The Castro brothers are, of course, still hoping for a lift of the embargo, because it would mean the effective withdrawal of substantive American disapproval of the Cuban state. I found this passage interesting:
Mr Obama has said he wants dialogue and improved relations with Cuba, but that the embargo should be maintained until the Cuban government shows progress on democracy and human rights.I can't say I'm surprised at the demand for equality and the withdrawal of preconditions, especially considering that Obama has seemed willing enough to grant those things elsewhere. But what I do find surprising is that there are American conservatives who think lifting the embargo has zero drawbacks and many benefits.
Fidel Castro said he did not blame Mr Obama for past US policy towards Cuba, but added: “The conditions are created for Obama to use his talent in a constructive policy that puts an end to what has failed for the past half century.”
He pointed out that Raúl Castro had expressed willingness to hold US talks on the basis of equality and without preconditions. [emphasis added]
Mario Loyola has a piece up at the Washington Times arguing exactly that. It's easy to argue that American policy has "failed" because Cuba hasn't changed in the last 50 years, but I don't think 'changing Cuba' is the only reason for the policy. The embargo is also useful for de-legitimizing the Cuban state, for preventing active American financial support for the government, and a simple statement of deep disapproval.
But what really irks me about Loyola's analysis is his belief that we should emulate Nixon's approach to China. I really can't see why opening up with China can be seen as a spectacular success in terms of American interests. Now think--is China more democratic? Less repressive? Is China more friendly toward American interests abroad? No, no, and no. China has proven no help with North Korea, continues to persecute the Falun Gong and Christians, and it continues as a one-party state. There is one big change in China though: the government seems to think that it can remain Communist while stabling a quasi-capitalist cash-cow. Orwell's pigs have truly made good.
On the other side, Peter Brookes at the New York Post holds down the older conservative argument. There's nothing particularly new in what he says, but that's because there's really nothing new to say (and that's not a bad thing, really). The fact is that for 50 years the ball has been in the Cuban government's court. America hasn't made the Cuban people's life miserable--the Cuban government has done that.
If America wanted to literally force Cuba to change, it's militarily possible, of course. But American interests aren't strong enough to use overwhelming military power, so the embargo stands as the primary bargaining chip. When Cuba reforms, America lifts the economic sanctions.
Your move, Castro.
PS: The only really decent reason for lifting the embargo without receiving some kind of good-faith effort from Cuba first is if we want something that only Cuba can provide. Which means...cigars, I guess. But we're busily taxing and banning tobacco. On second thought, Cuban cigars would qualify as some dangerous conspiracy against the health of witless Americans. Oh well.
Email Me
