Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
More Thoughts On Normalizing Relations With Cuba
President Obama’s announcement on Wednesday that he would seek to normalize relations with Cuba reminded me of an aphorism: even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And so it is that Barack Obama — a man who is objectively terrible at his job — is right about Cuba. He is right because he is reversing (or trying to, anyway) a policy that has been an utter failure for half a century. Obama’s plan is (1) to normalize relations, (2) lift the travel and financial restrictions, (3) build an embassy, (4) seek to lift the embargo.
The response was predictable to anyone who has paid attention to politics long enough: opposition to change, support for preserving the status quo. Senator Marco Rubio held a press conference and angrily denounced the plan. He used the occasion to play the Cuban heritage card. When asked, Speaker Boehner played the terrorism card.
The one card that they couldn’t play — because it’s not in their deck — is the this-policy-works card. That’s because it doesn’t exist. Because this policy has been an utter failure.
Let’s consider the record of our Cuba policy, which has been stuck in time since the Kennedy Administration:
- If the goal was to bring freedom to Cuba, it has failed.
- If the goal was to isolate Cuba, it has failed.
- If the goal was to bring the Castro regime to its knees, it has failed.
Senator Rubio angrily complained that Obama gave away the store; that he received no guarantees from Castro of freedom for the Cuban people. And he therefore complained that Obama is a terrible negotiator. Did Senator Rubio really expect a sudden mea culpa from Raul Castro for half a century of communism? Did he expect that, in turn for an embassy, Castro would dismantle his regime? Senator Rubio brought a lot of anger to his press conference. What he did not bring was any alternative to the current policy which, again, has been a complete failure.
What will restoring relations and eventually trade with Cuba accomplish? First, it’ll help elevate the standard of living. Cuba is a third-world country 90 miles off of Florida. People live in poverty. An influx of American cash will help lift them out of despair.
Second, if Americans travel there to visit relatives or to trade they’ll be bringing with them the truth: that communism doesn’t work and that freedom brings prosperity. The reason North Korea, for example, still survives, is because it remains tightly cloistered. No information gets in without government approval. Once Americans start traveling to Cuba… well, Castro isn’t going to be able to put that cork back into the bottle. It’ll be a new era.
What will follow will be a slow liberalization. This has been done in China. We liberalized trade with China, their economy exploded, and that brought pressure to liberalize. No, it hasn’t happened yet. It’s not an immediate thing. But it will. There have only ever been two communist dynasties: North Korea and Cuba. Cuba’s is nearing its end. Raul Castro is 83. He’s going to kick off at some point. When he goes, a new generation of Cuban leaders will take over.
Maybe I’m being too optimistic. But even if this liberalization doesn’t happen, at a minimum it’ll help lift the people of Cuba out of poverty. It will reconnect families. The wounds of communism will begin the long process of healing. At a minimum, normalizing relations with Cuba will be an improvement.
We should let the current policy meet the death it so richly deserves.
Published in General
So the point is that we have to define effectiveness, don’t we? What Obama did isn’t effective AND it helps the Castros. That’s why I’m against it. I don’t care a bit for your measures of effectiveness, which is to be lawyerly about it. Whatever has happened in the past means very little to me and it would not affect what I want to do in this situation.
This is a show of weakness and gives a propaganda victory to the scum of the earth. That’s all there is to this. Why you people want to support Obama AND especially now — it boggles the mind. It’s as if the Cold War and the last 100 years don’t mean anything. It’s all about the rosy future and the failed past for you.
I expect no good things to come from something that Obama has wanted to do since he became president. I seriously suspect his motives. You should, too — and you shouldn’t be representing the NY Times explanation of this event.
Dude, he announced the policy last week. Give it a fortnight before you declare is ineffective!
Which “you people” are you referring to? As I said earlier:
“The problem with our president is that even though I’ve been in favor of this measure for years, it makes me think I must be mistaken if Obama’s doing it.
“There is however one thing we can be assured of: he’s not doing this to benefit the regular Cubans. Just ask American blacks how his presidency has worked for them.
“He cares nothing for regular people.”
That’s hardly “support”.
I could care less about diplomatic relations with Cuba, but lessening our useless embargo is an objectively good thing for us.
I fixed it.
How?
Because of free trade, free travel, and all the benefits that flow from them. (Nfn, but we shouldn’t need to explain the benefits of free trade to a forum full of conservatives.)
It isn’t necessary to be insulting. It’s just curious to me that you think we’ll have “free trade” — or “free” anything for that matter — with a communist dictatorship.
Now, you could argue that we “trade” with China — which is undeniably true. However, we send them paper (dollars) and they send us tangibles we find useful and worth the exchange.
I’m just wondering. What does Cuba produce, besides cigars (which I understand have been reduced in quality due to central planning practices on tobacco farms) and sugar? How important are those products to our economic well-being?
I find the “free travel” argument incredibly insulting to the Cuban people. I wish you wouldn’t make it. These people swim with sharks to get out of that hell-hole (and you speak as if they don’t know how hellish it is unless Americans visit and tell them) and you’re concerned with free westerners being able to go slumming in Havana? Your freedom to travel shouldn’t come at the expense of Cubans. That would seem to violate the non-aggression principle.
Here’s how I see it. Opening relations helps the Castros (and their successors), not the Cubans. If keeping the embargo and sanctions limits American freedom somehow, it’s at the extreme margins. I’m much more concerned with having the freedom to choose a medical insurance plan tailored to my needs than vacationing in Cuba. I think you’ve chosen an indefensible battle to fight.
