Reach Out To Cuba
Obama should seize the chance to normalize relations with Havana.
Not since Richard Nixon went to China has an intractable foreign policy issue been so ripe for resolution as U.S. relations with Cuba are today.
As with China, bilateral hostility has persisted long after the causes of the initial break have ceased to hold sway, held in place by seemingly implacable domestic opposition to normalizing relations and the policy inertia of official Washington. When Nixon broke the stalemate by announcing his impending trip in 1972, the pro-Taiwan "China lobby" proved to be a paper tiger, and the foreign policy establishment heaved a great sigh of relief that such a manifestly irrational, ineffective and anachronistic policy had finally been put to rest.
U.S. policy toward Cuba today, like policy toward China in 1972, is overdue for change. Relations broke down 50 years ago because Washington was unwilling to countenance a Latin American client state escaping the orbit of U.S. hegemony, and because Fidel Castro was determined to do just that. The Soviet Union's willingness to provide Cuba an essential safety net brought Cold War confrontation to the Western Hemisphere, escalating the U.S.-Cuba skirmish to potential Armageddon.
These original insults to U.S. interests have long since faded. The end of the Cold War ended Havana's pretensions to world power and its threat to U.S. strategic interests. Cuban troops came home from Africa and no longer train aspiring Latin American guerrillas. Castro, who relished tweaking the noses of U.S. presidents and built both his domestic support and international prestige on defying them, has, since his illness, retired to the role of pundit. His more pragmatic younger brother, Raul, abstains from the anti-American rhetoric that made Fidel famous, and on several occasions has offered dialogue.
Long before Nixon went to China, the rest of the world community had acknowledged that China was governed from Beijing, not Taiwan. U.S. allies in Latin America and Europe, which followed Washington's lead half a century ago by breaking ties with Cuba, today have normal economic and diplomatic relations with the island. Last October, the United Nations General Assembly voted for the 17th time in as many years to condemn the U.S. embargo by a vote of 185 to 3. In December, 33 Latin American and Caribbean nations in the Rio Group granted Cuba full membership and called for an end to the U.S. embargo. A policy adopted half a century ago to isolate Cuba today isolates only the U.S.
Several of Barack Obama's predecessors in the White House considered normalizing relations, but something always went awry. John F. Kennedy hoped to win Cuba back from the Soviet camp by exploiting Castro's anger at Moscow for negotiating an end to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis without consulting him. Kennedy's diplomacy began through private envoys and was on the verge of graduating to talks between U.S. and Cuban officials at the United Nations when Kennedy was killed.
During Gerald Ford's administration, Henry Kissinger set his sights on detente with Havana. The efficacy of isolating Cuba had already begun to break down as allies in Latin America and Europe, one by one, restored normal ties with the island. Using journalist Frank Mankiewicz as a courier, Kissinger sent Castro a letter proposing talks to normalize relations, and Castro agreed. Over the next 18 months, U.S. and Cuban diplomats met secretly half a dozen times, in venues as varied as the grungy cafeteria at the LaGuardia airport terminal and the swanky Pierre Hotel in New York. Before the dialogue could gain traction, however, it was interrupted by Cuba's decision to send 30,000 combat troops to halt South Africa's intervention in Angola.
Jimmy Carter, like President-elect Obama, believed in the value of engaging adversaries. Within weeks of assuming office, Carter ordered the government to resume negotiations with Havana. "I have concluded that we should attempt to achieve normalization of our relations with Cuba," he declared in a presidential directive in March 1977. In quick succession, U.S. and Cuban negotiators signed agreements on fishing and maritime boundaries and posted diplomats in each other's capitals for the first time since relations were severed in 1961.
But when Cuba expanded its role in Africa by sending troops to defend Ethiopia's leftist government from invasion by neighboring Somalia, Carter decided to condition normalization on Cuba's withdrawal. After that, he backed away from normalization, even though a secret dialogue with Cuba continued during the remainder of his presidency.
