Versión para imprimir
Communist countries like China and Vietnam, with whom US has trade agreements, settled the claims that US citizens have with regards to the expropriation of their properties, in order to reestablish commercial relationships. The Cuban military regime has no intention in settling those claims.
The Cuba regime has settled expropriation claims with the governments of four countries (France, Canada, Switzerland, Spain). In some cases, like with Spain, part of the payment was in trading goods. The regime is unlikely to have the means to make cash payments to the US that would come close to the principal alone, without interest and inflation included. Besides the settlement of the claims will not be possible until the military tyranny is removed from power. So far the regime hasn’t given any indication to negotiate without preconditions a settlement of the claims. Until the problem of expropriation claims is solve, there should not be changes in the US and the Cuban regime relationship.
There are thousands of Cuban nationals expropriation claims that have never been addressed. Until there is transition to a democratic system, there is no way to resolve the problem of those whose property was seized by the military regime. These claims according to Alonso and Lago have “an approximated value of 7 billion U.S. dollars. Considering 6% annual simple interest over 47 years, the amount of these claims raises to 26.740 billion U.S. dollars”
One option, after a democratic government is in power, would be to go after the stolen assets and acquired properties by the Castro clan and the power elite around the world. Those whose claims are recognized should be compensated with restitution or monetary compensation, while the interest of third parties in Cuba should be also recognized and protected. Nobody in Cuba should be evicted of their homes.
Cita:
dissidents decry us bill to end cuba travel ban
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/...cuba_us_travel
by will weissert, associated press writer will weissert, associated press writer– thu jun 17, 6:46 pm et
havana – five days after his release for health reasons, a former cuban political prisoner added his name to a letter signed by nearly 500 opposition activists decrying proposed legislation that would lift the u.s. Travel ban to their country.
The letter, e-mailed to foreign reporters in havana on thursday, took the opposite approach of a statement last week supporting the same bill and signed by 74 dissidents, many with international notoriety — including cuba's top blogger yoani sanchez, and elizardo sanchez, who is not related to yoani but heads the island's top human rights group.
The bill in question was introduced feb. 23 by rep. Collin peterson, a minnesota democrat, and would bar the president from prohibiting travel to cuba or blocking transactions required to make such trips.
It also would halt the white house from stopping direct transfers between u.s. And cuban banks. That would make it easier for the island's government to pay for u.s. Food and farm exports, which have been allowed for a decade, despite washington's 48-year-old trade embargo.
Thursday's letter said, "to be benevolent with the dictatorship would mean solidarity with the oppressors of the cuban nation." it featured 492 signers from all over cuba, but most were little-known, even among the island's small and divided dissident and political opposition community.
One exception was ariel sigler, a 44-year-old who is paralyzed from the waist down and who was freed to much fanfare saturday. He was released to his home in matanzas province after serving more than seven years of a 25-year sentence for treason.
Sigler was among 75 leading opposition activists, community organizers, dissidents and independent journalists rounded up in march 2003 — when the world's attention was focused on the start of the iraq war — and charged with taking money from washington to destabilize cuba's government. Those imprisoned denied that, as did u.s. Officials.
Sigler went to prison a boxer in excellent shape, but became confined to a wheelchair while behind bars.
His release and the recent transfer of 12 other prisoners of conscience to jails closer to their homes is the result of negotiations between the roman catholic church and the government of raul castro to improve the plight of political prisoners.
Other signers of the letter include jorge luis garcia perez, or altunez, an afro-cuban dissident who has used hunger strikes in the past to protest the treatment of political prisoners in cuba, and reina luis tamayo, mother of prisoner of conscience orlando zapata tamayo, who died in february after a lengthy prison hunger strike.
While travel to cuba is technically not illegal, u.s. Law bars most americans from spending money here. Cuban-americans, journalists, politicians and a few others can visit with special permission from the u.s. Government.
Peterson's bill must pass the house committee on agriculture before it can go to a vote by the full house, and thursday's letter was addressed to members of that committee as well as all members of congress.
a string of similar measures to expand travel to and trade with cuba have died without reaching a full vote by either the house or senate in recent years.
Lifting the travel restrictions and allowing direct transfers between U.S.. And Cuban banks, will most certainly lead to allowing cuba credit for its purchases, specifically from agricultural states where farms and other agricultural businesses are heavily subsidized by the us tax payer. When the regime defaults on those credits, the responsibility for repayment will fall upon the american taxpayer.
More than 15 million of tourists which have visited Cuba over the past decade, haven’t been able to influence a political and economic opening of Castro’s totalitarian regime, nor will be the millions of American tourists that will visit Cuba. How is possible to believe that tourism and trade with the United States can do it?
The majority of tourists in the island stay at hotels located in isolate places, where their contact whit the ordinary Cuban population is very limited. The hotel workers are prohibited to interact with foreigners outside of their workplace. The regimen has put in place a tourist apartheid system.
The lifting of the travel restrictions shall not be base on the incorrect assumption that a large number of US tourists will trigger a clamor for democracy in Cuba. James Cason, former chief of the US Interests Section in Havana, said: ''Tourism has not brought down a totalitarian regime anywhere in history.''
Nobody really cares about the dissidents plights and only seek cordial relations with the Castros regime. Tourists and investors won't remove Cuba from their itinerary due to the harsh conditions of the political prisoners.
Has the Cuba travel ban ever had its intended result? Yes, because tourism is the main source of income for the regime, which is operated by the military. The US sanctions against tourism in Cuba prevent the increase in funds for Castro repressive military regime.
You can fly to Cuba via a third country like Canada, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Caiman Islands, ect. Cuban authorities won't stamp your passport, and you won’t be counted among the visitors to the island. You have to bring cash or have a credit card issued by a bank in another country.
Congressman Collin Peterson just wants the farmers from his state Minnesota to be able to sell their grain on easier terms to Cuba. He doesn’t care if the Castro regime defaults on the payment, because the American taxpayers will be ones picking up the bill, since the Federal Government guarantee the farmers sale in case of default.
