Lula stresses his diplomatic effort
EL NUEVO HERALD
April 8, 2009
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs2375.html
A CubaNews translation by Will Reissner.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met separately today with the
Cuban foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez, and a group of members of Congress
from the United States, in his effort to bring both countries closer before
the start of the Fifth Summit of the Americas, the EFE press agency
reported.
Rodríguez stopped off in Brasilia without making statements to the press,
but diplomatic sources told EFE that one of the points dealt with in the
meeting was the expectations awakened by the Summit, which will bring
together all the Latin American countries, minus Cuba, with the United
States in Trinidad and Tobago.
It will be the first meeting between the leaders of Latin America and the
U.S. President Barack Obama, who was already told by Lula during a meeting
in Washington last March that Cuba is a “sensitive issue” for the region.
The diplomatic sources that EFE consulted stated that Lula spoke of the
matter with foreign minister Bruno Rodríguez, whom he met together with his
foreign minister, Celso Amorim. None of those present at the meeting made
statements to journalists, but official sources stated that Lula reiterated
his interest that relations between the United States and Cuba and “other
countries,” alluding to Venezuela and Bolivia, should be discussed at the
gathering in Trinidad and Tobago.
Lula “did not raise the issue with the aim of putting himself forward as
mediator between Cuba and the United States, but (in Trinidad and Tobago) he
will express his opinion that relations between the two countries must be
normalized, on the basis of mutual respect,” spokespeople of the Brazilian
government explained.
After the meeting with the Cuban foreign minister, Lula met with a group of
United States members of Congress, made up of members of the Democratic and
Republican parties.
“The points were basically the same,” stated spokespeople for the Brazilian
presidency, adding that the only difference between the two meetings was
with regard to bilateral issues, which were also covered in the two
meetings.
In the case of Cuba, relations are now fostered by Brazil’s interest in
participating in the exploitation of oil in Cuban deep waters.
With the United States, “the bilateral agenda is broader,” given that it is
Brazil’s principal trading partner, the sources explained, and they also
asserted that the fact that the meetings with the Cuban foreign minister and
the U.S. Congress members took place on the same day was “a mere
coincidence.”
Rodríguez’s visit to Brasilia is thought to be his first official trip since
he took over the Ministry of Foreign Relations in place of Felipe Pérez
Roque, who was removed from his post during the broad cabinet reform carried
out by Cuban President Raúl Castro in March.
These changes in the Cuban government were interpreted at the time as an
attempt by Castro to make his cabinet seem friendlier to the United States
by removing the “radicals,” like Pérez Roque for one, and replacing them
with more moderate political figures.
Along these same lines, some Brazilian analysts have pointed to the fact
that Rodríguez’s first visit as foreign minister was to Brazil and not to
Venezuela, whose president, Hugo Chávez, maintains some very close
ideological and economic relations with Cuba.
Despite these close ties with Chávez, Raúl Castro was not at the last Summit
of the Boliviaran Alternative of the Americas (ALBA), which Venezuela
sponsors, and Cuban sources have said that it is also not likely he will
attend the next one, which will take place on April 16 in Caracas, like the
first one.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Miami Herald Columnist Supports Right to Travel
Lifting ban on travel to Cuba protects our rights
BY JACKIE BUENO SOUSA
jsousa@MiamiHerald.com
It's easy to see why anyone would think that a recent U.S. Senate bill to end the ban on Americans traveling to Cuba is a guise to loosen the embargo against the island.
It's true that the measure is more than what it seems, but not for the reasons one might think. Instead, its hidden depth says more about us as a nation than it could ever say about Cuba.
The bill specifically would forbid the president to ''regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens or legal residents.'' It also repeals all previous travel restrictions.
''In essence, it says it's not the place of government to tell people where they can and cannot travel,'' says Philip Peters, a Cuba expert with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., and former State Department official under Ronald Reagan.
The president, Peters notes, would have to justify his actions if he ever wanted to reinstate the restrictions. Few acts could better highlight the difference between the two countries.
HEAVY EMOTIONS
There are many reasons to empathize with arguments on both sides of the Cuba issue. For all their differences, however, the arguments often have one thing in common: they are laden with emotion. There's retributive anger on one side, misguided compassion on the other.
And through the decades of debate, we've been so focused on Cuba that we've overlooked our own principles, trapping them in the abyss that lies between opposing passions, like a child forgotten in the heat of a messy divorce. In more than 40 years of discourse, I've heard only one argument solid enough to justify the impediment of legitimate business activity and an individual's natural-born inclination to explore the world.
Interestingly enough, it came from our very own government, which decades ago successfully argued that it had the right to deny its citizens trade and travel as a matter of national security.
