SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Change in Cuba Policy is a Nod to Reality
President Obama's decision to normalize relations with Cuba is a decision to recognize reality. For 50 years, the United States has pursued a policy that has failed. The embargo hurt the Cuban people it claimed to help and bolstered the regime that it intended to undermine. The effort to isolate Cuba has been increasingly isolating the United States both in the hemisphere and across the world.
Dec 25, 2014
President Obama's decision to normalize relations with Cuba is a decision to recognize reality. For 50 years, the United States has pursued a policy that has failed. The embargo hurt the Cuban people it claimed to help and bolstered the regime that it intended to undermine. The effort to isolate Cuba has been increasingly isolating the United States both in the hemisphere and across the world. And as the president concluded, "I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result." To believe that would be, as Albert Einstein taught us, the very definition of insanity.
The best evidence that this change was long overdue was provided by the hysterical and incoherent reactions of its opponents. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential presidential contender, embraced the initiative, making an indisputable comment about the embargo: "If the goal is regime change, it sure doesn't seem to be working." Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) replied that Paul "has no idea what he's talking about."
Rubio argued that the United States gets nothing in return for normalization: no free elections in Cuba, no free press, no democratic progress of any sort. But while we don't know what the product of the new opening will be, we do know that the half-century of the embargo hasn't produced free elections or a free press in Cuba either. By making Cuba David against Goliath, the U.S. embargo provides the regime a rationale for its internal crackdowns while elevating its stature across the hemisphere and the developing world. Normalizing relations with Cuba enables the United States to advocate for individual liberty, without being seen as a bully trying to club a small neighbor into submission.
Why, the president noted, should we continue to isolate Cuba when we normalized relations with communist Vietnam and communist China decades ago? Well, argues a Washington Post editorial that labels the president's opening a "betrayal," opposition movements in those countries "barely existed," while there are dissident movements in Cuba. But the logic of normalizing relations with regimes that eradicate all opposition but not with those that allow some dissent is hard to discern.
Opponents suggest that China and Vietnam prove that "engagement doesn't automatically promote freedom," as the Post editorial put it. That is certainly true, as is the fact that 50 years of the Cuba embargo haven't promoted freedom either. Inescapably, China, a country of more than a billion people on the other side of the world, is likely to be marginally less susceptible to the effects of engagement than a small island of 11 million 90 miles off our coast.
In reality, the failed embargo is long past its due date. Cuba is already in transition from the Fidel Castro era. It has better relations with countries in this hemisphere than the United States does. Investors from Europe, Brazil and China are already doing business there. Cubans have greater rights to travel to the United States than Americans have to travel to Cuba.
What Obama has done is recognize this reality. Opponents don't seem to realize that history has long since moved on. The Cold War is over; the Soviet Union no more. Cuba is our ally in the drug war; its doctors a blessing in the struggle against Ebola. Cuba's economy is a shambles, even as its health care and education systems are envied across the hemisphere. Republicans -- if Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) are able to overcome the business lobby -- may refuse to confirm the president's nominee as ambassador. They can block the legislation needed to lift the embargo. But with the president's support, travel can be eased, investment and financial restrictions can be lifted, Cuba can be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and something closer to normal relations can begin.
Obama's common-sense initiative also opens the possibility of a sea change in U.S. relations with its neighbors. For more than a century, we have casually and routinely trampled the sovereign rights of our neighbors to the south. We dispatched the Marines to collect debts and defend United Fruit in the early 1900s. During the Cold War, we armed and trained brutal police and military regimes while destabilizing democratically elected governments. And of course, we tried to overthrow Fidel Castro by invasion, embargo and subversion for decades.
In April, Obama will attend the Summit of the Americas in Panama along with other presidents, including Cuba's Raul Castro. There, we might listen more and bluster less. The end of the embargo -- if it is lifted -- may mark the beginning of a new good-neighbor policy, not just toward Cuba but toward other countries in the hemisphere. We would all profit from that.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Washington Post
Katrina Vanden Heuvel
Katrina vanden Heuvel is an American editor and publisher. She is the editor, publisher, and part-owner of the magazine The Nation. She has been the magazine's editor since 1995.
President Obama's decision to normalize relations with Cuba is a decision to recognize reality. For 50 years, the United States has pursued a policy that has failed. The embargo hurt the Cuban people it claimed to help and bolstered the regime that it intended to undermine. The effort to isolate Cuba has been increasingly isolating the United States both in the hemisphere and across the world. And as the president concluded, "I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result." To believe that would be, as Albert Einstein taught us, the very definition of insanity.
The best evidence that this change was long overdue was provided by the hysterical and incoherent reactions of its opponents. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential presidential contender, embraced the initiative, making an indisputable comment about the embargo: "If the goal is regime change, it sure doesn't seem to be working." Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) replied that Paul "has no idea what he's talking about."
Rubio argued that the United States gets nothing in return for normalization: no free elections in Cuba, no free press, no democratic progress of any sort. But while we don't know what the product of the new opening will be, we do know that the half-century of the embargo hasn't produced free elections or a free press in Cuba either. By making Cuba David against Goliath, the U.S. embargo provides the regime a rationale for its internal crackdowns while elevating its stature across the hemisphere and the developing world. Normalizing relations with Cuba enables the United States to advocate for individual liberty, without being seen as a bully trying to club a small neighbor into submission.
Why, the president noted, should we continue to isolate Cuba when we normalized relations with communist Vietnam and communist China decades ago? Well, argues a Washington Post editorial that labels the president's opening a "betrayal," opposition movements in those countries "barely existed," while there are dissident movements in Cuba. But the logic of normalizing relations with regimes that eradicate all opposition but not with those that allow some dissent is hard to discern.