The article “COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CUBAS GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT” (http://www.lanuevacuba.com/archivo/bert-corzo-1eng.htm), makes a comparison of Cuba GDP and the GDP of another 4 countries before and after Castro, reaching the conclusion that Cuba’s economy should has growth like the others countries. It is a good summary of incontrovertible data that contradict the lies about the island under-development before 1959. The author shows how Cuba with a per capita equal to Chile in 1958, in 2000 the per capita was 6 times less.
The approval of credits to the Castro brothers’ regime by the United States would only replace the Soviet subsidy that they no longer receive. This will has the effect of delaying the transition to democracy in the island guaranteeing additional decades of subjugation and suffering. Castro brothers’ military force and the repressive security service then will be sustained by the credits from the U.S. government.
When Cubans escape from Castro brothers’ workers paradise, they are voting with their feet. So far there are 1.8 million Cuban-Americans living in the US (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Social and Economic Suplement, 2010). Another 700,000 are living in other countries. This amounts to a total of 2.5 million. Since the actual Cuba population is 11.24 million (source: Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas, Cuba http://www.one.cu/. http://www.geohive.com/cntry/cuba.aspx), the 2.5 million living abroad account for 20% of the population in the island.
The effect of the US embargo is minimal on the regime economy, it only represent 6% of the regime commerce with the rest of the world
What the regime is after are loans and lines of credit guaranteed by the US. These credits and loans will not be paid and the US taxpayers will be the ones to pick up the debt, as it happens at the present time with the taxpayers of other countries. The regime has a staggering debt of $80 billion with other countries.
The regime problems are not the result of the embargo; they are due to the corruption and ineffectiveness of a military dictatorship that is against private property and free enterprise. These and no others are the real reasons of the problems.
Lifting the embargo and travel ban, without meaningful changes in Cuba, will guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structures, strengthen state enterprises, since money will flow into businesses owned by the Cuban military dictatorship, and lead to greater repression and control by the Castro brothers and corrupt military leadership to counteract U.S. influence in support of a transition to democracy on the island.
US sales to Cuba in 2008 reach $801 million. Import totaled $14.25 billion (http://www.one.cu/aec2008/esp/08_tabla_cuadro.htm)
This represents 5.62% of the regime commerce with the rest of the world. Without the embargo the debt with the US could be similar to the debt of 30 billion with the EU countries.
US sales to Cuba in 2008 reach $710 million. (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\02\13\story_13-2-2009_pg5_13
US sales to Cuba in 2008 reach $801 million. Import totaled $14.25 billion (http://www.one.cu/aec2008/esp/08_tabla_cuadro.htm)
Mary A. O'grady makes a sound assessment about the lift of the travel band. Some members of the administration that are trying to pass a bill to remove the travel ban, seem more interested in their agenda than the plight of the Cuban people. For 51 years they have suffered a great deal under the boot of the Castros the military regime. The band should be lifted after the regimen make human-rights concession and show disposition to adopt a democratic system.Cita:
Why Lift the Travel Ban to Cuba Now?
Capitol Hill Cubans: Why Lift the Travel Ban to Cuba Now?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703615104575328953766272336.html?mod=googlenews_wsj ( require registration to read)s
Waves of Canadian, European and Latin American visitors haven't changed a thing.
BY MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
June 28, 2010
Today marks the one-year anniversary of the Honduran Supreme Court's decision to order the arrest of Manuel Zelaya, a power-hungry Hugo Chávez acolyte who tried to remain president for life.
It's something to celebrate: Thanks to the bravery of the court and the Congress, which voted to remove him from office, democracy was saved.
Yet a nagging question remains: Why were the Obama administration and key congressional Democrats obsessed, for seven months, with trying to force Honduras to take Mr. Zelaya back? Why did the U.S. pull visas, deny aid, and lead an international campaign to isolate the tiny Central American democracy? To paraphrase many Americans who wrote to me during the stand-off: “Whose side are these guys on anyway?”
Such doubts about the motivations of the party in power in Washington will be hard to ignore this week as the Democrats try to put U.S. Cuba policy back on the legislative agenda. Specifically, Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson will try to pass a bill in the House Agriculture Committee that would lift the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba without any human-rights concession from Castro.
The end of the Cuba travel ban would mean a bonanza in tourism to the island at a time when Fidel and Raúl are in desperate need of new revenue. But the push to lift the ban has anti-Castro supporters too. They argue that it is isolation that preserves the dictatorship and that a barrage of gringo tourists would weaken the dictatorship.
Proponents of the ban point out that a wave of European, Canadian and Latin American visitors since the mid-1990s hasn’t changed a thing. They worry that American sun-seekers will only prop up a dictatorship that is most famous for slave labor, jailing dissidents and sowing revolution in the hemisphere.
With so much risk involved, any policy change will depend heavily on being able to trust the motives of U.S. leaders. Recall that it was Nixon who went to China. That’s why efforts to change policy that are being led by the current crop of Democrats make so many Americans uneasy. After all, if Mr. Peterson wants to boost commerce why not push for passage of the Colombia free trade agreement? Why is he so interested in doing business with a dictator?
The dictatorship is hard up for hard currency. The regime now relies heavily on such measures as sending Cuban doctors to Venezuela in exchange for marked-down oil. But according to a recent Associated Press story, “Cuba’s foreign trade plunged by more than a third in 2009,” perhaps because Caracas, running out of money itself, is no longer a reliable sugar daddy. A sharp drop in nickel prices hasn’t helped, and neither did three hurricanes in 2008, which devastated housing.
Cuba owes sovereign lenders billions of dollars, according to the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami, and according to a June 23 Reuters report, it is so cash-strapped that it had “froze[n] up to $1 billion in the accounts of 600 foreign suppliers by the start of 2009.”
Now there is a serious food shortage. This month the independent media in Cuba reported that a scarcity of rice had the government so worried about civil unrest that it had to send police to accompany deliveries to shops.