By the time Bill Clinton took the oath of office, the Cold War was over and the Soviet Union dissolved. As Washington normalized relations with other former enemies, from Russia to Vietnam, the time seemed right to end the Cold War in the Caribbean too. But Clinton confronted a new obstacle -- the wealthy, well-organized and politically astute lobby of Cuban Americans in southern Florida. Although Clinton officials generally favored better relations with Havana, the president recoiled at the political price. Nevertheless, in a secret agreement brokered by Mexican President Carlos Salinas in 1994, during a crisis of dangerous attempted raft crossings to Florida by Cubans trying to leave the island, Clinton promised Castro a dialogue to move toward normalization. Talks produced a new migration agreement in 1995 but faltered in February 1996, when Cuban MIG fighters shot down two civil aircraft that had violated Cuban airspace, killing the four Cuban American pilots.
As Obama enters the White House, he enjoys many of the same propitious conditions that moved Kennedy, Ford, Carter and Clinton toward better relations with Havana. Kennedy sought to take advantage of the Cuban leadership's disenchantment with Moscow, which made it more open to U.S. blandishments; Obama faces new Cuban leaders who covet the economic benefits from travel, trade and investment that better relations would bring.
Ford and Kissinger realized that the U.S. policy of hostility toward Cuba was hurting U.S. relations abroad more than it was hurting Castro; Obama faces allies in Latin America and Europe that are virtually unanimous in their opposition to current U.S. policy.
Carter believed implicitly that engagement with Havana would prove more productive than isolation; Obama echoed those sentiments during the campaign.
Clinton hoped to gradually improve relations but was stymied by Cuban American opposition; Obama faces a less monolithic Cuban American community that has expressed growing support for engagement. A November poll of Cuban Americans in southern Florida found for the first time that a majority (55%) favors lifting the embargo. Obama's relative success among Cuban American voters (he won 35% of them in Florida, compared with just 25% for John Kerry in 2004) demonstrated that a Democrat could take a moderate stance on Cuba policy and still make inroads with this solidly Republican constituency.
This month marks not only the 50th anniversary of the Cuban revolution but also the anniversary of the formal break in U.S.-Cuban relations on Jan. 3, 1961. For perhaps the first time in the last half a century, both the policy logic and political realities of U.S.-Cuban relations are aligned to allow President Obama to cut the Gordian knot that has bedeviled so many of his predecessors. During the campaign, Obama pledged to meet with Raul Castro as part of a new policy of engagement. Summits require careful preparation, of course, but Obama should keep his pledge sooner rather than later.
For all Nixon's faults, his trip to China is remembered as a courageous, farsighted initiative that opened a new era in Sino-American relations. A trip to Cuba by President Obama would be no less historic.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
24 Comments so far
Show AllI tip my hat to Fidel Castro for shutting down the scurrilous ultraZionist terrorist Meyer Lanski's nefarious operations in Cuba. He's a hero in my book.
keep the americans out of cuba, especially working people. don't want them getting any big ideas.
Yes, release the Cuba 5 (Jaded Prole's comment). Mine is remove the blockade. Day 1.
"I thought that we're already reaching out to Cuba by allowing illegal Cuban aliens into Florida. The only difference between Mexican illegals and Cuban illegals is for Cuba we just give them blanket "legal" status, no questions ask."
And that policy stinks. They should be returned just as any other.
I think we tried that with Elian Gonzalas and we all know how that turned out. Still, I think we really should keep trying to get the consistency in order and get rid of those double standards.
I thought that we're already reaching out to Cuba by allowing illegal Cuban aliens into Florida. The only difference between Mexican illegals and Cuban illegals is for Cuba we just give them blanket "legal" status, no questions ask. Haitians, on the other hand, get sent back to Haiti, harassed and mugged by the immigration officials, or if hired for employment they're put to a slave camp. It's like telling the Haitians "Oh no you don't ! We're sending you back to the "democracy" we created for you whether you like it or not ! HAR HAR HAR !"
I was lucky to visit Cuba and most of the other Caribbean countries. One big difference that jumps out at you. The Cuban people are educated. Not only that, they are very informed about what is going on in the rest of the world.
It is way passed time we joined the world community and recognized this nation.
Yes indeed--and while we are at it let's normalize relations with Iran, North Korea, Hamas, and any other entities governing people with whose philosophy we don't agree. Without a place at the table neither we nor they have any hope of engaging in the kind of dialog that leads to change for the better.
If we can deaql with the likes of Pakistan, Most of the former Soviet Central
Asian Republics (talk about Muslim extremists!), China, Burma, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Central African Republic, Sudan, Liberia, and a whole bunch of other governing attrocities around this world, then there is no reason why we cannot and should not deal with Cuba.
Poet
Poet
I wouild never deal with slave owning countries if I had the choice. Hamas and Hesbolla are out.
Right, TM.
There is slavery right now in NYC--which, I believe, is in YOUR country.
I don't think you understand what "normalize relations" means.
It's not the same as engaging in low-level diplomacy.
We should take baby-steps towards normalizing relations with Cuba.
But only after they embrace democracy.
Cuba has no free press.
Every author and commentator from Common Dreams would be thrown in a Cuban dungeon.
If we only talk to democracies, if we only have relations with democracies...we'd be talking to a fairly small group.
Aside from that the Cuban people may not want democracy, they may prefer a constitutional monarchy or a socialist republic............
Is there any reason to keep Cuba quaranteened? Communism died years ago.
Yes, Thom the Troll: And that small group would NOT include the USA.
The USA has never been a democracy. Your vote is meaningless.
It is a plutocracy--and never has that been more in evidence than with the bailout Bush and the Congress made to their cronies.
No, I agree, I said we should take baby steps towards normalizing relations but only on the condition that they are democratizing.
I do think that human rights needs to be the center-piece of our foreign policy like it was under Carter and Clinton. Certain undemocratic regimes, like the Saudis, we have no choice but to deal with. Our relationship with them is a national security issue. But if the Saudis had nothing to offer, if we didn't need them to survive, then I would recommend somewhat isolating them until they establish a democracy.
America was founded on abandoning subservience to the monarchies of Europe because we believed in the higher ideal liberty. I don't think we should be allies with governments who deny their citizens fundamental G*d-given human rights (unless, like I said, we have no choice).
"Aside from that the Cuban people may not want democracy, they may prefer a constitutional monarchy or a socialist republic............"
Socialism is an economic system, there are socialist democracies. We have a republic (a federal constitutional republic) so there is no problem with being a democracy and a republic. But I have no respect for monarchies, unless they are powerless like the UK.
When allowed to choose freely, without intimidation or indoctrination, then I believe any sane person would choose freedom. Who would wish to willingly be a slave?
"I do think that human rights needs to be the center-piece of our foreign policy like it was under Carter and Clinton . . ."
This is a truly hypocritical statement coming from you, given your blind support for what the international community, with the exception of the United States, recognizes as war crimes being comiitted by Israel in the Gaza strip.
Joe
My point was we should not tell them they must be a democracy to enjoy a relationship with us.
I would suggest that if we open up, their society would have to open up...no choice. And human rights would be much farther down the road in Cuba.
Nice and simply stated. I'd also add it's no good forcing democracy on people down the barrel of a gun. Given enough time, disillusion and dissent peoples in undemocratic states usually force political evolution without any external prodding.
Samski
True. Wish I'd said it.
When you compare the US and Cuba, it's ludicrous the way the US has handled this. A small county, no threat to the US at all, is treated like some kind of leper, while all the 'old' enemies, erstwhile sponsors of Cuba, are 'partners' in trade, the war on terror etcetera.
Been to Cuba. An Obama visit would to Havana would elicit a respectful heroic response from the Cuban people. Long overdue.
I agree with both of you, it's time for the US to join the international community
Obama could make the first move by releasing the Cuban 5.
The Jaded Prole
Good idea...long overdue.