Today’s news that the Both gentlemen agreed on some points (e.g. change in Cuba must come from within the island) yet Peters argued that the embargo has not weakened the political regime and that “today’s policy- a series of weak measures that don’t back up the false toughness of our regime-change rhetoric- does nothing to promote change”. On the other hand, Hays contended that opening the island to American tourism would be ineffective against changing Raul Castro’s regime, and that economic sanctions have politically and economically weakened the island.
Links- BBC News, Council on Foreign Relations, Lexington Institute, Cuban American National Foundation
Image- BBC
Solid debate. Worth the read. thank you.
ReplyDeleteBut I could not help thinking that both Philips and Hays have not been keeping up with the articles posted here.
The Administration’s announcement to form this Task force to crack down on sanction violators is very much a geopolitical signal to our allies and to any nation on the fence. We want to remind them that we see Cuba as a serious enemy.
The question is why now? Sure, there’s an election. But this Task force isn’t going to prosecute a soul before the election. And, if memory serves, Broward County went 64% for Kerry, who was promising to end the travel restrictions. It’s hard to imagine how announcing a Task intended to prosecute tourists is going to convert his voters.
Politically, the announcement does give Republican CA’s in Miami cover, and it will help with fund raising. CANF still has deep pockets, even if the money rightfully belongs to American taxpayers.
But the Cuban government is the one keeping the heat on. From reading the stories here, we can see Havana playing a hugely constructive roll in Columbia. The ELN has all but turned in their weapons.
And the Cubans are equally as constructive in their silence over North Korea’s madness (even though on the night Fidel ceded power, the North Koreans shot a few rounds at the their South Korean counterparts along DMZ, as if to remind the US not to take her eyes off the Peninsula, not a trivial expression of solidarity.)
But more important, in Condi’s formulation of the GWOT, namely Terrorist sponsoring nations, Cuba is one of two or three nation states forming the bridge between the Transnational Sunni terrorists, Osama and company, and on the other hand the Post-Soviet nations (Syria, etc.)and armed "resistances" groups, the ELN, etc.
Simply put, the Administration is seeing Cuba score humanitarian points around the world, as health care providers and as peacemakers, points with which they threaten to split the block of enemies Condi put together, the “Them’s” in her penetrating, deep, Stanfurd trained analysis on geopolitcal relations.
My guess is that time is running out for the possibility of subverting succession in Cuba, and, at the end of the day, the cowboys only know how to shoot. So with this announcement, they load their guns.
Let’s check back in a year or two and see how much freedom and liberty this posse brings to the island.
You're welcom redwood and thank you very much for your informed and detailed comment.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, if you really enjoy the debate it would be nice to drop a thank you to CFR as they tipped me off directly about the debate.
You bring up numerous interesting points, but I would like to ask you this: where do you see Cuba politically in 1 or 2 years? (Perhaps your cristal ball can see better into the future than that of the politicos)!
I shall let the CFR know (although those initials in this context strike fear in me--The Code of Federal Regulations. Yikes!)
ReplyDeleteMy interest is really US/Cuba relations, not the internal politics of Cuba. As you know, it’s difficult to get any solid information on Cuba’s internal politics. And, since I have a loved one there, I don’t ask questions.
But from reading articles and the news reports, I get that there still exist a “political class,” derisively referred to as the Tropical Taliban and distinct from the Communist Party, although they are undoubtedly registered Communists. And, I understand that that political class is under some heat as the corrupt players in the government.
My theory is that Fidel stepped out of offices in part because he realized that corrupt officials were hiding behind him. With him out of the way, diehard Communist Raul sent a stern warning to the rank and file that low level corruption will not be tolerated either. So I would expect to see some entire entities close down due to “corruption.” They’ve been warned.
But the political question is Who will assume Fidel’s offices, of which I understand he holds three: (1) First Secretary (2) Commander in Chief of the Revolutionary Armed Forces and (3) President, Council of State and Minister.
Everything we’ve heard recently about his return is carefully worded not to claim that he will be returning to any one of those three specific positions. So I know that I’m going out of limb here, but I still think that he finished governing, finished playing the role of maximum arbitrator. Now, and in the near future, the Communist Party is in firm control.
And with that reality, we can pretty much ignore these people who say that foreigners will soon own outright property on Cuba.
I'm at a bit of a loss for words, redwood, after reading both of your comments. I confess to knowing very little on U.S.-Cuba policy so it's not easy to reply to what you just mentioned.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I will point out that you make a clear distinction between Fidel and the rest of the Cuban Communist Party. This is key since there's the mistaken belief that Fidel = the Cuban Communist Party, which is why once Fidel goes away then the rest of the regime will follow thus making it easier for a democratic and/or pro-U.S. government to come into power. Unless there's some serious infighting within Fidel's gang (e.g. Raul Castro, Perez Roque, etc.) the odds are relatively good that they will continue in power. (at least in the short term).