The current policy ultimately derives its legal powers from the Trading with the Enemy Act and President Harry Truman's declaration in 1950 of a national emergency to stem the threatening spread of communism. As a result, any justification for the embargo and travel ban centers on whether Cuba poses a threat sufficient enough to curtail our rights.
For more than three decades, the answer was an obvious ''yes,'' as Cuba had a powerful military alliance with the Soviet Union and was spreading its army worldwide. Today, the answer is less obvious. Cuba still gravitates toward inimical governments, such as Russia and Venezuela, but we trade with and travel to those countries.
FINDING A LOOPHOLE
Fearing that the national-security argument could be used arbitrarily and perpetually by the presidency, Congress in the mid 1970s more clearly defined the president's powers in impeding economic activity. It created procedural requirements to ensure that any national-emergency declarations be based on real threats and to ensure that a declaration would last only as long as the threat exists. However, to assure passage, the reforms applied only to future declarations, effectively exempting the Cuban embargo.
The upshot: When it comes to Cuba, our government can perpetually impede free trade and individual liberties without a need to justify it to the very people whose rights are being curtailed.
That, of course, is how things are done in Cuba. Over here, as the bill demonstrates, some of us still believe in tempering such state powers -- especially when the government in question is our own.
http://www.miamiherald.com/1434/story/986123.html
BY JACKIE BUENO SOUSA
jsousa@MiamiHerald.com
It's easy to see why anyone would think that a recent U.S. Senate bill to end the ban on Americans traveling to Cuba is a guise to loosen the embargo against the island.
It's true that the measure is more than what it seems, but not for the reasons one might think. Instead, its hidden depth says more about us as a nation than it could ever say about Cuba.
The bill specifically would forbid the president to ''regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens or legal residents.'' It also repeals all previous travel restrictions.
''In essence, it says it's not the place of government to tell people where they can and cannot travel,'' says Philip Peters, a Cuba expert with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., and former State Department official under Ronald Reagan.
The president, Peters notes, would have to justify his actions if he ever wanted to reinstate the restrictions. Few acts could better highlight the difference between the two countries.
HEAVY EMOTIONS
There are many reasons to empathize with arguments on both sides of the Cuba issue. For all their differences, however, the arguments often have one thing in common: they are laden with emotion. There's retributive anger on one side, misguided compassion on the other.
And through the decades of debate, we've been so focused on Cuba that we've overlooked our own principles, trapping them in the abyss that lies between opposing passions, like a child forgotten in the heat of a messy divorce. In more than 40 years of discourse, I've heard only one argument solid enough to justify the impediment of legitimate business activity and an individual's natural-born inclination to explore the world.
Interestingly enough, it came from our very own government, which decades ago successfully argued that it had the right to deny its citizens trade and travel as a matter of national security.
The current policy ultimately derives its legal powers from the Trading with the Enemy Act and President Harry Truman's declaration in 1950 of a national emergency to stem the threatening spread of communism. As a result, any justification for the embargo and travel ban centers on whether Cuba poses a threat sufficient enough to curtail our rights.
For more than three decades, the answer was an obvious ''yes,'' as Cuba had a powerful military alliance with the Soviet Union and was spreading its army worldwide. Today, the answer is less obvious. Cuba still gravitates toward inimical governments, such as Russia and Venezuela, but we trade with and travel to those countries.
FINDING A LOOPHOLE
Fearing that the national-security argument could be used arbitrarily and perpetually by the presidency, Congress in the mid 1970s more clearly defined the president's powers in impeding economic activity. It created procedural requirements to ensure that any national-emergency declarations be based on real threats and to ensure that a declaration would last only as long as the threat exists. However, to assure passage, the reforms applied only to future declarations, effectively exempting the Cuban embargo.
The upshot: When it comes to Cuba, our government can perpetually impede free trade and individual liberties without a need to justify it to the very people whose rights are being curtailed.
That, of course, is how things are done in Cuba. Over here, as the bill demonstrates, some of us still believe in tempering such state powers -- especially when the government in question is our own.
http://www.miamiherald.com/1434/story/986123.html
Friday, April 10, 2009
Kiplinger Says Reid Will Support Cuban American Hard Liners
CUBA
Don't Buy Your Ticket to Cuba Just Yet
By Andrew C. Schneider |
Looking forward to Congress lifting the ban on travel to Cuba? Well, don't make plans yet. It's likely to happen, but not as soon as you think...unless you're a Cuban-American with family on the island.
Congress won't rush to end the 46-year-old embargo on American visits to the island (minus a brief lifting by President Carter), despite predictions to the contrary. Supporters of allowing travel include President Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus and many others, but the powerful Cuban-American lobby is dead set against it, and it has the backing of Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Robert Menendez of New Jersey.