This has the regime scrambling. Several sources reported to me that the Roman Catholic cardinal from Havana, Jaime Ortega, was on a secretive trip to Washington last week to lobby for an end to the travel ban. One of his meetings was rumored to be with the State Department’s assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela. The State Department declined to tell me if this was true or not.
Other sources said that the cardinal reached out to members of Congress, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and his staffer Peter Quilter. I queried Mr. Berman’s office but got no reply. Regular readers of this column know Mr. Quilter’s politics. As I reported in April, he traveled with Sen. John Kerry’s staffer Fulton Armstrong to Tegucigalpa to warn Hondurans who backed the removal of Mr. Zelaya that they are still in the doghouse.
While Castro relies on the embargo to explain Cuban poverty, he does, it seems, badly need gringo tourism, which he could control. And if Cardinal Ortega has decided to intervene on behalf of the regime’s needs, it would not be surprising. He has long been viewed by human-rights advocates—such as former political prisoner Armando Valladares, a practicing Catholic—as more a tool of the regime than a champion of the oppressed. A kinder assessment of the cardinal suggests that he’s trying to boost the Church’s power on the island. In either case, acting as an emissary to Washington right now would make sense.
But for those interested in Cuban freedom it is bizarre. For the first time in history the Castros are cornered. Yet rather than negotiate from a position of strength, Democrats seem to want to give relief to the dictatorship.
Write to O’Grady@wsj.com
Those US citizens who want to go to Cuba and provide moral and financial support to the regime do so. They go to Mexico, Canada or other Caribbean countries, and from there, without their passports being stamped by the regime authorities, they flight to Cuba. Around 34,000 US citizens sneak into Cuba that way each year. It is estimated that 50% of the tourist from other countries that go to Cuba are sex tourist.
According to Cuba Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez about 296,000 Cubans living abroad came back in 2009. Since 70% of the Cubans living abroad live in US, the number of Cuba Americans visiting the island amount to 210,000. The figures of theOficina Nacional de Estadísticas (ONE), reported that 52,455 US citizens legally visited the island. If we add the 25,800 US citizens that illegally traveled to Cuba in violation of US law, the total number of US tourist visiting Cuba in 2009 amount to 288,200. This makes the US the second largest supplier of visitors to Cuba.
During the last 10 years 20.6 millions of tourist from around the world visited Cuba. Around 9.5% of those visitors were from the US, close to 2 million tourists. All those millions of tourist visiting Cuba didn’t have a visible impact on the system; they haven’t been able to influence a political and economic opening of the Castro brothers’ tyrannical regime. So much for the argument of the US tourist power to bring about change.
The regime confronts a cash crunch to by foodstuffs from the US. Due to the world wide economic downturn the agricultural imports from the US have been reduced. Lifting the ban on travel restriction to Cuba by American citizens, would have the effect of increasing the demand of foodstuffs from the US due to tourist consumption. Cash revenue from tourism will allow the regime to by agricultural products from the US.
The motivation behind this attempt to remove the travel restrictions to Cuba, is not about democracy, is not about the Cuban people, is not even about the rights of Americans to travel; it is about cash. Nothing more, nothing else, just cash.
According to estimates by the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, some 20,000 Americans visit Cuba each year without the Treasury Department's permission (http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/905.cfm)
Cuban Minister Manuel Marrero said that “in 2009 Cuba received 2.43 million tourists”
Total tourist in 2009 2,429,809 . Canada 914,844; England 172,318; US 288,200
Total tourist from 2000 to 2009: 20.6 million
While American tourists traveling to Cuba without a license and Cuban-Americans traveling with Cuban passports are not included in the official statistics as originating in the U.S., both groups are included in Cuba’s total visitor arrivals. Cuban-Americans (along with other Cuban nationals residing outside the island in places other than the U.S.) traveling to Cuba with Cuban passports are categorized as “other Caribbean” makes the U.S. at least the second largest supplier of visitors to Cuba. While travel to Cuba isn't banneda U.S. citizen without government approval violates the law when they spend money on Cuban soil.
Persons of Cuban origin who are nationals of other countries need a Cuban passport to travel to the island. The regimen does not recognize dual citizenship. They have to solicit, through a non refundable pre-pay petition, permission to return to the country of their birth. The permission stamp in the passport is valid for 21 days only. The Cuban passport need be renewed every two years at a cost of $100 dollars. This has a double purpose, to generate revenue and screen who are not allow to enter the country.
This type ofthings are very common, and the regime count on them to get more money. There isn’t too much difference between the traveling “mules” and the countless unnecessary trips to the island, millions of trivial long-distance phone calls, frequent remittances of money and merchandise for non-essential purposes. All of this benefit the regime and help keep it in place.Cita:
"Mules" stretch limits of U.S. trade embargo on Cuba
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE67A34T20100811
By Esteban Israel
HAVANA | Reuters) - It all starts with a description given over a mobile phone: "Look for a woman with long blonde hair, blue jeans, silver heels and a black T-shirt arriving on the next flight from Miami."
When the woman emerges from Havana's international airport pushing a cart loaded with bulky black duffel bags, she is greeted effusively by a man she has never seen before.
"They hug as if they had known each other all their lives. Once in the parking lot, the woman hands over the bags and says goodbye," says Yanet, a Miami resident.
She is describing the tactics of growing numbers of human "mules" who regularly travel between the United States and Cuba carrying in their bags loads of clothes, food, consumer goods, electrical appliances and millions of U.S. dollars to the communist-ruled Caribbean island. They deliver the goods for a fee or free ticket, often to complete strangers.
"The system works beautifully," said Yanet, making her second trip as a "mule" to Havana in less than a month.
"But you have to stage a little show because you never know who may be watching," she added.
This burgeoning informal commerce between two neighbors whose governments have maintained a Cold War-era enmity for half a century belies the 48-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba -- but also reflects recent relaxations of it.
Since 1962, the U.S. embargo's intended aim has been to force the Cuban government to abandon its communist rule.
But informal trafficking of cash and goods to Cuba has boomed since President Barack Obama last year lifted restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to their homeland and significantly increased the amount of money they could take.