Opponents suggest that China and Vietnam prove that "engagement doesn't automatically promote freedom," as the Post editorial put it. That is certainly true, as is the fact that 50 years of the Cuba embargo haven't promoted freedom either. Inescapably, China, a country of more than a billion people on the other side of the world, is likely to be marginally less susceptible to the effects of engagement than a small island of 11 million 90 miles off our coast.
In reality, the failed embargo is long past its due date. Cuba is already in transition from the Fidel Castro era. It has better relations with countries in this hemisphere than the United States does. Investors from Europe, Brazil and China are already doing business there. Cubans have greater rights to travel to the United States than Americans have to travel to Cuba.
What Obama has done is recognize this reality. Opponents don't seem to realize that history has long since moved on. The Cold War is over; the Soviet Union no more. Cuba is our ally in the drug war; its doctors a blessing in the struggle against Ebola. Cuba's economy is a shambles, even as its health care and education systems are envied across the hemisphere. Republicans -- if Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) are able to overcome the business lobby -- may refuse to confirm the president's nominee as ambassador. They can block the legislation needed to lift the embargo. But with the president's support, travel can be eased, investment and financial restrictions can be lifted, Cuba can be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and something closer to normal relations can begin.
Obama's common-sense initiative also opens the possibility of a sea change in U.S. relations with its neighbors. For more than a century, we have casually and routinely trampled the sovereign rights of our neighbors to the south. We dispatched the Marines to collect debts and defend United Fruit in the early 1900s. During the Cold War, we armed and trained brutal police and military regimes while destabilizing democratically elected governments. And of course, we tried to overthrow Fidel Castro by invasion, embargo and subversion for decades.
In April, Obama will attend the Summit of the Americas in Panama along with other presidents, including Cuba's Raul Castro. There, we might listen more and bluster less. The end of the embargo -- if it is lifted -- may mark the beginning of a new good-neighbor policy, not just toward Cuba but toward other countries in the hemisphere. We would all profit from that.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel
Katrina vanden Heuvel is an American editor and publisher. She is the editor, publisher, and part-owner of the magazine The Nation. She has been the magazine's editor since 1995.
President Obama's decision to normalize relations with Cuba is a decision to recognize reality. For 50 years, the United States has pursued a policy that has failed. The embargo hurt the Cuban people it claimed to help and bolstered the regime that it intended to undermine. The effort to isolate Cuba has been increasingly isolating the United States both in the hemisphere and across the world. And as the president concluded, "I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result." To believe that would be, as Albert Einstein taught us, the very definition of insanity.
The best evidence that this change was long overdue was provided by the hysterical and incoherent reactions of its opponents. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential presidential contender, embraced the initiative, making an indisputable comment about the embargo: "If the goal is regime change, it sure doesn't seem to be working." Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) replied that Paul "has no idea what he's talking about."
Rubio argued that the United States gets nothing in return for normalization: no free elections in Cuba, no free press, no democratic progress of any sort. But while we don't know what the product of the new opening will be, we do know that the half-century of the embargo hasn't produced free elections or a free press in Cuba either. By making Cuba David against Goliath, the U.S. embargo provides the regime a rationale for its internal crackdowns while elevating its stature across the hemisphere and the developing world. Normalizing relations with Cuba enables the United States to advocate for individual liberty, without being seen as a bully trying to club a small neighbor into submission.
Why, the president noted, should we continue to isolate Cuba when we normalized relations with communist Vietnam and communist China decades ago? Well, argues a Washington Post editorial that labels the president's opening a "betrayal," opposition movements in those countries "barely existed," while there are dissident movements in Cuba. But the logic of normalizing relations with regimes that eradicate all opposition but not with those that allow some dissent is hard to discern.
Opponents suggest that China and Vietnam prove that "engagement doesn't automatically promote freedom," as the Post editorial put it. That is certainly true, as is the fact that 50 years of the Cuba embargo haven't promoted freedom either. Inescapably, China, a country of more than a billion people on the other side of the world, is likely to be marginally less susceptible to the effects of engagement than a small island of 11 million 90 miles off our coast.
In reality, the failed embargo is long past its due date. Cuba is already in transition from the Fidel Castro era. It has better relations with countries in this hemisphere than the United States does. Investors from Europe, Brazil and China are already doing business there. Cubans have greater rights to travel to the United States than Americans have to travel to Cuba.
What Obama has done is recognize this reality. Opponents don't seem to realize that history has long since moved on. The Cold War is over; the Soviet Union no more. Cuba is our ally in the drug war; its doctors a blessing in the struggle against Ebola. Cuba's economy is a shambles, even as its health care and education systems are envied across the hemisphere. Republicans -- if Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) are able to overcome the business lobby -- may refuse to confirm the president's nominee as ambassador. They can block the legislation needed to lift the embargo. But with the president's support, travel can be eased, investment and financial restrictions can be lifted, Cuba can be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and something closer to normal relations can begin.
Obama's common-sense initiative also opens the possibility of a sea change in U.S. relations with its neighbors. For more than a century, we have casually and routinely trampled the sovereign rights of our neighbors to the south. We dispatched the Marines to collect debts and defend United Fruit in the early 1900s. During the Cold War, we armed and trained brutal police and military regimes while destabilizing democratically elected governments. And of course, we tried to overthrow Fidel Castro by invasion, embargo and subversion for decades.
In April, Obama will attend the Summit of the Americas in Panama along with other presidents, including Cuba's Raul Castro. There, we might listen more and bluster less. The end of the embargo -- if it is lifted -- may mark the beginning of a new good-neighbor policy, not just toward Cuba but toward other countries in the hemisphere. We would all profit from that.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.