Castro's Surprise: How Will the Presidential Candidates Respond?
Fidel Castro has just given the world the opportunity to ponder a new direction for Cuba. Castro has issued a statement that is vague but nonetheless signals that he sees himself departing the political front line and making room for a new set of leaders.
As Center for Democracy in the Americas Director Sarah Stephens said today on a journalist conference call, "Cuban leaders don't communicate by accident." She said that "change is in the offing." And that "Castro is writing the script" of his departure as 'the decider' on Cuba's political life and course.
Peter Kornbluh, also on the conference call, says that the smooth fading into the background by Fidel Castro -- at his own pace -- helps write the final chapter for Fidel and a chapter in which he's clearly in control of the optics of all of this and hasn't been compelled or forced out.
Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, again on the conference call today, really drilled into the details of Fidel's statement. She gets Castro's complexity and sees this statement as a move in a multi-dimensional chess board in which he is both confident and aware of the many political pressures in Cuba's domestic political scene. She thinks Castro is not only saying that Cuba needs to cultivate a new generation of leaders -- but that Cuba needs to yield to them as well. And this may signal a future for a Cuba not run by either Raul or Fidel Castro.
The United States needs to tack now towards a new course. To miss yet another opportunity to change course in US-Cuba relations is a serious mistake. When Russia stopped supporting the Cuban economy, there was an opportunity to move forward US-Cuba relations. That was missed. This is the next chance.
Barack Obama has been supportive of a new course on Cuba. Frankly, Chris Dodd sets the gold standard and thinks that we need a complete overhaul of the US-Cuba relationship and a full opening of commerce, travel, and diplomacy. Bill Richardson just released this paragraph as part of a foreign affairs essay he just published:
The United States of America also needs to start paying attention to the Americas. We need better border security and comprehensive immigration reform. And to reduce both illegal immigration and anti-American populism in Latin America, we must work with reform-minded governments there to alleviate poverty and promote equitable development. We need to strengthen energy cooperation in the region and foster democracy and fair trade. Our efforts to promote democracy must include Cuba. We should reverse the Bush administration's policies restricting remittances to and travel to visit loved ones in Cuba, and we should respond to steps toward liberalization there with steps toward ending the embargo.
Hillary Clinton needs to tack in a new direction too. This is an opening for her to recast how she would modify US-Cuba relations given what Fidel Castro has done to make the question of whether we promote perpetuation of a US-Cuba relations cocooned in Cold War anachronism -- or whether we use Cuba as a template for signaling to the world a new and different strategy for dealing with the world.
And frankly, Mike Huckabee used to be a pro-engagement governor on Cuba but recently denied his past and said that he wants a regime even more strictly constraining than the Bush administration. Giuliani, Romney and Thompson have also not been visionaries on changing the course of both US-Cuban and US-Latin American relations, but all will need to provide a response on what their policy course would be given Castro's surprise announcement.
-- 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
If a Republican wins there will be great pressure to maintain the current state of affairs from two groups that have supported the GOP for years; the Cuban exile community and Big Sugar.
The Cubans may be willing to accept some softening once Castro steps away. Many already support that and a change at the top in Havana may well be the chance for a younger, less strident, generation to make its feelings heard.
However, if Big Sugar gets it's way, its aim is not to foster democracy, but to quash competition. Therefore, not only would Fidel and Raul Castro be unacceptable, so would any one else named Castro, any one hand-picked by Castro, any one who has supported Castro, or any one who looks like Castro. Basically any one now residing in Cuba would be unacceptable, and you better believe they have the resources to turn the Grover Norquist Noise Machine to their message.
December 18, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. That's the pressure from lobbyists and special interests to keep business as usual, and that's where Bill, and hence Hillary, usually go.
But as I was saying below, it's really short sighted. Continually punishing Cuba and sanctioning it just makes America look bad everywhere, from Latin America to Europe and even Japan, all of whom have normal relations.
