August 21, 2007

Obama Would Move to Normalize US Ties With Cuba

I imagine this is going to be Obama labeled as 'inexperienced" right? (Yes, by the same people's whose "experience" has led to the wildly successful US foreign policies we have seen in Iraq and ... Cuba)

Accordingly, I will use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That message coming from my administration in bilateral talks would be the best means of promoting Cuban freedom. To refuse to do so would substitute posturing for serious policy -- and we have seen too much of that in other areas over the past six years.
Posted by armand at August 21, 2007 11:06 AM | TrackBack | Posted to International Affairs


Comments

Plenty of Republicans want to normalize ties with Cuba. Pretty much everyone who isn't hooked on Cold War nostalgia does.

Posted by: binky at August 21, 2007 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

True - it's got a lot of support among Republicans in Congress - but not so much from the Republican administration.

Posted by: Armand at August 21, 2007 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

it doesn't have that much support, or else it wouldn't be apt to label obama as "inexperienced" (or, in my view, "bold and principled") for proposing something as startling as treating the communists in cuba with no nukes no worse than the communists in china who have nukes. fact is, if there's much GOP support for normalizing relations, someone ought to find out who's been binding and gagging them, because lord knows i don't remember hearing much about it. rather, i've understood that the party is chained to the swing state population of cuban expats who believe their former compatriots' freedom is better served by us disengaging completely thereby abetting their impoverishment and fidel's strangle hold on power. modern electoral politics: tiny fringe interests groups can run the show, and i think the cuban population in florida is one of the more obvious examples of the problem. not that they or their views, to which they are of course entitled, is the problem -- just that the system makes it profitable to pander to them notwithstanding the will of a much larger plurality that would just as soon see us do at least some business with cuba, open its beaches to tourism, etc.

the only unfortunate thing is that i'd rather hoped, once, to sneak into cuba for a visit when to do so is proscribed. if obama is elected, it sounds like that opportunity may dry up.

also, "To refuse to do so would substitute posturing for serious policy . . . ." ZING! as soundbites go, i like that a lot!

Posted by: moon at August 21, 2007 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Well Binky knows more about this so maybe she'll discuss it. But my impression of what you are discussing (fringe groups holding policy hostage) is more applicable to the White House/executive branch, than it is to blocking calls for change from certain voices in Congress. There are members of Congress (some principled libertarian or pro-trade types, and some members from the West and Iowa and whatnot who see economic benefits) who see great value in changing the old policy and don't worry/care much about pro-sanctions Cubans. The Cuban groups might matter if you are trying to win Florida. But if you are not ...

Posted by: Armand at August 21, 2007 01:44 PM | PERMALINK

My sense is that the preferred slam against Obama is "inexperienced," not that the Cuba position is what earned that adjective. Midwestern Republicans, free trade Republicans, and even those in states with high number of immigrants support freer ties because their constituents want to see their families (something that has worsened under the Bush administration). Some of the old school Republicans who are no longer around were the core opponents (although some like Diaz-Balart will likely never shift).

Posted by: binky at August 21, 2007 02:23 PM | PERMALINK

And I presume that goes for the other Diaz-Balart in Congress too. :)

Posted by: Armand at August 21, 2007 02:30 PM | PERMALINK

The Cuban expats have not been as much a factor as the sugar industry has. That's where the money is, and that's where the big opposition to normalizing trade with Cuba is, too. Can't have those government subsidized sugar prices punctured, yanno.

The majority of Florida politicians, of course, would be in the pockets of the Florida sugar industry.