Most lawmakers feel a fight is more trouble than it's worth. Instead, Obama will crack open the door with an order allowing unlimited travel to the island by all Cuban-Americans who want to visit family members back home. That short-term fix will prove a big long-term headache as the government tries to adopt different policies for different ethnic groups. The Treasury Department, which is responsible for enforcing sanctions on Cuba, will have to decide just who qualifies as Cuban-American and who has family to visit. The resulting chaos will increase pressure on Congress to act, but it will take awhile (and maybe another election cycle).
http://blog.kiplinger.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi
******************
My on-line comment:
Does it matter that 2/3 of Americans, and a like number of Cuban Americans, want to end all restrictions on travel--not to mention virtually every leading newspaper?
Sen. Reid has his Las Vegas Cuban American donors to attend to, but he also has to oblige a significant majority of his caucus. Sen. Menendez damaged his credibility, as reported in the Washington Post, by a one hour rant on the Senate floor, holding up the Appropriations Omnibus for several days, and putting an anonymous (sic) freeze on the President's two top science appointees.
John McAuliff
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
director@ffrd.org
Don't Buy Your Ticket to Cuba Just Yet
By Andrew C. Schneider |
Looking forward to Congress lifting the ban on travel to Cuba? Well, don't make plans yet. It's likely to happen, but not as soon as you think...unless you're a Cuban-American with family on the island.
Congress won't rush to end the 46-year-old embargo on American visits to the island (minus a brief lifting by President Carter), despite predictions to the contrary. Supporters of allowing travel include President Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus and many others, but the powerful Cuban-American lobby is dead set against it, and it has the backing of Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Robert Menendez of New Jersey.
Most lawmakers feel a fight is more trouble than it's worth. Instead, Obama will crack open the door with an order allowing unlimited travel to the island by all Cuban-Americans who want to visit family members back home. That short-term fix will prove a big long-term headache as the government tries to adopt different policies for different ethnic groups. The Treasury Department, which is responsible for enforcing sanctions on Cuba, will have to decide just who qualifies as Cuban-American and who has family to visit. The resulting chaos will increase pressure on Congress to act, but it will take awhile (and maybe another election cycle).
http://blog.kiplinger.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi
******************
My on-line comment:
Does it matter that 2/3 of Americans, and a like number of Cuban Americans, want to end all restrictions on travel--not to mention virtually every leading newspaper?
Sen. Reid has his Las Vegas Cuban American donors to attend to, but he also has to oblige a significant majority of his caucus. Sen. Menendez damaged his credibility, as reported in the Washington Post, by a one hour rant on the Senate floor, holding up the Appropriations Omnibus for several days, and putting an anonymous (sic) freeze on the President's two top science appointees.
John McAuliff
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
director@ffrd.org
Thursday, April 9, 2009
View from Trinidad and Tobago
No stopping Cuba now
Rickey Singh
Wednesday, April 8th 2009
Trinidad Express http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/print?id=161462205
THE majority of delegations from the 34 nations coming to Trinidad and Tobago for the Fifth Summit of Americas will be doing so with Cuba very much on their mind.
A clear understanding is emerging that a discussion on Cuba-USA relations cannot be deferred at this summit as one of the very significant, if not the most politically sensitive issues for Latin America and the Caribbean.
If up to this past weekend President Barack Obama's senior advisers were still of a differing persuasion, then they need to update themselves and listen carefully to the governments of the hemisphere, including that of host Prime Minister Patrick Manning.
With no malice towards the USA, but known for their solidarity with Cuba against America's unprecedented 47-year-old trade and economic blockade of that Caribbean country, the overwhelming majority of OAS members are simply anxious to avoid unnecessary skirmishes over a lingering problem that carries a bitter reminder of the worse features of America's 20th century hegemonic politics.
Had the advisers and strategists of the President, whose promised "politics of change'' continues to stir imaginations, had given some thought to a polite letter from Caricom to Obama before his inauguration last January, they would have been alerted to Caricom's current mood.
As a group of small and developing nations that form the single largest bloc of members within the OAS, Caricom-which was primarily responsible in the 1970s for breaking the US isolation of Cuba, regards America's punitive embargo against that country as the last cold war political issue of the 20th century.
As articulated by Caricom this problem reveals a "fracture in the hemispheric family'' that requires, as Obama has been informed, "unconditional dialogue'' between Washington and Havana.
But as rising voices have been proclaiming within recent weeks, the exclusion of Cuba from the OAS cannot any longer be sustained. No official response is known to have been received from Obama to the Caricom letter.
Nevertheless, Caricom shares the view that Cuba's readmission to the OAS, which the Obama administration could begin to talk about at the summit, will begin the healing process of the "fracture'' that had occurred back in 1962.
The veteran Republican Senator of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar- about whom Obama had favourably written before his election as President-has found it necessary to send a message to the 44th President that it was time to come to terms with normalisation of US-Cuba relations.
In his letter of March 30 Lugar told Obama: "At the Summit of the Americas you will be confronted with growing momentum within the region in favour of reincorporating Cuba as a member of the OAS....
"Cuban inclusion in the OAS,'' said Lugar, "presents challenges to the integrity of the organisation and its commitment to promote and defend democracy and human rights, as codified in the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights...''
President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are destined to hear of this and more from Caricom and Latin American leaders, starting with the summit's host, Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Caricom's current chairman Prime Minister Dean Barrow of Belize, during the formal opening session on April 17 when Obama will make his much-awaited address.
Other speakers at plenary sessions the following day, April 18, to underscore the necessity of ending the US embargo against Cuba and its return to the OAS, will include Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, Guyana's Bharrat Jagdeo, St Vincent and the Grenadines' Ralph Gonsalves as well as Jamaica's Bruce Golding and Dominica's Roosevelt Skerrit.
The legendary Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, has called on delegations at the summit to ensure firm support for an end to the exclusion of Cuba and termination of the US embargo.
In a regular column he writes for Granma, Castro ridiculed what he deemed "inadmissible concepts'' in the draft text of the "Summit Declaration''. He was given a copy by Nicaragua's President Ortega who paid him a visit. He said the summit would be a "trial by fire'' for the Caribbean-Latin America region.
Just this past Monday, Caribbean economist Norman Girvan, recently awarded with an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Havana, noted that, "Fidel Castro will be the unseen guest'' at the Fifth Summit for which "he is evidently a player'', to follow information coming out of various hemispheric capitals, among them Havana, Santiago de Chile, La Paz, Bolivia and Caracas.
Rickey Singh
Wednesday, April 8th 2009
Trinidad Express http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/print?id=161462205
THE majority of delegations from the 34 nations coming to Trinidad and Tobago for the Fifth Summit of Americas will be doing so with Cuba very much on their mind.
A clear understanding is emerging that a discussion on Cuba-USA relations cannot be deferred at this summit as one of the very significant, if not the most politically sensitive issues for Latin America and the Caribbean.
If up to this past weekend President Barack Obama's senior advisers were still of a differing persuasion, then they need to update themselves and listen carefully to the governments of the hemisphere, including that of host Prime Minister Patrick Manning.
With no malice towards the USA, but known for their solidarity with Cuba against America's unprecedented 47-year-old trade and economic blockade of that Caribbean country, the overwhelming majority of OAS members are simply anxious to avoid unnecessary skirmishes over a lingering problem that carries a bitter reminder of the worse features of America's 20th century hegemonic politics.
Had the advisers and strategists of the President, whose promised "politics of change'' continues to stir imaginations, had given some thought to a polite letter from Caricom to Obama before his inauguration last January, they would have been alerted to Caricom's current mood.
As a group of small and developing nations that form the single largest bloc of members within the OAS, Caricom-which was primarily responsible in the 1970s for breaking the US isolation of Cuba, regards America's punitive embargo against that country as the last cold war political issue of the 20th century.
As articulated by Caricom this problem reveals a "fracture in the hemispheric family'' that requires, as Obama has been informed, "unconditional dialogue'' between Washington and Havana.
But as rising voices have been proclaiming within recent weeks, the exclusion of Cuba from the OAS cannot any longer be sustained. No official response is known to have been received from Obama to the Caricom letter.
Nevertheless, Caricom shares the view that Cuba's readmission to the OAS, which the Obama administration could begin to talk about at the summit, will begin the healing process of the "fracture'' that had occurred back in 1962.
The veteran Republican Senator of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar- about whom Obama had favourably written before his election as President-has found it necessary to send a message to the 44th President that it was time to come to terms with normalisation of US-Cuba relations.
In his letter of March 30 Lugar told Obama: "At the Summit of the Americas you will be confronted with growing momentum within the region in favour of reincorporating Cuba as a member of the OAS....
"Cuban inclusion in the OAS,'' said Lugar, "presents challenges to the integrity of the organisation and its commitment to promote and defend democracy and human rights, as codified in the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights...''
President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are destined to hear of this and more from Caricom and Latin American leaders, starting with the summit's host, Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Caricom's current chairman Prime Minister Dean Barrow of Belize, during the formal opening session on April 17 when Obama will make his much-awaited address.
Other speakers at plenary sessions the following day, April 18, to underscore the necessity of ending the US embargo against Cuba and its return to the OAS, will include Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, Guyana's Bharrat Jagdeo, St Vincent and the Grenadines' Ralph Gonsalves as well as Jamaica's Bruce Golding and Dominica's Roosevelt Skerrit.
The legendary Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, has called on delegations at the summit to ensure firm support for an end to the exclusion of Cuba and termination of the US embargo.
In a regular column he writes for Granma, Castro ridiculed what he deemed "inadmissible concepts'' in the draft text of the "Summit Declaration''. He was given a copy by Nicaragua's President Ortega who paid him a visit. He said the summit would be a "trial by fire'' for the Caribbean-Latin America region.
Just this past Monday, Caribbean economist Norman Girvan, recently awarded with an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Havana, noted that, "Fidel Castro will be the unseen guest'' at the Fifth Summit for which "he is evidently a player'', to follow information coming out of various hemispheric capitals, among them Havana, Santiago de Chile, La Paz, Bolivia and Caracas.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Reuters Columnist Sees Low Hanging Fruit and Contradictory US Approach
In Cuba, low-hanging fruit for Obama
Post a comment (27)
By: Bernd Debusmann
February 25th, 2009
– Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. –
A look at a list of the foreign policy problems facing U.S. President Barack Obama could send the sunniest optimist into depression.
The Arab-Israeli conflict: no solution in sight. Afghanistan/Pakistan: the outlook is bleak. Iran and its nuclear plans: tricky. No easy wins here. Iraq: the war is not over.
But in the foreign policy landscape, there is one low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking — Cuba - and the picking has just been made easier by a report commissioned by the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, and released this week.
Among its key points: the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, the only Cold War policy still in force, has been counter-productive; U.S. policies are harming national security interests by impeding cooperation on such key issues as narcotics traffic; and the U.S. image in Latin America has been tarnished by Washington’s insistence that the region share hostility towards Cuba’s communist government.
That government, first under Fidel Castro and now under his brother Raul, survived the hostility of 10 American presidents preceding Obama. It has normal relations with most of the world. Washington’s lonely stand on Cuba becomes embarrassingly apparent once a year when the U.N. General Assembly votes on lifting the embargo. The last count was 185 in favour, three against - The U.S., Israel and Palau.
In much of Latin America, Cuba has become a romanticized symbol of a small country that has stood up to the American giant. That image is exploited to the full in the anti-American rhetoric of such leaders as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, whose appeal rests in part on painting Uncle Sam as an Imperialist bully.
“Latin Americans would view U.S. engagement with Cuba as a demonstration that the United States understands their perspectives on the history of U.S. policy in the region and no longer insists that all of Latin America must share U.S. hostility to a 50-year-old regime,” the Foreign Relations Committee staff report said. “The resulting improvement to the United States’ image in the region would facilitate the advancement of U.S. interests.”
Portraying normal relations with Cuba as something that serves U.S. national interests strengthens the case of a growing number of lawmakers and business groups who think it is time to remove the last vestige of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere. It would also provide backing for Obama if he were inclined to go beyond his campaign promises on Cuba — easing restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba and sending money to relatives there.
CHANGE EASY, OVERDUE
In the words of Steve Clemons, a Latin America expert at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank, Cuba is “the lowest hanging ripe fruit on America’s tree of foreign policy options. Change is easy there — and overdue.”
There are two main reasons why Cuba policy has remained stuck in the Cold War, 18 years after it ended. For one, a succession of U.S. presidents expected that economic pressure on Cuba would topple the government and bring democracy to the island.
As importantly, Cuba has been as much a domestic issue as a foreign policy issue. For decades, the most determined opposition to changing policy on Cuba has come from the Cuban American community in Florida, a state which has often been decisive in presidential elections. No candidate has been willing to risk his campaign by offending the Cuban exiles, estimated at around 650,000.
But polls show that anti-Castro feeling is easing and the old guard of exiles is being replaced by a younger generation not as burdened as their elders by memories of fleeing the bearded revolutionaries who took power in 1959.
Obama won Florida last November, after a campaign during which he promised to ease restrictions on travel and cash remittances while saying the time was not ripe for an end to the embargo. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has described the embargo as “an important source of leverage for further change on the island”.
The thinking behind this phrase: Cuba must make concessions on human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of travel in exchange for the U.S. lifting the embargo. If not regime change in Cuba, then at least behavior change. Why this policy should work now when it has failed in the past is anyone’s guess.
And the argument is particularly difficult to make for Clinton after a February trip to China, a worse human rights violator than Cuba. She said disagreement with Beijing over human rights should not interfere with cooperation on broader issues. There’s no lack of broader issues in relations between the United States and Cuba.
– You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com
Post a comment (27)
By: Bernd Debusmann
February 25th, 2009
– Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. –
A look at a list of the foreign policy problems facing U.S. President Barack Obama could send the sunniest optimist into depression.
The Arab-Israeli conflict: no solution in sight. Afghanistan/Pakistan: the outlook is bleak. Iran and its nuclear plans: tricky. No easy wins here. Iraq: the war is not over.
But in the foreign policy landscape, there is one low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking — Cuba - and the picking has just been made easier by a report commissioned by the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, and released this week.
Among its key points: the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, the only Cold War policy still in force, has been counter-productive; U.S. policies are harming national security interests by impeding cooperation on such key issues as narcotics traffic; and the U.S. image in Latin America has been tarnished by Washington’s insistence that the region share hostility towards Cuba’s communist government.
That government, first under Fidel Castro and now under his brother Raul, survived the hostility of 10 American presidents preceding Obama. It has normal relations with most of the world. Washington’s lonely stand on Cuba becomes embarrassingly apparent once a year when the U.N. General Assembly votes on lifting the embargo. The last count was 185 in favour, three against - The U.S., Israel and Palau.
In much of Latin America, Cuba has become a romanticized symbol of a small country that has stood up to the American giant. That image is exploited to the full in the anti-American rhetoric of such leaders as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, whose appeal rests in part on painting Uncle Sam as an Imperialist bully.
“Latin Americans would view U.S. engagement with Cuba as a demonstration that the United States understands their perspectives on the history of U.S. policy in the region and no longer insists that all of Latin America must share U.S. hostility to a 50-year-old regime,” the Foreign Relations Committee staff report said. “The resulting improvement to the United States’ image in the region would facilitate the advancement of U.S. interests.”
Portraying normal relations with Cuba as something that serves U.S. national interests strengthens the case of a growing number of lawmakers and business groups who think it is time to remove the last vestige of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere. It would also provide backing for Obama if he were inclined to go beyond his campaign promises on Cuba — easing restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba and sending money to relatives there.
CHANGE EASY, OVERDUE
In the words of Steve Clemons, a Latin America expert at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank, Cuba is “the lowest hanging ripe fruit on America’s tree of foreign policy options. Change is easy there — and overdue.”
There are two main reasons why Cuba policy has remained stuck in the Cold War, 18 years after it ended. For one, a succession of U.S. presidents expected that economic pressure on Cuba would topple the government and bring democracy to the island.
As importantly, Cuba has been as much a domestic issue as a foreign policy issue. For decades, the most determined opposition to changing policy on Cuba has come from the Cuban American community in Florida, a state which has often been decisive in presidential elections. No candidate has been willing to risk his campaign by offending the Cuban exiles, estimated at around 650,000.
But polls show that anti-Castro feeling is easing and the old guard of exiles is being replaced by a younger generation not as burdened as their elders by memories of fleeing the bearded revolutionaries who took power in 1959.
Obama won Florida last November, after a campaign during which he promised to ease restrictions on travel and cash remittances while saying the time was not ripe for an end to the embargo. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has described the embargo as “an important source of leverage for further change on the island”.
The thinking behind this phrase: Cuba must make concessions on human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of travel in exchange for the U.S. lifting the embargo. If not regime change in Cuba, then at least behavior change. Why this policy should work now when it has failed in the past is anyone’s guess.
And the argument is particularly difficult to make for Clinton after a February trip to China, a worse human rights violator than Cuba. She said disagreement with Beijing over human rights should not interfere with cooperation on broader issues. There’s no lack of broader issues in relations between the United States and Cuba.
– You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com
Obama action on family, Back delegation
Obama to abolish limits on U.S.-Cuba family ties
Sat Apr 4, 2009 5:57pm BST
By Anthony Boadle
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a move that could herald better ties between Cold War foes, the Obama administration is planning to abolish limits on family travel and cash remittances between the United States and Cuba, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
President Barack Obama has decided to fulfill a campaign promise and allow Cuban Americans and Cuban emigres to freely visit and send money to their families in the communist-led nation, the newspaper said, citing a senior administration official.
A White House official confirmed the administration's intentions to lift the restrictions, but said the measure was not a new policy statement and was not imminent.
"The administration has conveyed that our policy toward Cuba is being reviewed and the president has stated that there's a sense that restrictions on family visits and cash remittances should be lifted," the official told Reuters.
"Our focus remains on the need for democratic reforms and human rights" in Cuba, the official said.
The removal of limits on family travel and cash remittances would allow Cubans living in the United States to travel freely to the island, instead of once a year as at present. It would also remove the ceiling of $1,200 per person in cash remittances to needy family members in Cuba.
"This is a good humanitarian move that honors Cuban Americans' right to visit and aid their relatives as they see fit," said Cuba expert Phil Peters of the Lexington Institute.
"But it creates one class of Americans who can travel to Cuba at will, so it will add to the momentum in Congress to lift restrictions on all other Americans, who have a right to travel too," he said.
The Wall Street Journal said the move was probably meant to signal a new attitude toward both Cuba and other Latin American countries that have pressed Washington to end a trade embargo that has sought to isolate Havana for more than four decades.