Hugo Chavez for example gets a lot of mileage from criticizing American policy on Cuba. Meaning, by continually bashing Castro, we're actually helping create and empower more Castros, in countries like Venezuela, who have huge oil reserves and influence in the region. and it gives ammunition to global critics when we do need allies, to say we're overly jingoistic.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish.
The smartest thing we could do is open up to Cuba, and let them make $ from US tourism and trade. Just like Vietnam.
December 18, 2007 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt Hillary will.
It looks like Obama is willing to lead and create a new constituency on the Cuba issue based on a more rational Cuba policy. He's able to make the connection between American policy on Cuba, which is pointless, and the secondary effect that has in Latin America and how it fuels negative perceptions of America, which also fuels people like Hugo Chavez who controls Venezuela's oil and has tremendous influence throughout the region and globally. And that effects everyone, even people in Iowa, who may not have thought much about Cuba, but do fuel their cars, are concerned about war, allies, and trade.
Hillary imho will probably fear to lead on Cuba, fear to offend the Floria ex-pat community, and fear to make the case to ordinary Americans why they should care about changing Cuba policy.
December 18, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOOH, OOOH, can't wait till all the "experts", "talking heads", "analysts" and think tank types start telling us what to expect of Cuba if Castro goes away.
Tom Friedman will surely work this story.
Billy Kristol?
December 19, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Clemons - have you read Castro's statement? Well guess what, it's not news. He's been saying the same thing for years. But of course you, and any US/Cuba expert, wouldn't know that since you've never lived in Cuba. Your comments suggest that what you know about Cuba is what you read in the Miami Herald or overhear at cocktail parties.
What makes it different this time (to Cuban ears) is not what Fidel said, but what Raul launched earlier this year. Raul challenged Cubans of all walks of life to begin the discourse on reinventing Cuba. To those few on the outside who heard it, it just sounded weird and was forgotten. Even in Cuba many didn't take Raul seriously at first. Even some prominent members of the National Assembly tried to institutionalize the process, until Raul, corrected them. The discussion belongs to the people of Cuba.
What's coming is not just a change of who sets in the President's chair. The discourse, which is being taken seriously and is wide spread across the island, has produced some really interesting proposals. Members of the Assembly, government officials, party officials, and ordinary citizens are involved in new thinking. A couple of the most thoughtful sets of proposals are being distributed thought the population via email (go figure). What I've read deals mostly with substantive changes in the way the economy works, both macro and micro, rather than changes in how the government works. The ideas floating around are making their impact felt in who is being nominated for seats in the Assembly elections in March.
Many suspected that Fidel would decline his nomination to the Assembly (the President is chosen by the Assembly from it's membership). If he had declined his nomination earlier this month it would have been a definite signal because he would not have been eligible for the Presidency after the March elections. If he had declined, if change was certain, voters may have actually voted more conservatively in March in emotional reaction. This "statement" that it is his duty to not stand in the way of a new generation is less a hint that Fidel may not accept the Presidency in March, and more an indication that the new generation is ready, and capable, at least in Fidel's eyes, to continue to the next phase of the succession from the Granma generation to the next (the succession began more than a decade ago). That whole Granma group is in their 80s!
Last year 17 U.S. Governors went to Cuba at the head of their state's trading delegation. Most of those were Republican Governors. If Obama wants to meet President to President with Castro, he'd best ask Nebraska's Republican Governor Dave Heineman for an introduction, he's been there 4 times and has come home with the lion's share of the trade deals. And these Republican Governors keep getting re-elected!
December 20, 2007 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You were recently noted in a Kevin Drum post as supporting Hillary Clinton because she would have the best grasp of foreign polcy among the Dem candidates.
She was clearly wrong on Iraq; she favors saber rattling over engagement with Iran; and now you admit she's the only candidate behind the curve on Cuba.
For someone with such an excellent grasp of foreign policy, why does she come out on the wring side of every foreign policy question?
December 20, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink