"USA, you got some 'splainan to do!"
Ah, what do we do about Cuba?
I don't think it's that big of an issue in the election for most Americans but it certainly is for Floridians. For those of you who do not know, Florida has many Cuban-Americans. As such, both sides tend to pander to Cuban-Americans since we all know that Florida is the only state that matters!
Democrats have a harder time swaying Cuban-Americans because they are traditionally conservative. However, they can be swayed by any side that takes a hard line against Cuba. Most Americans probably don't care that much about human rights violations in Cuba but are concerned about Communism. The term is incorrectly applied; Cuba is probably the closest thing in the world to Socialism. Theorists believe that socialism MAY work, but it must be around for several generations before it takes hold. It is the long reign of Castro that scares Americans since we are approaching 'several generations' and it is scary to think socialism might actually work (ignoring, of course, the basic desire of man to suceed).
Bush's position on Cuba.
Kerry's position on Cuba. Bush rebuttal. Kerry rebuttal to Bush rebuttal.
Which man do you think has a better plan for Cuba? Does either have a clue? Are they just playing politics to get the Cuban vote? What do you think we should do? Why?
posted by TheRadicalModerate @ 8/23/2004 11:31:00 PM
22 Comments:
Man, I hate to be the first...but here goes. From what little I know about Cuba, I can only think that the Castro Govt must need money to survive. Socialized medicine has to cost even for a small country.
I favor the Bush plan over Kerry's. If the US further restricts travel by Americans to/from Cuba and there is no other way of remittance, then the poor family members on the island can raise their hands up in ignorance when the man comes for taxes, if they pay taxes. I'm sure the men that tail the visitors are also watching the visitor's pursestrings in any case.
Kerry's plan would set back the Helms-Burton Act further pandering to our European Allies (read France and Germany) who have invested heavily in Cuba. He would repeal the current Family Visit policy therefore lining the pockets of the Castro regime. When Castro passes, there will be no elections in Cuba.
There's my stance with little knowledge to back it up. Common sense, I hope...
this isn't completely related to Bush/Kerry - but I do wnat to understand this -
From what I understand the USA discourages Cubans from attempting to flee Cuba and entering the USA illegally. That is- what I've read says that the USA will turn away any ship or boats carrying Cuban refugees or escapists? (what word can we use)BUT if they touch American soil, they are allowed to stay. Is this true?
Isn't this a bit odd? We tell them that IF you can make it through, we'll let you stay. So there's a lot of incentive for them to try. I presume that sending them back would be inhumane because they would be subject to severe retaliation. (hint to castro - when people are dying to leave the country- there's something that needs to be fixed...)
I don't suppose there's a way out of this. The USA can't quite open it arms and encourage Cubans to flee Cuba. But it can make a point with Castro by letting the Cubans stay. Is that correct that they can stay?
As for remitances, isn't there a large Cuban population here already that remits money back to Cuba?
I saw a cartoon once - in the early 1990s when the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR dissolved. It depicted a large conference table with Castro, the previous leader of North Korea and the then Chairman of China - and empty chairs with placards USSR, East Germany and so forth. There was a sign to indicate that it was the communist countries meeting. And one of the three said, "can we dispense with the rollcall now?"
What exactly is the reason why the USA hasn't made its rapproachment with Cuba? Is it historical more than logical? Or is there a reason for the economic embargo?
Sorry to have more questions than comments. Am actually ill so barely coping with sitting up :-)
Mac
Wow, this is wierd. This is like the theird time that we get a post i dont' know anything aobut and I read all kinds of stuff in the paper about it. Maybe RAdmods psychic or something.
OK, Here's my problem with the whole thing. It sounds like to me that CubanAmericans watn everythig both ways. They want Castro(l) out but they dont' want sanctions or embargo. What I read said they sned money and gifts to their relatives still in Cuba. Also they go there whenever they want (even though its only supposed to be once a year). Also they seem to hate the sanctions bush put on them. I think the only thing they'll be happey with is a massive invasion of Cuba that doesn't harm their relatives. Isn't that silly?
I wnat to know why Bush said he'd be tough on Cuba but didn't do anything about it until this year, this summer. It sounds like hes just doing it for political reasons.
"If the US further restricts travel by Americans to/from Cuba and there is no other way of remittance, then the poor family members on the island can raise their hands up in ignorance when the man comes for taxes, if they pay taxes. "
My question is how this effects the people. Cant we do sanctions like against Iraq, you know, medicine/food thats okay, but everythign else is out?
