Engagement has failed in Cuba
Monday, May 12, 2003 | The Miami Herald
With the blood of three executed Cuban "boat-jackers" barely dry and the =
voices of 75 imprisoned freedom activists freshly silenced, some =
Cuba-engagement advocates are restarting their misguided campaign to =
loosen U.S. economic sanctions against Fidel Castro.=20
These engagers continue using the clich?that the "40-year embargo"' has =
failed and argue that engagement can still help reform Castro's brutal =
dictatorship. But recent history clearly has demonstrated that =
engagement has been a policy failure.=20
=20
Even as one prominent anti-embargo lobbyist group recently closed its =
doors in embarrassment, other engagement stalwarts continue their =
crusade. U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., still believes that the =
embargo is a bad idea and says he will continue to try to see it lifted. =
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., recently stated: ''If it were =
up to me, I would lift the entire embargo. . . . Let's give Castro what =
he really fears: exposure to Western capitalism and thought. We're just =
a scapegoat for him now, and it does the people no good.'' As if the =
past decade of European, Canadian and Latin American trade, investment =
and tourism hasn't provided Castro with enough ''exposure'' already. As =
if Castro's secret police really needs a ''scapegoat'' to imprison and =
execute Cubans.=20
On April 30 a bipartisan group of senators (including Max Baucus, =
D-Mont., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.,) introduced the Freedom to Travel to =
Cuba Act of 2003, which would lift restrictions on travel to Cuba. =
Others have come to their support.=20
''The Cuba travel embargo has been in place for four decades, and it =
hasn't done a bit of good,'' said Jos?Miguel Vivanco, executive director =
of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch. ``Allowing Americans to =
travel freely to Cuba would be much more helpful in encouraging =
reform.''=20
Yet the past decade has proven otherwise. The embargo has been used to =
promote change in Cuba only since 1992, with the passage of the Cuba =
Democracy Act. Previously, the embargo was intended primarily to punish =
Castro for confiscating U.S. properties and to keep America from =
financing Cuba's repression, military adventurism and terrorism.=20
In fact, shortly after the act's passage, the Soviet collapse and the =
effects of the tightened U.S. embargo began having a powerful effect. As =
the Cuban economy entered a tailspin in 1992-1994, Castro experienced =
his then-worse crisis -- with riots reported in Havana. Only then did =
the Cuban despot initiate some economic liberalization that allowed =
limited private economic activity on the island. This increased =
political dissent.=20
Had the economic pressure continued, these nascent reforms might have =
led to more reforms and dissent and provoked an unraveling of the system =
similar to what occurred in the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev; =
itself a result of President Reagan's ''hard-line'' tactics.=20
Instead, Europeans and others came to Castro's rescue, beginning a =
decade of Western engagement with his decrepit regime. They, like many =
here in the United States, refused to see that Castro's ''reforms'' =
(just as Gorbachev's perestroika) were forced on him due to economic =
pressures.=20
As Western tourism, trade and investment gradually poured into Cuba, and =
President Clinton's new ''go-soft'' policies began to take effect, the =
Cuban economy stabilized. By 1996 Castro halted or reversed most of =
these ''reforms,'' cracked down on dissent and encouraged tens of =
thousands of refugees to flee on rafts. Though Western engagement =
continued, there have been no further reforms, and there are still no =
Western supermarkets or convenience stores in Havana.=20
The truth is that engagement and other ''moderate'' policies not only =
have failed to promote reforms but actually have stifled democratic =
change in Cuba. Now Castro's regime is in a far worse state than in 1993 =
-- it may well be Castro's final crisis.=20
Castro has few options. His foreign debt has doubled, and many Europeans =
are withdrawing. Tourism is down substantially, and Cuba's sugar =
industry has nearly collapsed after four decades of socialist =
mismanagement. A mass exodus is not likely with George W. Bush as =
president and Jeb Bush as Florida governor.=20
Ironically, it seems that only the United States can save the Castro =
regime now. We should not make the same mistake that the Europeans did =
in the 1990s. This isn't the time to ''go-soft'' on Castro. Economic =
pressure is a key to regime change in Cuba.
"Hank" <"bu$h"@hate.gov> wrote in message =
news:41A5450E.1C540BB3@hate.gov...
PL wrote:
"Hank" <"bu$h"@failure.gov> wrote in message
=20
As I'm sure you know, when the level of government
oppression and/or poverty becomes too much for the People
to tolerate, they will organize, take up arms, and fight
the ruling elite. This has happened in many countries in
Central America where brutal, undemocratic, and oppressive,
U.S. backed regimes violated human rights to the point of
obscenity. El Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia, Nicaragua,
and of course, before Castro, Cuba. No matter how ruthless
and brutal the government and its right wing death squads,
People will risk their lives to fight for their basic human
rights. It has happened throughout history.
So my question is, if Castro is as brutal and oppressive as the
anti-Castro folks claim, why are there no home grown resistance
fighters in Cuba?
=20
You are overlooking a couple of essential points here:
- Cuba is an island.
No land borders like any of the countries mentioned above
=20
Haiti is also an island. Lots of fighting going on
there.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
.
|
