death by trusting Cuban medicine.
4.
The summary of the
conference stated: “moral courage is
needed and that If the U.S. is to avoid being a pariah in its own hemisphere,
the executive branch must be the first to promote a policy between the two
countries that is based on cooperation and a respect for human rights.
President Obama can start by removing Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism
list….Removing Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list would make it
more difficult for elected officials, such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mario
Diaz-Balart and Bob Menendez to block normalizing relations with Cuba”. I would comment that the U.S. has to follow its principles without
fear of becoming isolated, which is, in any case, an inaccurate assessment by
Wilkerson. There are several Latin American leaders who have yielded to the temptation
of easy oil money from Venezuela, notably those at ALBA: Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia,
Ecuador and others, such as Argentina’s Mrs. Kirchner and Uruguayan President
Jose Mujica. However, Costa Rica,
Paraguay, Peru, Colombia, Chile, Canada, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, even
Brazil, are not unconditional allies of the Venezuelan regime.
Colonel Wilkerson, it
seem, has a long record of controversial postures. In the Iraq war he went
along with the action of the U.S. government, to the point of assisting on the
presentations made to this effect by Secretary of Defense, Colin Powell. He
later said: “We were just following orders, and Dick
Cheney made us to it.”. But as one his critics remarked: “No, Dick Cheney didn’t make you do it.
There’s something called resignation. There’s something called speaking up and
the First Amendment”.
Castro is showing sign of
coming around to the U.S. position. Don’t go easy on him.
Hi, I’ve just published a novel based in Venezuela which tackles the issues of power and corruption under Chávez within the framework of a fictional story of arms and drug smuggling.
ResponderEliminarDetails at: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/306942
Hope you like it.
Regards,
Benjamin James
http://benjaminjamesbooks.wordpress.com/
Por eso es que estamos jodidos. Por esa combinación de miopía, estupidez y alcahuetería.
ResponderEliminarHace unas semanas comenté indignado como en una revista italiana on line, Panorama (1) al hacer un análisis de lo positivo y lo negativo de Chávez, entre lo positivo se colocó la ayuda a Cuba.
Cuba es nuestro principal problema. La gente está muy consciente de la inseguridad, la inflación, la corrupción, el desempleo, el desabastecimiento: No lo está tanto del problema que representa la dominación cubana. Ese "issue" hay que "inocularlo" en la opinión pública, especialmente en los sectores pobres y en los sectores rurales y semirurales (2)
(1)ya no circulan revistas italianas en Venezuela, así como llegan escasísimos libros de interés, otro logro del "proceso", así que hay que leer on line.
(2)Un comentario sobre esto: El chavismo perdió en TODAS las capitales de Estado. Eso es irreversible. El problema, sin descuidar el trabajo en los barrios de las ciudades es revertir la situación en el campo; la opinión pública es más conservadora y difícil de cambiar allí; además, para el caso venezolano, el régimen ejerce mayor control social en ese habitat y la gente es más temerosa que en las ciudades. Hay que penetrar en estos sectores con ese mensaje anti-castrista, persuasión personal y volantes con eso. Si alguien de la MUD lee esto, por favor agarren el consejo gratis. TV y prensa están censurados autocensurados, Internet tiene alcance limitado a las ciudades y especialmente a la clase media. No todo es marketing y hacer ganar un dinero a personas por diseñar mensajes, gorras, franelas, etc. que no van a llegar al público clave. Si nos ganamos esos sectores, el chavismo será cosa del pasado. CUBA ES EL PROBLEMA.De nada.
Hi, I’ve just published a novel based in Venezuela which tackles the issues of power and corruption under Chávez within the framework of a fictional story of arms and drug smuggling.
ResponderEliminarDetails at: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/306942
Hope you like it.
Regards,
Benjamin James
http://benjaminjamesbooks.wordpress.com/