Posted by: StealthBadger at August 21, 2007 03:47 PM | PERMALINK

so then the contention is that a narrow bloc of floridian legislators are holding this back? or that the president has done so without ever so much as having to look in the direction of his veto pen?

i don't doubt that plenty in congress have paid lip service to the sad and inhumane anachronism that is our cuba policy, but lots of people in congress have paid lip service to lots of things, and i don't remember any notable hearings being convened, or legislation sponsored, that materially aimed to change the situation.

it's surely true that a hostile executive dependent on the voting bloc in question to an extent that's not shared by the overwhelming majority of the legislature can do various things to interfere with good faith intentions to pass legislation on topic. but those efforts tend to be publicized, by hook or by crook, especially when they sit in a left wing sweetspot like cuba does. and it just seems to me i've heard nothing of the sort, implying that if the executive is pinning the legislature's arms on this, it's doing it far more subtly than its usual bull-in-a-china-shop methods would anticipate.

although that doesn't account for clinton. which raises an interesting question -- why didn't anything happen under clinton? hostile republican congress?

ach! i'm pretty ignorant on this stuff too, but even short of being pissed off about the lack of change, i'm pissed off about the relative lack of discussion of change. no one's ever given me any reason to believe that the distinction between our interactions with cuba and china is more robust than mere realpolitik, if that's even the word. to me it looks like simple hypocrisy, and given that the lack of meaningful threat has spanned at least reagan to bush 43, i don't see any reason to lay the failure at either party's doorstep more than the others.

is it possible that i'm referring to the wrong sweet spot: that, on the one hand, arguing for the status quo in cuba allows the right to draw a tenuous connection between the cold war that brought the modern right to power; while, on the other, arguing against that status quo exposes the left to old pinko smears and hence is unpalatable? just wondering. where's lakoff when you need him?

in any event, for all of these reasons, i'm glad obama came out and said it front and center. hopefully he'll encourage others to do the same. and then perhaps this quiet plurality i'm being told exists will step up and act consonantly with its words.

Posted by: moon at August 21, 2007 04:04 PM | PERMALINK

Which also includes Bacardi (indirectly) which has won the right in US court to steal back the Havana Club name. [edit: this was a response to the stealthbadger]

Posted by: binky at August 21, 2007 04:17 PM | PERMALINK

Um, there was another comment I made but it looks like it got deleted from the queue.

But, I also wanted to point out Obama's remarks focusing on keeping Cuban families together:

"The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways," Obama wrote.

"Unfortunately, the Bush administration has made grand gestures to that end while strategically blundering when it comes to actually advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in Cuba," he added.

He said that was true of the travel and money restrictions imposed in 2004, adding that the move isolated those on the island from "the transformative message carried there by Cuban Americans." He promised to grant Cuban exiles unrestricted rights to visit their families and to send remittances home.

While the U.S. embargo has limited who can travel to the communist island and what can be sent there since the early 1960s, Bush's restrictions made visiting and shipping gifts to Cuba more difficult.

Posted by: binky at August 21, 2007 04:22 PM | PERMALINK

D'oh! Sorry Binky - we got a butt load of spam for about an hour there.

Well if sugar is also a big concern (and it is), then the fringe opposition will also entail voices from Louisiana and Hawaii, but yeah this is somewhat structural in that White Houses (whoever they are) are more likely to be risk averse in dealing with/fighting these interests than folks from congressional seats in the Midwest - members who don't have anything at stake.

That said, if I remember right Clinton did open up things (relatively) for a bit, even if just in baby step form - but then Castro oppression and whatnot was kicked up, and quashed those moves.

But I think the focus Binky raises is interesting - the pro-family Obama.

Posted by: Armand at August 21, 2007 04:40 PM | PERMALINK

Ironically, it was Bush's move to tighten those restrictions that some regard as being responsible for cracks in the fortress of Cuban-American support for the embargo. Under the old system, you could visit your grandparents, aunts and cousins. Bush's changes made it so you could only visit parents/children. The other thing is that the newer generations of people born in the US are reported to have less harsh feelings (not that they love Castro) than their elders.

And regarding the "pro-family" point, I am looking at CNN right now, a clip of Michelle Obama making a statement about a president that shares our values, pro-family values. I'm thinking it's a "theme."

Posted by: binky at August 21, 2007 04:45 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a related piec on our discussion of Obama and Cuba. Note the part about the shifts in the Republican stance.

Posted by: binky at September 9, 2007 01:16 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?