His calibrated measures, part of a process of promoting "people-to-people" contacts Washington believes can foster political change in Cuba, also increased the type of consumer items that could be included in gift parcels for Cuba.
Also authorized under a telecoms initiative was the export or re-export to Cuba by visitors of donated personal telecoms devices, such as mobile phones, computers and software.
Travelers to Havana were already able to bring parcels of food and medicines, and the embargo has for some years allowed the export of U.S. farm products to the island.
"MORE TRAVELERS, MORE MONEY"
On the U.S. side, from where daily two-way charter flights ferry more and more Cuban Americans to Cuba on family visits, there is significant tolerance for passengers to load up with consumer goods.
But the mules also need to outsmart tight Cuban customs restrictions, where taxes are levied for baggage over certain limits and luggage contents are frequently inspected.
Chronic scarcity and the high prices of the narrow range of imported goods that are sold in Cuba's state-run dollar stores have prompted thousands of Cubans to use the human "mules" to import everything from clothing to toiletries, electronics and money.
John Kavulich, who monitors commerce between the two nations at the New York-based U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, says it is impossible to accurately quantify this informal trade.
"But more travelers means more money and more expenditure in Cuba," he said.
Manuel Orozco, a remittances expert with the Inter-American Dialogue think-tank in Washington, says Cuban exiles in the United States sent to the island some $636 million in 2008 and probably slightly less in 2009 due to the economic downturn.
"About 60 percent of that money is sent through informal channels or mules. That is quite a lot," he said.
Bureaucratic requirements in the United States, a lack of competition for services and a charge on foreign exchange charge levied by Cuba on transferred dollars make formal money transfers through financial agencies like Western Union costly.
UNDERGROUND FINANCE
Formal transfers cost 17 percent of the money sent, whereas mules cost around 13 percent, says Orozco, adding they deliver the money much faster.
The mules are part of an emerging underground industry of financial services offering credit and installment payments otherwise unthinkable in Cuba's state-run economy.
There are no figures available for the size of the informal trade in goods, but it has become quite organized. There are even privately run places in Havana where Cubans can shop from catalogues sent by email. They pick an item, make a 50 percent down payment and 15 days later they get their order. All for a 25 percent commission.
Most of these informal businesses are family-run. A Havana resident, for example, sends a list of products to a relative in Miami, who then finds a Cuban American willing to transport them as a mule in exchange for a free ticket.
Cubans are crazy for big brands, says Diana, who sends items from Miami to Havana. "They ask me for instance to send sunglasses that say Dolce & Gabbana or Gucci. They're cheap replicas, of course, but they sell very well because of the brands. Cubans love that," she explained.
Profit margins are striking when it comes to high-end electronics. A flat screen TV bought in Miami for $700 can be sold in Cuba for up to $2,000. Such a television would likely cost $2,500 in a state store, if it were available.
The informal trade also feeds an endless network of informal vendors who receive small commissions.
But the "mule" business is not without risks.
"You need to be careful and make sure you don't bring too many of the same products, because Cuban customs officers are not stupid and if they realize it is for sale they will take it away on the spot," said Yanet.
(Editing by Pascal Fletcher and Frances Kerry)
Excellent article by Jaime Suchlicki, where he analyze the incorrect arguments of ending the travel band, answering very convincingly each one of the specific considerations of those that support the end of the travel band.
Cita:
Implications of Ending the Cuba Travel Ban
http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/main.htm
Jaime Suchlicki*
July 20, 2010
The recent release of political prisoners in Cuba is an obvious maneuver by the Castro regime to influence the U.S. Congress into easing the embargo and ending the travel ban. “Give little and get a lot” has been the policy of the Castro brothers for the past half a century. By releasing a small fraction of Cuba’s political prisoners, they are also hoping to weaken the Europeans’ common position toward Cuba and reward Spain’s fruitless four year effort to influence the Cuban government.
The use of the Catholic Church in the island as the negotiating vehicle for the release of political prisoners is an attempt to repay the Vatican for its criticism of the U.S. embargo. The Cuban Catholic Church represents no threat to the Castro regime and is desperately seeking space in a society increasingly influenced by African cults and protestant groups. The small and weak Cuban Catholic Church is not comparable to the Polish Catholic Church of the 1980s that defied General Jaruzelski.
General Raul Castro’s recent actions are not the beginning of a major opening in Cuba. This calculated, tactical move weakens the internal opposition by sending potential leaders and their families into exile; ends the various hunger strikes that have shocked international public opinion and offers a small olive branch to the U.S. and the Europeans.
The U.S. should respond with very small concessions, if any at all. Lifting the ban for U.S. tourists to travel to Cuba would be a major concession totally out of proportion to Cuba’s gesture. If the U.S. were to lift the travel ban without major changes in the island, there would be significant implications.
- Money from American tourists would flow into businesses owned by the Castro government thus strengthening state enterprises. The tourist industry is controlled by the military and General Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother.
- merican tourists will have limited contact with Cubans. Most Cuban resorts are built in isolated areas, are off limits to the average Cuban, and are controlled by Cuba’s efficient security apparatus. Most Americans don’t speak Spanish, have but limited contact with ordinary Cubans, and are not interested in visiting the island to subvert its regime. Law 88 enacted in 1999 prohibits Cubans from receiving publications from tourists. Penalties include jail terms.
- While providing the Castro government with much needed dollars, the economic impact of tourism on the Cuban population would be limited. Dollars will trickle down to the Cuban poor in only small quantities, while state and foreign enterprises will benefit most.
- Tourist dollars would be spent on products, i.e., rum, tobacco, etc., produced by state enterprises, and tourists would stay in hotels owned partially or wholly by the Cuban government. The principal airline shuffling tourists around the island, Gaviota, is owned and operated by the Cuban military.
- The assumption that the Cuban leadership would allow U.S. tourists or businesses to subvert the revolution and influence internal developments is at best naïve.