"Kerry's plan would set back the Helms-Burton Act further pandering to our European Allies ..."
I agree with Kery's stance that we need to appease our allies. To many of them hate us because they see bush as a cowboy.
"if they touch American soil, they are allowed to stay. Is this true?"
I don't know, but i do know taht bush did return some people only if Castro promised to imprison them for 10 years rather than kill them. That sucks.
But it can make a point with Castro by letting the Cubans stay.
I dind't think of that. Sounds okay to me.
As for remitances, isn't there a large Cuban population here already that remits money back to Cuba?
That's part of the new ban I think. I hate to agree with Bush but it seems like hes right about remittances, see beleow.
Okay, maybe I'm too young to know about all this, but heres my opinion.
Why dont we let them be? Why do we have to do anythign about Cuba at all? If Bush si so concerned about taking out dictators as he now claims is the reason for Iraq, why didnt' he go into Cuba? I mean Castrols been around fro 45 years.
If we want to do somethign about Cuba, we have to ignore the Cubans here. As my dad loves to say, its all or nothing. If someone returns to Cuba then make him stay there. Like gecko said lets end giving money to them though medicine and stuff should be okay. Like mac said let the people who get here stay.
mac, I hope you will be feeling better soon. (I made sure I typed that right :)
KT
Sorry to hear that Mac is ill; get well soon!
OK, Maybe it comes down to several thousand votes in Florida for either side, but the military side of me has nostalgia for the cold war stand-off. Remenber that Castro has been around for 45 years; a whole lot of time to hold a grudge. Say we lift sanctions, let people travel freely back and forth, and generally let Cuba be. I don't doubt some of the first people over from Cuba will be casing targets for missle strikes.
Anyway, Cuba should not be left to stagnate under a socialist dictatorship. I agree with the Bush policies outlines in the link in the beginning post. Limit travel and remittence, aid with food and medicine, and strangle the Castro regime to free Cuba.
The post about getting a foothold on American soil is about right. Of course they have to be processed first, but are just about guaranteed asylum. Why do we repatriate those caught out at sea? We have a 1995 immigration accord with Havana.
Authorized remittance is $300 per household every three months, unless the payee is a member of the Cuban govwernment or Cuban Communist Party (prohibited). The problem I see with govt aid in the form of food and medicine is that it may not go where we want it to go (i.e. like Somalia).
A final note. My opinion is that people who want closer ties with our allies need be wary of Internationalization and any "Global Union" concept. Most of these allies of ours do some nefarious trade around the world with little regard for human rights. Also, most (yes, I said most 'cause I don't have exact data) of their citizens do not enjoy alot (there I go again;) ) of the freedoms that Americans enjoy. Just my opinion! Does that sound like some conspiracy theory???
Pez says ...
The whole cuba thing is just political pandering. If either side really wanted to do something about it they would have.
I was going to say that we have no business in Cuba until gecko beat me to a post. I forgot about the whole Cuban Missle Crisis. You got me there, gecko.
We should cut off everything to and from Cuba. Nothing goes in, nothing comes out. I agree with KT that the Cuban-Americans want it both ways: Castro gone and no-one hurt. Ain't gonna happen till the bastards dead.
About the candidate's plans? Kerry is way too soft on Cuba if he wants regime change. Bush doesn't really give a damn beyond winning votes. Like KT asked, why did he wait so long?
So if I were keepig record, I put both candidates in the Con column on Cuba.
PEZ - Proactively Energizing Sluts
will i be callous if i say that i dont think /cuba matters anymore? we've got all kinds ofd other problems.
gregB
In terms of developing a foreign policy towards Cuba, I would defer authority to the people who actually live in the country, which would first mean ending the illegal embargo, and subsequently abstaining from Cuban "intervention" generally--which would include prosecuting those who engage in terrorism or provocation against the country from Miami or anywhere else.
In terms of Castro and democratic movements within Cuba, it's not entirely clear these are mutually exclusive, at least in terms of social achievements, such as the educational and health systems, and other social services generally. There are, of course, popular struggles happening right now advocating greater civil liberties, political freedom, and greater popular control over the society; bear in mind, however, that the Cuban dissidents themselves are stridently opposed to the type of neo-liberal reform advocated by business interests in the US, whose project would be to dismantle the social infrastructure and return Cuba to it's "rightful," pre-revolutionary owners, for purposes that are hardly ambiguous to the rest of central and south America.
I actually don't believe its 'illegal' except in the sense that the UN or other countries believe it is. After all, we stated along time ago that we have a mandate when it comes to the Americas (e.g. Monroe Doctrine). Every country has the right to act in its own self-interests. As gecko said, while I think there is little chance of it happening, Cuba presents a potential danger to the U.S. due to its willingness to have missles and simply due to its closeness to the U.S.
Unless I read your post backward, yes, we should be prosecuting anti-Cuban terrorists. Unfortunately, since the media tends to be liberal (LOL) I haven't heard of any.
The problem with leaving Cuba to the Cubans is the same problem we faced with Iraq. These people, IF they wanted their dictator out, have little power to effect the change. I agree, though, that the Cuban-Americans just want Cuba back so they can return to their haughty pre-revolution ways. That's why IF we do anything it has to be FOR the people of Cuba and for the security of the U.S, Florida votes be damned.
I'm a little bit offended that no one commented about my obviously clever title. Mac I can forgive because she's Australian (aren't you?) Others I guess are too young.
Forget what they are saying!!! Remember Bush is the "environmental President" and Kerry's the "pro-war" militant. What a laugh!!!! These people do actually have records in office that can be examined.
Kerry was one of the main people opposing Bush's appointment of Otto Reich as assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs. Read these two articles for more details. It should show their profound differences in think on Cuba:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4352102-103677,00.htmlhttp://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010507&s=kornbluh
RadMod, I thought it obvious where your title came from; a rather smooth title, by the way. In fact the last time I heard it was watching "The Fairly Odd Parents" with my kids. The male fairy Cosmo quoted the line while re-enacting an episode of THAT show for the evil babysitter Vicki. Smooth.
Tonite I actually used a movie we were watching to explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans to my eight year old. It was during the debate scene in Ella Enchanted. Think it's a little early to explain politics to my kid? She actually asked me, during a van ride, "What does Bush have that Kerry doesn't have"? Too much talk radio, I guess. You'll have to guess what I told her;)...
PEZ says ...
I don't get it. Why is it clever?
The illegality of the Cuban embargo is supported in virtually every relevant international forum, including the Organization of American States, which is not generally known for taking contrary stands vis-a-vis the United States. The European Union called on the World Trade Organization to condemn the embargo, but Washington withdrew from the proceedings, with the administration stating that the WTO had no authority over US policy.
I agree that for the past 45 years Cuba has presented itself as a very real threat for critical interests within the US. However, internal documents (recently de-classified) suggest that the threat was not military in nature, since the same policy practiced before Soviet involvement and continuing all the way through was in fact intensified afterwards. US sponsored terrorism against Cuba seems to be unrelated to any Soviet connection, since its origins can be found well before such a connection even existed. The real threat Cuba posed was as a symbol of independence to the third world, where "the distribution of land and other forms of national wealth greatly favors the propertied classes", according to then Kennedy advisor Arthur Schlesinger, and where "the poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living." In 1964, according to the State Department Policy Planning Council: "The primary danger we face in Castro is . . . in the impact the very existence of his regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American countries. . . . The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half." The primary danger, then, was that Cuba's defiance of the Monroe Doctrine might serve as a model of independent development for others.
In terms of democracy, I don't see any alternative to leaving Cuba to the Cubans. I certainly don't believe it's our job to determine what's best for Cuba, anymore than I think it would be right to do so in Iraq or anywhere else. That would presume a unique right to dictate the terms that other people live under, for whatever noble ends we invent. But that's not exactly without historical precedent, and I doubt we'd like the company.
I love when topics overlap!
