LA Times: Obama Scores on US-Cuba Relations
There is a strong wind that all of a sudden seems to be moving US-Cuba relations in new directions.
Presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton are going to have to decide whether they are going to spend political capital to keep US-Cuba relations in grooves carved out over five decades and defended by Bush -- or whether they are going to be part of charting a new, more constructive course.
The Los Angeles Times today ran an editorial that pulls no punches in highlighting the failures of a five-decade old American strategy that has yielded nothing for American interests. The editorial juxtaposes Clinton and Obama -- who are on conflicting pages when it comes to loosening the tight noose that Bush has strangled Cuban-American families with when it comes to family travel.
But impressively, the Times calls for full, unrestricted travel, which is my own position as well as that of Senator Chris Dodd, whose statement on US-Cuba relations still sets the gold standard.
Here is a segment of the Los Angeles Times editorial, "Obama's Right on Cuba":
. . .after the U.S. has tried for nearly 50 years to force a regime change in Cuba by way of economic embargo with no success whatsoever, Obama is one of the few presidential contenders who dares to suggest that it's time to try something different.Some might consider Obama's move courageous given the political power of Florida's Cuban American community, which helped put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000 and has cheered his efforts to tighten sanctions on Cuba. But the minority of Cuban immigrants who vote Democratic is deeply divided on the travel ban and would like to be able to send more money to relatives at home, so Obama may not be staking out such a bold position after all.
Regardless of the political implications, Obama is clearly right -- the only problem is, his proposal doesn't go far enough. The travel ban should be lifted for everybody, not just Cuban immigrants. It is the height of irony that Americans can freely travel to countries such as Venezuela and Iran, which represent genuine threats to our security and economic interests, but not to Cuba, whose government is a threat only to its own people.
The ban has done nothing to weaken Castro, but it does keep U.S. tourist dollars out of the hands of Cubans, who might be less inclined to heed their regime's anti-U.S. propaganda if Americans were helping to raise their standard of living.
The U.S. shouldn't lift all economic sanctions on Cuba until the island's regime makes progress on democracy and human rights, but policies such as the travel ban and limits on remittances are simply counterproductive. Score one for Obama.
I'd say that Obama has scored a "big one." I hope Hillary Clinton modifies her position because a foreign policy that promotes Cold War era thinking is not what this nation needs to get its national security posture back in to some kind of acceptable shape.
-- Steve Clemons is Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Comments (14)
the fact that people are coming out, like Zbig, and this op-ed and Ignatius, is great. now if only the network and cable news would admit they are wrong, that their dear Hillary is wrong and Obama is right. And come out and air the various voices stating this.
As much as it galls us, the on air news is what is shaping people's perceptions and beliefs and they are thinking Obama is a hopeless rookie in over his head rather than a very intellectual, deep thinker who is trying to move away from the failed policies of the past 20 or more years.
They are left to believe that Clinton is very experienced because her husband was president, as that she is wise and has good judgement. Both,of which in actuality is proven so very untrue.
So, as long as they run away from reality and pretend their storyline of Clinton good and obama bad, the average voter will end up voting for another at least 4 tragic years.
August 25, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ask you, is fifty years really long enough to say that a policy has failed. Won't it make us look weak if we change our mind now? I say let's give it another decade.
August 25, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ask you, is fifty years really long enough to say that a policy has failed. Won't it make us look weak if we change our mind now? I say let's give it another decade.
August 25, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
And the supporting evidence mounts for the Ignatius hypothesis - Barack Obama controls the foreign policy debate
Before this thing is over, he'll be controlling other policy debates as well
August 25, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how would you characterize the impact of the French Revolution of 1789, Mr. Valdron?
August 25, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Those who still cling to the misbegotten notion that Obama's "inexperience" is some sort of handicap, and that Hillary Clinton, by osmosis with the Beltway power elite, is somehow more qualified thereby, should spend an hour or so watching Juan Cole's lecture at the New America Foundation
Personally, I will always remember his lecture at SF State on the "Oil Gulf", a true scholar and gentleman.
What were these "experienced" mavens of the New American Century thinking?
That's the issue. What they think. How they think and what they've done.