- As occurred in the mid-1990s, an infusion of American tourist dollars will provide the regime with a further disincentive to adopt deeper economic reforms. Cuba’s limited economic reforms were enacted in the early 1990s, when the island’s economic contraction was at its worst. Once the economy began to stabilize by 1996 as a result of foreign tourism and investments, and exile remittances, the earlier reforms were halted or rescinded by Castro.
- Lifting the travel ban without major concessions from Cuba would send the wrong message “to the enemies of the United States”: that a foreign leader can seize U.S. properties without compensation; allow the use of his territory for the introduction of nuclear missiles aimed at the United States; espouse terrorism and anti-U.S. causes throughout the world; and eventually the United States will “forget and forgive,” and reward him with tourism, investments and economic aid.
- Since the Ford/Carter era, U.S. policy toward Latin America has emphasized democracy, human rights and constitutional government. Under President Reagan the U.S. intervened in Grenada, under President Bush, Sr. the U.S. intervened in Panama and under President Clinton the U.S. landed marines in Haiti, all to restore democracy to those countries. The U.S. has prevented military coups in the region and supported the will of the people in free elections. While the U.S. policy has not been uniformly applied throughout the world, it is U.S. policy in the region. Cuba is part of Latin America. A normalization of relations with a military dictatorship in Cuba will send the wrong message to the rest of the continent.
- Once American tourists begin to visit Cuba, Castro would restrict travel by Cuban-Americans. For the Castro regime, Cuban-Americans represent a far more subversive group because of their ability to speak to friends and relatives on the island, and to influence their views on the Castro regime and on the United States. Indeed, the return of Cuban exiles in 1979-80 precipitated the mass exodus of Cubans from Mariel in 1980.
- A large influx of American tourists into Cuba would have a dislocating effect on the economies of smaller Caribbean islands such as Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Puerto Rico, and even Florida, highly dependent on tourism for their well being. Careful planning must take place, lest we create significant hardships and social problems in these countries.
- Since tourism would become a two-way affair, with Cubans visiting the United States in great numbers, it is likely that many would stay in the United States as illegal immigrants, complicating another thorny issue in American domestic politics.
- If the travel ban is lifted unilaterally now by the U.S., what will the U.S. government have to negotiate with a future regime in Cuba and to encourage changes in the island? Lifting the ban could be an important bargaining chip with a future regime willing to provide concessions in the area of political and economic freedoms.
- The travel ban and the embargo should be lifted as a result of negotiations between the U.S. and a Cuban government willing to provide meaningful and irreversible political and economic concessions or when there is a democratic government in place in the island.
Jaime Suchlicki is Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami. He is the author of Cuba: From Columbus to Castro, now in its fifth edition; Mexico: From Montezuma to NAFTA, now in its second edition and the recently published Breve Historia de Cuba.
The Cuba food import agency Alimport, affirmed that since operations began in December 2001 to date, the island has transacted more than $4.4 billion worth of business with the US. Cuba's National Statistics Office placed the United States as Cuba’s fifth business partner at $801 million in 2008. Currently the US is Cuba’s first food supplier and the most generous donor of humanitarian aid for decades.Cita:
The Cuban Embargo Myth
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-cuban-embargo-myth/
The U.S. ranks right between Red China and Hugo’s Venezuela as a Castro business partner.
August 24, 2010 - by Humberto Fontova
Currently the U.S. “blockades” or “embargoes” Cuba, right? Of course. We read and hear about this embargo in every MSM mention of Cuba, most recently from an Obama spokesperson as interpreted by the New York Times:
The Obama administration is planning to expand opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba, the latest step aimed at encouraging more contact between people in both countries … while leaving intact the decades-old embargo against the island’s Communist government.
Congressional Black Caucus member and frequent Cuba visitor Barbara Lee also chimed in recently: “[W]e can move forward with lifting the travel ban and ending the embargo with Cuba.”
Webster’s defines “embargo” as “a government order imposing a trade barrier.” As a verb it’s defined as “to prevent commerce.”
But according to figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. transacted $710 million worth of business with Cuba in 2008, and has transacted more than $2 billion worth of business with Cuba in the last decade. Currently the U.S. is Cuba’s biggest food supplier and 5th biggest import partner. Furthermore, the U.S. has been Cuba’s biggest donor of humanitarian aid including medicine and medical supplies for decades. All this together with the almost $2 billion a year in remittances sent from the U.S. ranks our nation right between Red China and Hugo’s Venezuela as a Castro business partner.
The term “travel ban” (against Cuba) seems pretty self-explanatory, right?
But last year Cuba received 200,000 visitors from the U.S. — legally. Global Travel Industry News reports that another 200,000 Americans visited Castro’s fiefdom illegally.
And remember, during the 1950s Cuba was a “playground” for American tourists who inundated the island, right? Of course. We learned this from that famous documentary on Cuba, The Godfather.
But according to figures from Cuba’s Banco Nacional, during the 1950s an average of 185,000 Americans visited Cuba annually.
Let’s step back for a second and consult our calculators:
During the 1950s, Cuba enjoyed its status as “tourist playground,” especially for Americans — 180,000 U.S. tourists and another 20 to 30 thousand from Canada and Europe.
Today, while suffering a crushing “U.S. blockade,” Cuba has 400,000 U.S. tourists along with 2.2 million Canadian and European tourists annually, while the U.S. serves as her second biggest trading partner, including remittances.
Loudly chanted within the anti-embargo mantra of the Congressional Black Caucus, U.S. farm lobby, and Castro lobbyists is the notion that the embargo has “failed.” In fact, few U.S. foreign policy measures have been as phenomenally successful as our limited sanctions against the Stalinist robber-barons who run Castro’s regime.
First off, for the course of three decades the Soviet Union was forced to pump the equivalent of almost ten Marshall Plans into Cuba. This cannot have helped the Soviet Union’s precarious solvency or lengthened her life span.
Secondly, the U.S. taxpayer has been spared the fleecing visited upon many others who reside in nations who eschew “embargoing” Cuba. To wit:
Nowadays the so-called U.S. embargo merely stipulates that the Castro regime pay cash up front through a third–party bank for all U.S. agricultural products; there is no Export-Import Bank (U.S. taxpayer) financing of such sales. Enacted by the Bush team in 2001, this cash-up-front policy has kept the U.S. taxpayer among the few in the world not screwed and tattooed by Fidel Castro.
Here are a few items regarding the so-called embargo studiously side-stepped by much of the MSM, the U.S. farm lobby, and Castro lobbyists:
Per-capita-wise, Cuba qualifies as the world’s biggest debtor nation with a foreign debt of close to $50 billion, a credit rating nudging Somalia’s, and an uninterrupted record of defaults. In 2007, one of the world’s most respected economic forecasting firms, the London-based Economist Intelligence Unit, ranked Cuba as virtually the world’s worst country business-wise. Only Iran and Angola ranked lower. This firm predicted that Cuba’s abysmal business climate would remain that way for the next five years, at the very least.
Standard & Poor’s refuses even to rate Cuba, regarding the economic figures released by the regime as utterly bogus.
In 1986, Cuba defaulted on most of its foreign debt to Europe. Three years ago, France’s version of the U.S. government’s Export- Import Bank (named COFACE) cut off Cuba’s credit line. Mexico’s Bancomex quickly followed suit. This came about because the Castro regime stuck it to French taxpayers for $175 million and to Mexican taxpayers for $365 million. Bancomex was forced to impound Cuban assets in three different countries in an attempt to recoup its losses.
Last year the Castro regime suddenly froze $ 1 billion held in Cuban banks by foreign (mostly Spanish) businessmen. “Cuban banks informed depositors that they had no foreign exchange to back up the convertible peso in which many were doing business,” explained the Reuters Havana bureau. Spain’s criticism of the U.S. “embargo” has recently become much shriller.
The anti-“embargo” mantra from CNN, the U.S. Rice Producers Association, and Castro lobbyists also stresses that a flood of rich Western tourists will magically smother Cuban Stalinism, whereupon the island nation will quickly mutate into a bigger (and more historic and picturesque) Cozumel. This reasoning seems to go something like this: rewarding and enriching the KGB-trained and heavily armed guardians of Cuba’s Stalinist status quo will magically convert them into instant opponents of that Stalinist status quo.
As two decades of such tourism have amply proven, any trickle of foreign currency that reaches the Stalinist regime’s subjects (primarily from prostitution) is offset a thousand-fold by the millions ($2.4 billion last year, for instance) crammed into the regime’s military and secret-police coffers
Even after we lift what if left from the embargo, the regime will be repressive. And their left-leaning allies will still blame the US for the failures of Castroism. They will keep calling the dissidents agents of the CIA, and will defend the regime until its demise.Cita:
Lift embargo on Cuba? Not so fast
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/08/25/lift_embargo_on_cuba_not_so_fast/
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / August 25, 2010
IS IT time to unplug the American embargo against Cuba? The prospect seems to tempt more people than ever. It ought to be resisted.
The New York Times reported last week that the Obama administration intends to expand opportunities for Americans to visit Cuba, loosening the rules under which academic, religious, and cultural groups can travel there. The new regulations are seen as a signal of presidential support for legislation sponsored by US Representative Collin Peterson that would repeal the travel limitations altogether.
The chorus calling for an end to the travel strictures and an increase in trade with Cuba is considerable. Peterson notes that his bill is backed by a coalition of over 140 organizations, “including Human Rights Watch, the US Chamber of Commerce, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the American Farm Bureau Federation.’’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has “always been a supporter of lifting the travel ban.’’ The Brookings Institute recommends “vastly’’ expanding US-Cuba travel and other “people-to-people contacts,’’ calling them “a strategic tool to advance US policy objectives.’’
Especially compelling is a letter to members of Congress signed by 74 Cuban dissidents who support the legislation. Among them are the noted blogger Yoani Sánchez and Guillermo Farinas, whose 140-day hunger strike earlier this year drew worldwide attention.
“We share the opinion that the isolation of the people of Cuba benefits the most inflexible interests of its government,’’ the letter said, “while any opening serves to inform and empower the Cuban people and helps to further strengthen our civil society.’’
But other dissidents take a different view, and 494 of them signed a letter opposing any change in US policy that would reduce pressure on the regime.
“The main problem resides in the absence of liberty for Cubans,’’ they wrote. “At a moment such as this, to be benevolent with the dictatorship would mean solidarity with the oppressors of the Cuban nation.’’ The signers of this letter included Ariel Sigler, a pro-democracy activist who spent seven years behind bars before being exiled from Cuba last month, and Reina Luisa Tamayo, whose son Orlando Zapata Tamayo died after fasting for 82 days to protest the abuse of prisoners in Cuban jails.
Clearly, there are men and women of good will on both sides of this debate. And clearly the end of the Castro reign is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But will that day really be brought closer by allowing American tourists, exports, and cash to pour into Cuba?
The argument might be more plausible if Cuba were a Caribbean North Korea, cut off from contact with the world. It isn’t. Ordinary Cubans may live with poverty and repression, but the government has turned the island into a major tourist attraction, complete with deluxe hotels and beach resorts. Some 2.4 million tourists visited Cuba last year, more than 800,000 of them Canadians. For that matter, tens of thousands of Americans make it to Cuba each year, despite the restrictions. Yet for all that exposure to foreign citizens, money, and ideas, the power of the Castro brothers is undiminished.
By the same token, if international commerce had the power to undo the regime, wouldn’t it have been undone by now? The US embargo, after all, doesn’t stop Cuba from trading with any other country in the world. Indeed, even with the “embargo,’’ the United States is one of Cuba’s top five trading partners.
The transformative power of free trade is not to be denied, but trade with Cuba isn’t free. There is no Cuban parallel to the economic openness and flourishing private sector that has transformed China. Jerry Haar, a dean of business administration at Florida International University, observes in the Latin Business Chronicle that one unavoidable fact of life faces exporters to Cuba: “The entire distribution chain is in the hands of the Cuban military and intelligence services.’’ Foreign investors are compelled to deal with the state and its subsidiaries, since they control the “hotels, foreign trade operations, equipment sales, and factories.’’