Here's a link from Agenda item 29 of the UN's 54th and 55th plenary meetings last November 4, 2003 concerning the "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba":
http://www.un.org/webcast/plenary031104.htm
i was gonna go to bed but i just had to respond. this is what i dont get abot liberals (no sneer, so please dont delete). you guys want people to be free but youre wiling to allow cubans to be repressed. its like a buddy of mine who is in Iraq said. when they entered a town they were swamped. not by insurgents or soldiers but by the people who were greatful. he said it was like liberating paris. these people have no voice in their govt. someones got to give them that voice. if i could id put a bullet in castro and then see what happens.
i cant remember where in south america but theres that chavez guy. now ive heard some bad things baout him but he won the election and it was certified by carter as being an honest election so even though he may be repressing some people (i dont know) they have a voice. Irag and cubans dont.
gregB
Greg,
I appreciate your perspective. Since US policy towards Cuba has not changed dramatically since 1959, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "liberal" since the campaign against the country has been maintained by liberals and conservatives alike. These are, after all, the two camps of the American business party, with most of our foreign policy after the Civil War being dictated by their needs, namely external markets, especially once the west had been bought up and the country, in the throes of industrialization, began overproducing what it could consume domestically. In fact, our attitude towards Cuba goes straight back to this period, when we feared the native rebel movement against Spain might lead to an independent republic. This, so far as I can tell--and so far as the internal documentation seems to make clear--was the primary concern of our government: that Cubans remain subordinated to our economic mandate for markets and resources, and that any challenge to this mandate, whether from without or within, would be destroyed by force. That's pretty much the story of Latin America for the past 100 years, where we've worked hard to undermine and suppress popular movements for independence through a variety of means--fascism and state-sponsored terror being the most prevalent. For a good, first-hand account of these things from a military perspective, definitely check out USMC Major General Smedley Butler, who became a vocal opponent of US interventionism after playing a leading role in many Latin American campaigns.
Iraq is a different story, but not dissimilar. A recent poll had roughly 1% of the Iraqi population saying they believed the US had intervened in order to establish democracy. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that they don't want us there.
Leaving that aside for the moment, I think you're absolutely right to identify with the victims of repressive, undemocratic regimes. That's who we should be thinking about, all the time mindful that governments--all governments--act on behalf of the dominant interests within them, and not out of some innate benevolence or sympathy for mankind. But I've said enough for now...
Just a clarification. Greg's post indicated his confusion about liberal's attitudes about freedom and oppressive regimes. There was no indication of describing US policy in Cuba as a liberal policy or not. It sounds suspiciously like his argument was being twisted.
Yes, I'm being an ass. It's my job.
Pez,
The title is my mangling of "LUCY! You got some splainan' to do". This was a common exasperated yell by Ricky Ricardo, played by Desi Arnez, on the "I Love Lucy" show (check it out on Nick at Night). Desi was a Cuban, a son of rich Cubans who fled to the U.S. I think Ricky was also Cuban, but I don't remember.
yes he was a cuban on the show as well. i loved that show!
Mac
If there is a question over "liberals' attitudes about freedom and oppressive regimes" it might be cleared up by looking at what liberals have actually done on the subject. In the case of Cuba, they either maintained or escalated the attacks, assassination plots, and generalized terror against the country. In other words, they are in perfect agreement with conservatives, which is just another way of saying that the business community is in agreement with itself.
I think in the things that matter most to US industry, you don't find much difference between party policy. That's how the whole liberal/conservative pox on America works as a propaganda device to keep people hyped over silly cultural issues like gay marriage and prayer in school instead of fundamental policy concerns, like whether social security will still exist when you retire or how the defense industry is a scam to get the public to pony-up for overpriced, unwieldy weapons systems like missile defense that nobody wants to do the R&D for--so let the taxpayer pay out the nose for the whole thing.
Liberal/conservative is a useful construct for limiting opinion at home, but in reality it's a false choice. That's not to say these aren't both legitimate traditions; they just don't exist within the two-parties as anything other than ways to pander to the honest Americans who still honor them. Bush, to take our current example, is so far from the American conservative tradition that it's almost unreal. (Of course, the same could be said of Clinton's liberalism.) These people aren't conservative at all; they're basically American statists who believe in unfettered government expansion and centralized authority for the purposes that benefit them (and their business relationships), and "less government" for everyone else.
Ryan
What is the traditional conservative/liberal then? And also how was Clinton so far off from the traditional liberalism?
this would be helpful to me to understand what these terms mean
Mac
Boy, you had to ask the hard question! I think you'd be better served by someone who can actually answer that in any kind of thorough way--the online encyclopedia in this case.
ConservatismLiberalismOn Bush, I would emphasize the difference between the neo- and almost any other kind of conservativism. American conservativism has traditionally been of the classical, social, and fiscal varieties, in my opinion. Clinton was more of a conservative than Bush in this respect. But more on that later...
Post a Comment
<< Home