TRAVEL AND REMITTANCES
During last year's presidential campaign, Obama favored easing U.S. restrictions on family travel and remittances, but said he would not eliminate the trade embargo until Cuba shows progress toward democracy and greater human rights.
The U.S. Congress is considering bills that would lift the ban on American citizens traveling to Cuba that was introduced with other sanctions in the early 1960s when Fidel Castro's revolution turned Cuba into a Soviet ally.
Obama is due to meet Latin American leaders at a summit in Trinidad and Tobago later this month.
The Wall Street Journal said Obama is not considering any specific diplomatic outreach toward Cuba, where Fidel Castro has been sidelined by illness and was succeeded as president last year by his brother Raul Castro.
U.S. lawmakers, who believe in increasing numbers that the embargo has proven ineffective in bringing political change to Cuba, have taken the initiative on the outreach front.
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives arrived in Havana on Friday to meet with Cuban officials in a sign of accelerating efforts to improve relations.
Representative Barbara Lee said the group of seven Democrats wanted simply to "see what the possibilities are" and carried no messages from Obama or proposals for the Cubans. "We're here to learn and talk," she told reporters.
The congressional delegation is the first from the United States to visit Cuba since Obama took office in January.
"Change is in the air and our president, of course, talks very clearly about bilateral relations with all countries in the world," said Lee.
(Additional reporting Jeff Franks in Havana and David Alexander in Washington; Editing by Chris Wilson)
Sat Apr 4, 2009 5:57pm BST
By Anthony Boadle
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a move that could herald better ties between Cold War foes, the Obama administration is planning to abolish limits on family travel and cash remittances between the United States and Cuba, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
President Barack Obama has decided to fulfill a campaign promise and allow Cuban Americans and Cuban emigres to freely visit and send money to their families in the communist-led nation, the newspaper said, citing a senior administration official.
A White House official confirmed the administration's intentions to lift the restrictions, but said the measure was not a new policy statement and was not imminent.
"The administration has conveyed that our policy toward Cuba is being reviewed and the president has stated that there's a sense that restrictions on family visits and cash remittances should be lifted," the official told Reuters.
"Our focus remains on the need for democratic reforms and human rights" in Cuba, the official said.
The removal of limits on family travel and cash remittances would allow Cubans living in the United States to travel freely to the island, instead of once a year as at present. It would also remove the ceiling of $1,200 per person in cash remittances to needy family members in Cuba.
"This is a good humanitarian move that honors Cuban Americans' right to visit and aid their relatives as they see fit," said Cuba expert Phil Peters of the Lexington Institute.
"But it creates one class of Americans who can travel to Cuba at will, so it will add to the momentum in Congress to lift restrictions on all other Americans, who have a right to travel too," he said.
The Wall Street Journal said the move was probably meant to signal a new attitude toward both Cuba and other Latin American countries that have pressed Washington to end a trade embargo that has sought to isolate Havana for more than four decades.
TRAVEL AND REMITTANCES
During last year's presidential campaign, Obama favored easing U.S. restrictions on family travel and remittances, but said he would not eliminate the trade embargo until Cuba shows progress toward democracy and greater human rights.
The U.S. Congress is considering bills that would lift the ban on American citizens traveling to Cuba that was introduced with other sanctions in the early 1960s when Fidel Castro's revolution turned Cuba into a Soviet ally.
Obama is due to meet Latin American leaders at a summit in Trinidad and Tobago later this month.
The Wall Street Journal said Obama is not considering any specific diplomatic outreach toward Cuba, where Fidel Castro has been sidelined by illness and was succeeded as president last year by his brother Raul Castro.
U.S. lawmakers, who believe in increasing numbers that the embargo has proven ineffective in bringing political change to Cuba, have taken the initiative on the outreach front.
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives arrived in Havana on Friday to meet with Cuban officials in a sign of accelerating efforts to improve relations.
Representative Barbara Lee said the group of seven Democrats wanted simply to "see what the possibilities are" and carried no messages from Obama or proposals for the Cubans. "We're here to learn and talk," she told reporters.
The congressional delegation is the first from the United States to visit Cuba since Obama took office in January.
"Change is in the air and our president, of course, talks very clearly about bilateral relations with all countries in the world," said Lee.
(Additional reporting Jeff Franks in Havana and David Alexander in Washington; Editing by Chris Wilson)
Friday, April 3, 2009
US View of the Role of Cuba at the Summit
TRINIDAD EXPRESS
No discussion on Cuba trade, says Obama
BY JUHEL BROWNE
jbrowne@trinidadexpress.com
United States President Barack Obama does not believe there needs to be any discussion of his country's 47-year-old trade embargo against Cuba when he attends the Fifth Summit of the Americas here later this month.
Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is the special adviser to the White House for the summit, made this statement yesterday, although Prime Minister Patrick Manning told reporters in Brazil, on March 16, that "there is a meeting of minds as to how best the question of Cuba should be handled".