As long as the Castros maintain their stranglehold on the Cuban economy, enriching that economy enriches — and entrenches — them. The travel ban and embargo have not ended Cuba’s misery, but lifting them unilaterally will only make that misery worse. Rewarding the dictators who keep Cuba in chains is not the way to set Cubans free.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com
It doesn’t matter how badly or for how long the Castros regime fails, there always be some progressives dreaming about a worker's utopia. But an objective view of the last 100 years will show that nothing raises more people out of poverty than a capitalism system. So far nobody has been able to improve upon a free and open market.
George LeMieux U.S. senator from Florida provides Sun Sentinel readers with a dose of reality with regards to lifting the travel band to Cuba.Cita:
U.S. tourist dollars would only tighten Cuba's grip on power
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-cuba-ban-talk-back-forum-20100901,0,7924159.story
By George LeMieux
The recent Sun Sentinel editorial, "Lifting ban on travel to Cuba best way to push democratic ideals," fails to consider the most important facts regarding U.S. Cuba policy.
First, tourism travel to Cuba represents the Castro regime's foremost source of income — akin to the energy industry being Iran's foremost source of income and thus the main target of sanctions. Few would disagree that Canadian and European tourists have financed the existence of the Castro regime, and therefore their repression of the Cuban people. For the United States to create a tourism bonanza for the regime at this time would provide the dictatorship an economic lifeline.
Second, to argue that U.S. tourists are going to stir the winds of political and economic change by spreading democratic ideals is unrealistic and insensitive. What could tourists do to surpass the efforts of Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, Guido Sigler Amaya and other courageous Cubans currently spending decades in prison for advocating democratic ideals?
What change could tourists inspire above that of Cuban political prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who died this year after an 85-day hunger strike? What economic or political pressure will tourist dollars bring beyond the five pro-democracy activists who stood on the stairs of the University of Havana last week and demanded freedom for the Cuban people — three of whom are now facing lengthy prison terms? It seems the world could learn a great deal from the inspiring courage and resilience of Cuba's pro-democracy movement, not vice-versa.
Finally, to argue that allowing tourism to Cuba would prevent the Castro regime from "cherry-picking" for travel only "those who are neutral and harbor sympathies towards the regime" is completely misguided. What the Castro regime wants are apolitical and uninformed tourists they can contain in isolated, all-inclusive resorts. Such "easy income" would reduce the regime's reliance on, and likely the frequency of, humanitarian travelers.
Cuba is not a tourist paradise. Behind the curtain of white sandy beaches are people held captive by a brutal regime. U.S. tourist dollars would only serve to tighten the regime's grip on power.
Rather than concede human rights and the rule of law, we should align with pro-democratic movements, instead of giving the Castros the fodder and means to crush them.
George LeMieux is a U.S. senator for Florida and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The article reflects how some Cuban Americans feel about travelling to Cuba. If you had to leave because you refused to be a number, how can you go back? You even have to ask for permission to go back to your own country? With regard to foreigners, they look at Cuba as a third world country that does not aspire to live in freedom because they don't know any better. I don't see that the Canadian or European tourism having done anything to inspire any changes.Cita:
Cuba Visitors Wear Horse Blinders
http://www.creators.com/opinion/miguel-perez/cuba-visitors-wear-horse-blinders.html
Whenever fellow Americans tell me, "I just came back from Cuba" or "I'm planning a vacation in Cuba soon," they obviously think they are paying me some kind of compliment. Because I was born on that precious Caribbean island, they think such statements would lead to some sort of bonding. They don't know it makes me lose respect for them.
"Oh, really?" I usually reply, straining to be polite.
As they proceed to tell me about all the places they visited and the people they met, I usually am thinking about all the places they weren't allowed to see and all the people they were not allowed to meet.
Cuba's dungeons for political prisoners and chats with constantly harassed Cuban dissidents surely were not on their tourist itineraries.
People who try to talk to me about their visits to Cuba usually fall into three categories: Latino Americans who travel to Cuba by way of their own native homelands, Americans who go there (mostly illegally) through a third country or Cuban-Americans who visit their homeland more often than ever, thanks to an Obama administration relaxation of travel restrictions last year.
Obviously, I'm not impressed by their tours of my native homeland, because I know it required wearing moral horse blinders.
In my book, only Cuban-Americans who go home for emergency visits to sick or dying relatives are justified in going back there. All others are helping to subsidize one of the oldest repressive dictatorships in history.
When I go beyond asking my diplomatic question — "Oh, really?" — just to be clear, I tell my Cuba-visiting friends that there is no place I rather would see but that I rather would hold out until the island is free.
I tell my non-Cuban friends that I probably have much better reasons for wanting to go there. But sarcastically, I also explain that I've managed to resist the temptation because I suffer from an illness called "principles" and that traveling to my country under the hideous regime from which I fled is bad for my health. Until Cuba is truly free, I'm not going to be traveling with them.
Non-Cubans who visit my country are generally either U.S. liberals who go on their revolutionary vacations because they think it's simply "a cool thing to do" or unscrupulous entrepreneurs, who tend to be Christian conservatives but would cut deals with Lucifer himself. When these leftists and capitalists are there — drinking mojitos, dancing to Cuban salsa and making strange bedfellows — they have no time to worry about the hardships of the Cuban people.
Perhaps their insensitivity can be blamed on ignorance. You really don't know what it's like to live under a communist tyranny until you have experienced it for longer than a couple of weeks, outside of a beach resort, enduring the choking grip of an iron fist.
But Cuban-Americans who go home for vacation should know better! They usually claim they go there to help their relatives, but they know that by subsidizing the regime, they are prolonging the suffering of all Cubans.
