Obama on U.S./Cuba Policy

Plenty of chatter in the blogosphere today regarding Barack Obama's comments on U.S./Cuba policy and his upcoming speech in Little Havana. This includes an editorial column printed in today's Herald describing his views in not-so-gory details.

At home after getting off the graveyard shift this morning (man do I hate those), I got a chance to read Obama's op-ed piece, and it basically offered nothing much more than the "current approach hasn't worked, it's time to try something new" philosophy.

Marc wrote a very good analysis of the op-ed at Uncommon Sense and I don't really have much more to add to it. I picked up a couple of things that Marc mentions:

...

2.) Obama's linkage of better Cuban behavior, i.e. "If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change ...," to a softening of what's left of the so-called embargo, is substantively not that different from current American policy, as outlined in the Helms-Burton law, the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba report and elsewhere. He is not calling for a unilateral, unconditional lifting of the embargo. (Obama does not say whether he would lift the embargo if a democratic Cuba elected, say Raul Castro, as president.)

3) There was nothing in the op-ed about the biggest disaster of current U.S. policy on Cuba: Wet-foot, dry-foot. Would he scrap it or keep it in place?

#2 is a point that many people fail to mention or forget about our current policy: all it takes for the restrictions to be lifted is for the regime in Cuba to take positive and definite steps towards democracy. Helms/Burton is pretty clear on that. Therefore, Obama is pretty much in lock step with the current policy in this regard.

As far as the lifting of travel restrictions, I mostly agree with Marc. I don't think I would go as far as opening up all travel to Cuban-Americans, but the current "once visit every three
years" restriction don't make any sense to me whatsoever. Still, as Marc astutely indicates, lifting restrictions is not the panacea or magic bullet that anti-embargo and anti-restrictions people argue it is.

I've followed Obama closer than the other Democratic candidates not because I would vote for him, but because I believe he's truly sincere and well-intentioned. This doesn't mean he's right, of course, but at least his words on this issue offer an opportunity for sincere debate of the issues, not some incoherent back-and-forth with a pro-castro loon such as what is occasionally presented on shows such as Polos Opuestos.

Debate is Good

Yesterday's debate on U.S. Cuba policy in Little Havana was well covered by Henry, who attended the event and blogged about it here. I won't add much to what Henry has already mentioned, but there was a quote in the Herald article linked above attributed to FIU Professor Lisandro Perez which struck me as very revealing:

Let's not put U.S. policy at the level of the Cuban government.

Surprising that Perez, a dialogue advocate, would say that. What's the purpose of dialogue if it isn't to attempt to compromise two different vantage points at a relatively level plane?

Perez's comment also illustrates his lack of desire for Cuba to change. Of course, we shouldn't expect Cuba to be at the same level as the United States, he says. So what if Cuba oppresses its people and denies basic human rights? So what if they don't live up to our (U.S.) standards? Remember, they're a sovereign nation. What right do we have to impose our standards on them?

At least that's my translation of what academics like Perez are trying to say when they give every impression of apologizing for the atrocities of the castro regime.

Debates like this are great, perhaps we need to have these public debates on a more regular basis. Not only are they the hallmarks of a free society, but they serve a key purpose which is to expose the feelings and interests of both sides of an issue. In the case of yesterday's debate, it's clear where people such as Lisandro Perez stand.

That's a good thing.