"We do not believe that Cuba is a topic of discussion at this summit," Davidow said in a telephone interview with the Express yesterday, from his Washington DC office.
"The policy of the United States on Cuba is that we hope that the Cuban people will someday be able to share the same kind of democracy that the people of Trinidad have," Davidow, who is overseeing preparations for Obama's participation in the summit, said.
His comment came just three days after the communist country's leader, Raul Castro, accepted an invitation from Manning to come to Trinidad and Tobago at a time of his choosing.
"Obviously, Trinidad is free to work on its own relationship with Cuba as all countries are. However, I think it would be very unfortunate if the topic of Cuba were to become the principal issue at this summit and detract attention from the other important things you and I have been talking about -energy, poverty, crime," Davidow said.
Cuba is a member of the Organisation of American States (OAS), which is the group of states behind the summit, but its government has been excluded from participation in the OAS since 1962. Castro is not expected to visit this country during the summit, but even if he did, he would not be able to participate in it because of the existing OAS rules regarding Cuba.
Contacted for comment on the matter earlier this week, US Embassy public affairs officer Michelle Jones said: "Trinidad and Tobago is a sovereign nation, and the prime minister is free to invite any guest to his country. We do not anticipate any confrontations at the summit and look forward to good discussions."
In a radio address last week, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a strong ally of Cuba, called for Cuba's inclusion in the summit and urged Obama to lift his country's 47-year-old trade embargo on that country.
Commenting on this yesterday, Davidow said, "We do not believe that Cuba should be at the summit because the summit is for the community of democratically elected heads of state. I don't think anybody in Trinidad would argue that Raul Castro was democratically elected."
A former US ambassador to Venezuela, Davidow is working in conjunction with the US Department of State to help manage summit-related diplomacy in the region. As such, he was asked about the relationship between the United States and Venezuela, which was contentious under the administration of Obama's predecessor in office, George W Bush, and that of Chavez.
"Certainly, the American president is coming to the summit with the intention of meeting and talking with all of his democratically-elected colleagues in the hemisphere. It is not our intention to have difficulties with any of these countries or with their leaders," Davidow said.
No discussion on Cuba trade, says Obama
BY JUHEL BROWNE
jbrowne@trinidadexpress.com
United States President Barack Obama does not believe there needs to be any discussion of his country's 47-year-old trade embargo against Cuba when he attends the Fifth Summit of the Americas here later this month.
Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is the special adviser to the White House for the summit, made this statement yesterday, although Prime Minister Patrick Manning told reporters in Brazil, on March 16, that "there is a meeting of minds as to how best the question of Cuba should be handled".
"We do not believe that Cuba is a topic of discussion at this summit," Davidow said in a telephone interview with the Express yesterday, from his Washington DC office.
"The policy of the United States on Cuba is that we hope that the Cuban people will someday be able to share the same kind of democracy that the people of Trinidad have," Davidow, who is overseeing preparations for Obama's participation in the summit, said.
His comment came just three days after the communist country's leader, Raul Castro, accepted an invitation from Manning to come to Trinidad and Tobago at a time of his choosing.
"Obviously, Trinidad is free to work on its own relationship with Cuba as all countries are. However, I think it would be very unfortunate if the topic of Cuba were to become the principal issue at this summit and detract attention from the other important things you and I have been talking about -energy, poverty, crime," Davidow said.
Cuba is a member of the Organisation of American States (OAS), which is the group of states behind the summit, but its government has been excluded from participation in the OAS since 1962. Castro is not expected to visit this country during the summit, but even if he did, he would not be able to participate in it because of the existing OAS rules regarding Cuba.
Contacted for comment on the matter earlier this week, US Embassy public affairs officer Michelle Jones said: "Trinidad and Tobago is a sovereign nation, and the prime minister is free to invite any guest to his country. We do not anticipate any confrontations at the summit and look forward to good discussions."
In a radio address last week, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a strong ally of Cuba, called for Cuba's inclusion in the summit and urged Obama to lift his country's 47-year-old trade embargo on that country.
Commenting on this yesterday, Davidow said, "We do not believe that Cuba should be at the summit because the summit is for the community of democratically elected heads of state. I don't think anybody in Trinidad would argue that Raul Castro was democratically elected."
A former US ambassador to Venezuela, Davidow is working in conjunction with the US Department of State to help manage summit-related diplomacy in the region. As such, he was asked about the relationship between the United States and Venezuela, which was contentious under the administration of Obama's predecessor in office, George W Bush, and that of Chavez.
"Certainly, the American president is coming to the summit with the intention of meeting and talking with all of his democratically-elected colleagues in the hemisphere. It is not our intention to have difficulties with any of these countries or with their leaders," Davidow said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)