August 25, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tide is turning in the FP debate. You can see the CW shifting. "Obama's Right on _______" has been the subject of many a story/editorial of late, be it nukes (Anne Kornblut talks to Michael O'Hanlon, who endorsed Hillary, and finds that, well, Obama is right: using nukes in Pakistan would be stupid. Oh yeah, and Hillary said she'd take nukes off the table a year ago), meeting with foreign leaders (numerous FP types saying pre-conditions are bad, and yeah, we should meet with foreign leaders of enemy states, and ~60% of Dem saying they agree with Obama), civilian deaths in Afghanistan (AP says: yeah, we've killed more civilians in air raids than the Taliban has, and more civilian deaths than Taliban deaths. oops), and now Cuba.
Not to mention Obama getting hit on his Pakistan comments, only for it to be revealed that the policy he articulated is long-standing U.S. policy.
Its becoming a consistent theme. "Obama is right (again)".
Has a nice ring to it.
August 25, 2007 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Val,
I think "6 more months" should do it.
August 26, 2007 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, obviously another failed policy by the French. I'll remind you that as of 1950 or thereabouts, they were still having it. Five Republics, Two Empires, a Restoration Monarchy, and an Occupation Government? Clearly the French are just not serious about government.
August 26, 2007 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
We could have had an absolutely dominant and unified Western Hemisphere, if we had been able to tell our money guys to shut up and go sit in a corner while we made friends and allies of our cultural cousins, all of whom wanted freedom from European domination.
Unfortunately, foreign policy has always been influenced by the moneyed interests, who are universally terrified of nationalizations that would take away their post-colonial property grabs. They even help out in covert operations, to insure their investments.
When Allen Dulles told Eisenhower that the coup plot against Guatemala's Arbenz would fail unless they got some airplanes and bombs, the president asked businessman and contributor William Pawley to help. He and Dulles were in the Oval Office, and the conversation is on record, but in two versions. Pawley recounts the meeting verbatim, but Eisenhower's writings erase Pawley. He and the Nicaraguan ambassador went to the Pentagon with $150,000 in cash, where Pawley purchased three fighter-bombers and turned them over to Nicaragua. (Establishing the pattern for Iran-Contra.)
The above is only one depressing story from Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes" about the CIA. Even more disheartening is to read how the West continually screwed around with Iran, before, during, and after WW II, culminating with the ugly overthrow of Mossadeq. One also gets to read about the self-described terror campaigns we ran against Arbenz and Mossadeq.
The worse news is that these two operations were the only actual successes of CIA's operations directorate. The really bad news is that these ops were both FUBAR, and only succeeded by using overbearing amounts of cash to buy the loyalty of street thugs (public demonstrations, etc) and military types or cabinet ministers. Sounds a little like Florida, 2000, doesn't it?
August 26, 2007 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I question the articles statement that Venezuela and Iran are our enemies.
What is true is that we have alienated them by our policies controlled by the corporate economic powers that see a threat to their way of business and profits. We can repair our relations with these countries easily enough with dialog instead of demagoguery.
An Obama that states he believes in direct talks with these leaders within 6 months of taking office is clearly another example of a dynamic new foreign policy.
The embargo against Cuba started as economic punishment for stopping the gold mine under Batista. It morphed into the Cold War with the Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis. By the time cooler heads could have prevailed the Cuban vote was too important a constituancy. See Nixon election money and his opening of talks with China while ignoring Cuba.
We should lift the Cuban embargo. The oppression of the Cuban people for the last 20 years has been more as a result of the embargo than any Castro policy.
August 26, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that Ike would protect Pawley's identity in view of his "military/industrial complex" speech. BTW, John Foster and Allen both were major shareholders in United Fruit, as was Pawley himself. But come on, Pawley was a spook - a strange one like Richard Secord of Iran/Contra. An independent contractor, I suppose.
Pawley's "fix" for the situation with Batista was interesting: he urged Batista to turn the government over to a junta that was both anti-batista and anti-castro. Batista declined, and was soon forced to flee Cuba after he learned (from Pawley) that the US no longer supported him. After Castro took power, Pawley began working immediately on the anti-castro movement.
Neoboho
August 26, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Juan Cole does not think highly of Obama's comments on Pakistan. See:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/08/obama-sticks-to-his-guns-senator-obama.html
August 27, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between our treatment of Communist China and Communist Cuba is distance;
Because of the proximity of Cuba to the United States it would be much simpler for Castro to mount a D-Day type invasion of the United States with 5,000 ships and 2 airborne divisions than for China to accomplish same. Cuba is a threat, lets not forget Grenada!
or,
it could be all those Cuban voters in Florida.
or,
it could be all that unregulated cheap labor in China.
August 28, 2007 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink