Recently, the European Union (EU) has gradually established closer diplomatic ties with the Cuban government, especially after the transition of power from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul almost a year ago. The latest news is that the EU invited Cuban officials to meet in
- So what do you think?
- Is the EU correct in getting closer to
- Is it too soon to try to normalize relations or is the time just right?
- Does it represent a step forward or backward compared to the
- Will the EU goes as far as
Let us know what you think by commenting to this post and/or voting on the poll located on the sidebar. (Poll closes next Monday, June 25th).
Sources- BBC News, The Latin Americanist, International Herald Tribune, Reuters, CNN
Image- Safe Democracy Foundation
8 comments:
I think a "third" political voice is needed, concerning Cuba. On one side, you have the US with constant critcism and refusal to talk. On the other side, you have left-winged Latin American regimes (Chavez, Morales, Ortega) embracing the Cuban ideology and sucking up to its regime.
I think the EU could play a neutral role in the international relations with Cuba, treating it like any other third-world government: support them where needed, but also criticize them where needed. Maybe from a 'respected' partner like Spain, the Castro brothers are more willing to accept comments, and see that there are some things fundamentally wrong on the island.
(Thanks for a great debate subject! This especially interest me, I visited Cuba last year, and half of my family works at the European Parliament in Brussels.)
I would argue that there is a third voice which is found in the moderate leftists leaders like Lula, Kirchner, and Bachelet. They've been more cautious in their approach towards Cuba than Morales and Chavez, yet do not want to be completely isolated from the Castro regime like the U.S.
This is how some EU countries like the Czechs want to act towards Cuba and it touches on your notion of treating the island "like any other 3rd world government."
Please feel free to add anything else to the debate since you seem to know far more about the subject than i do. And thanks very much for your comment!
I think that dialogue is definitely in order. However, I think that it should be a two-directional dialogue and not a oneway moral lecture. We in the first world ('developed world', 'north'; whatever your vernacular might be)have a tendancy to approach diplomacy with a condescending air. The third world often amounts to nothing more than group of (mis)uninformed students who need guidance and counseling.
Maybe instead of focusing on how much the Castro government should listen to what is wrong with their system, we we should take a close look at what is right with it.
I'm not suggesting that a country should be able to house political prisoners without criticism. I just think this issue needs a fresh point of view; one that both criticises and takes notes. I studied in Cuba for a while and can attest that there are some things done properly on the island.
Anon- Interesting suggestion at how foriegn policy ought to be directed at Cuba. But what do you feel is right with the Castro regime and should be emphasized?
I agree with anonymous: sometimes the focus is too much on what is wrong with Cuba. Especially the cubans themselves have that tendency.
When I was visiting, I remember one cubano complaining he either had to wait a month to get on the bus to Havana, or pay $30 (which is a big chunck of his paycheck). And his little girl needed to go to the hospital ASAP. I told him that when he arrives at the hospital, he will get the best possible care for his daughter, without paying a peso, while in many 'developed' countries you don't have access to health care unless you pay muchos dolares. And he agreed that maybe then Cubans are better off after all - concerning that issue.
(Maybe the new Michael Moore movie 'Sicko' could shed a light on this, I don't know if you heard of it: he takes 9/11 rescue workers who have been denied treatment in the US to Cuba for treatment. An advance copy is all over the internet, watch it! ;))
I think the question shouldn't be how far the EU - or any other government for that matter - should go in opening a dialogue with Cuba.
The real question is why should anyone thumb its nose at Cuba.
Communism? Well, everyone is talking to China.
Human rights abuses? Most of the U.S. so-called "allies" in the Middle East and in Africa have a history of human rights violations.
Threat of regional instability? I don't think Cuba has the ability to threaten anyone right now, besides the ocassional ulcer to those members of the Cuban exile, that is.
My answer is that everyone should talk to Cuba if they want to.
what should be done with the Castro regime is up to Cubans, not Americans or Europeans. If changing their government was possible, it would have been done by now. We can't change it. Why? Probably because Cubans don't want to change it for an American style free-market economy. A lot of Cubans have big issues with Castro himself, but I would say that the vast majority of Cubans are socialists/communists.
And of course there is the element of Cuban society that loves Castro.
Regardless, most Cubans aren't so naive to believe that the Americans are going to swoop in, depose Castro, and make their lives better. Therefore we should not be the ones forcing change on them. Besides, what moral authority do we really have? Are our countries so good? as 'el loco' says, why would we take the moral high ground with Cuba, but not with other blatant violators of human rights?
The answer, in my opinion, is that the Cuban system offers a real threat to American hegemony by way of showing the 3rd world what an egalitarian society can provide for its citizens. If 3rd world countries were to follow that example, it would effectively stymie America's imperialistic plans for the 3rd world.
That is the real reason they want to crush the Cuban government, to protect their own interests, which bereaves them of any moral position.
Before there was a Castro there was Baptista but the US was ok with him still a dictator but money was being made for all the proper classes under him especially the US so it was ok.
Post a Comment