He’s not insulting you. He’s pointing out that you’re logically incoherent. If you find that insulting, well…
What we will have, is more freedom for Americans. The pro-embargo argument, at this late date when it’s 52 years into failure to remove the Castros, pretty much boils down to:
Let’s spread freedom by making ourselves less free!
How exactly does that work? How about, since the making us less free tack has failed, we lead by example? Maybe the Castros will be inspired by our example?
OK, that’s not going to happen, but at least we will have eliminated one of the Castros most objectionable policies in the United States!
Last I checked, one of the reasons that supposed “conservatives” objected to the Castros is that they won’t allow their people free trade or freedom of movement.
We’ve responded to that by restricting Americans’ rights to free trade and freedom of movement.
That’s just a brilliant strategy. Defeat your enemy by adopting your enemy’s policies.
Would you please stop telling me what I’m saying!
I and others have said many times that if you want to spread freedom to the Cubans you have to remove the Castros and annex the country in order to build the institutions of a free people — from scratch. I’m not advocating that. I’m only saying I know of no other practical way to bring the principles of individual, natural rights, common law, and rule of law to an oppressed people. This idea of “free trade” (which it isn’t for the Cubans) doing the job is theoretical at best, and pure fantasy at worst. When you’re a free market fundamentalist, it’s the hammer with which you hit every trade limitation nail.
You’ve admitted that opening up to Cuba will not help Cubans. I agree! Then why do it? You’re not making the case by arguing the 52-year policy is burdensome on Americans. That’s just ridiculous on its face, and you know it.
WC, this is the happy talk part of the disappointment that will follow. Fred is a true believer and won’t be talked out of the “benefits” that this “free” stuff that has just got to happen soon. I just know it! Then with the disappointment part there will be “reasons” why things didn’t go as promised.
Tuck seems to focus on the disappointment that the embargo didn’t “work.”
But, Tuck is interested in
So it’s really appeasement that Tuck seems to be interested in. Very interesting admission against interest for him.
Tuck, if you think that we should take anything the Castros object to, fix it and then think that this will slowly improve our relationship with Satanic scum of the earth — well, this is the heart of your misunderstanding here. Only defeat in clear and public terms will do any good for the Cuban people.
So increasing freedom for Americans is appeasing Castro? My, you’ve tied yourself in quite the knot there, Larry.
The two of you keep going on about how bad the Castros are, but having the same policies applied against Americans is fine with both of you. Talk about “admission against interest”….
War often requires restrictions on the populace. You don’t seem to get it that the Castros see us as their enemy and, of course, we in response, see them as our enemy. This is what those terms mean. And of course, as WC mentions above, the restrictions imposed on Americans are on the margin. Cuba has almost nothing to offer us that we can’t get elsewhere and for the sake of our own self respect we should not throw them a lifeline right now when the pressure can really be brought to bear.
But, let’s face it — Obama is more on their side of all these disputes than ours.
This is all appeasement you are supporting. All of this.
Tuck. Get a grip. You know this is clearly a false equivalence. Not permitting travel to Cuba is not that same as not permitting travel at all. Nor is what you’re advocating a solution to the Cuba problem. Your line of argumentation is unworthy of your intelligence.
We’re talking about a nation of 11 million people. To suggest that the only thing they have to offer is cigars and sugar is … well, idk what to do with that.
You’re cold materialist analysis leaves out the human aspect, the cultural aspect, the spiritual aspect.
We’re not at war with them.
And they don’t see us as their enemy, they see the Cuban people as their enemy.
You’re not at war. Most of the world is not at war with them. But, the Castros are at war with all of us — regardless. They are not peace loving — they would do us [more] harm if they could. They are international criminals and they stand directly in the way of us doing good for the Cuban people. Your support for Obama in this is support for the Castros and will give them more power to oppress the Cuban people.
And don’t forget that they give advice to others in how to oppress their own citizens. Never forget their criminal past — those years when they had money to spend on overseas’ projects for the International Socialists, the Soviets.
I always thought that the point of the embargoing Cuba was to keep the rest of the Caribbean/Central America in line – a message to the people that if you support a revolution which nationalises US assets it can result in your lives getting worse, not improving the way you think it might. An effort which was relevant as long as there were actual Marxist insurgencies with popular support in the region. Now the situation has changed, so the utility of the embargo seems to be diminished. It served its purpose – as well as could be expected, given the circumstances – but nothing stays relevant for ever.
How is it that after all the evil that this Cuban regime has foisted on its own people there are so many wishing to ‘absolve’ and move on? The embargo ‘didn’t work’ is used as some sort of ‘get out of jail free’ logic card? What exactly do the supporters stand for when the oppression continues? And contrary to Tuck’s ‘all American freedoms being infringed on’ the simple fact is that the actual Cubans won’t be any more free that they are now, so our freedoms are more important that their actual and literal freedom?
Try this article for the reality of the situation and not some empirical expression of ‘freedom’.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/cuban-archipelago
Excerpt:
“Half a million human beings have passed through Cuba’s Gulag. Since Cuba’s total population is only around eleven million, that gives Castro’s despotism the highest political incarceration rate per capita on earth. There have been more than fifteen thousand executions by firing squad. Torture has been institutionalized; myriad human-rights organizations have documented the regime’s use of electric shock, dark coffin-sized isolation cells, and beatings to punish “anti-socialist elements.” The Castro regime’s barbarity is best epitomized by the Camilo Cienfuegos plan, the program of horrors followed in the forced-labor camp on the Isle of Pines. Forced to work almost naked, prisoners were made to cut grass with their teeth and to sit in latrine trenches for long periods of time. Torture is routine.”