Most Cubans in the United States were granted U.S. political asylum because they claimed they had a "well-founded fear of persecution" upon returning to their homeland. Unless they already have become American citizens, I say that if they go back — proving they no longer have that fear — they should have their political asylum revoked and be forced to stay in Cuba. And if they have become naturalized Americans, they should be forced to abide by the same travel restrictions imposed on all Americans, who are mostly forbidden from traveling to Cuba.
Unfortunately, at least some of those restrictions are reportedly close to being loosened by the Obama administration, which seems ready to open a floodgate of horse blinder-wearing Americans traveling to my still-subjugated homeland. Some of them are so naive that they actually believe that American tourists are going to liberate the Cuban people from the government's repression machine, when in fact they will be providing a lifesaving cash transfusion to a dying regime.
Tourists from all over the world have been going to Cuba for many years without putting a dent on the repression machine. What makes anyone think that Americans could do better?
Although Obama's move would be limited — easing travel restrictions only for academics, corporations, humanitarian groups and athletic teams to travel to Cuba — it would send a clear signal to Congress to begin lifting the U.S. economic embargo against the communist regime in Havana. And in Congress, there are many lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans — who have been waiting for such a signal from the White House.
But why such a dramatic shift in U.S.-Cuba policy? What have Fidel and Raul Castro done to show they are willing to ease their repression? It couldn't be because they recently agreed to release 52 prisoners of conscience — not when the whole world knows that it took the hunger strike death of one such prisoner, not when some of the released prisoners look like the survivors of Nazi concentration camps, not when it took international condemnation and many defiant and courageous marches by the prisoners' wives, mothers and daughters, not when everyone has seen how these women have been verbally and physically abused.
Doesn't it matter that Cuba's only "concession" illustrates just how vicious the Castro regime can be?
Apparently not if you are wearing horse blinders! And unfortunately, the Obama administration is getting ready to issue them to Cuba-bound travelers.
Oh, yes, there was one time when my "Oh, really?" reply didn't suffice.
"I just came back from a great vacation in Cuba," a former friend told me at a cocktail party, where the beverages had made me much more honest than normal.
"Oh, really?" I told her. "Shame on you
I have arrived to the conclusion that when Progressives speak of civil rights, they really mean socialist rights. When the civil rights come into conflict with Socialist regimes, their support for civil rights violations by those regimes disappears. Most the time they keep silence about those violations, and sometimes they mention that it is “for the greater good.” What that means is that if you are not a socialist, something awful and sometimes deadly will happen to you in the name of “the greater good of the people.”
Reuters interpretation of the criminal and illegal act of pirating movies and software is that it is a missed business opportunity. Maybe Reuters think the US, by trying to catch and imprison organized crime syndicates, is missing out on other business opportunities instead of negotiating business deals with them.Cita:
Despite embargo, Cuba a haven for pirated U.S. goods
http://lta.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idLTAN0222000820100902?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=marketsNews&rpc=401&sp=true
* Pirated U.S. TV shows, movies, software abound in Cuba
* U.S.-Cuba embargo blocks legal access to most U.S. goods
* Lack of formal U.S.-Cuba relations hurts enforcement
By Esteban Israel
HAVANA, Sept 2 (Reuters) - A few weeks after Ashton Kutcher's latest comedy "Killers" premiered in the United States, the movie was already entertaining the masses in communist Cuba.
For two pesos, the equivalent of nine U.S. cents, the state-owned Yara movie theater in the heart of Havana offered Cubans a washed out and pixilated copy of Kutcher's adventures as a CIA assassin who is himself targeted for a hit.
"It's a very good flick. We just got it on DVD," says a woman in the ticket office.
The problem is that "Killers" will not be officially released on DVD in the United States until Sept. 7 and even then Cuba will be off limits due to the 48-year-old U.S. trade embargo against the Caribbean island.
But half a century of U.S. sanctions have turned Cuba into a piracy haven and a missed opportunity for U.S. businesses.
Even though the embargo forbids U.S. companies like Microsoft (MSFT.O: Cotización) from exporting software to Cuba, most personal computers on the island run unlicensed copies of its Windows operating system.
Pirated copies of the latest version, Windows 7, have been available for months from illegal vendors in Cuba.
The blue-skinned aliens of "Avatar," James Cameron's blockbuster film, appeared on Cuba's state television in February while the movie was still breaking box office records around the world.
Surfing Cuba's five television channels, all state-owned, a viewer could stumble across shows such as Disney Channel's "Hannah Montana" and NBC's "Friends," or movies like Dreamworks' "Madagascar 2".
Video games of all types are sold by software pirates in Cuba for the equivalent of about $2.
"The reality is that U.S. products and services are down there whether the companies that make them sell them or not," said Jake Colvin, Vice President for Global Trade Issues at the National Foreign Trade Council in Washington.
"The frustrating thing is that U.S. companies are getting nothing for it," he told Reuters.
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN?
The trade embargo, imposed since 1962 with the aim of toppling the Caribbean island's communist government, forbids most U.S. business with Cuba, with the key exception of agricultural products, and, under certain restrictions, medicines.
Cuba's unofficial position is that the embargo limits access to so many products that it forces people to resort to piracy.
But it also does so with a certain relish, which is both the result of five decades of U.S.-Cuba hostility and a jab at the capitalist system Cuban leaders disdain.
The Business Software Alliance, a Washington-based industry group, says 63 percent of the computer programs being used in Latin America as a whole in 2009 were unlicensed and had an approximate commercial value of $6.2 billion.
But in Cuba, the piracy rate is estimated to be around 80 percent, if not higher, said Montserrat Duran, BSA director of legal affairs for Latin America.
Cuba has been more protective of its own products, having spent much time and money defending its world-famous Cohiba cigar and Havana Club rum brands in legal battles in the United States.
The National Foreign Trade Council says the current lack of formal diplomatic relations between the two nations makes it difficult for U.S. companies to raise these issues with Cuban authorities.
"Until we fix the relationship, until we have governments that talk to each other and have a better official relationship and we have rules that allow companies to interact and do business in Cuba we are not going to be able to address the problem," said Colvin.
MIXED BLESSING
Better relations, when they come, could be a mixed blessing for Cuba's financial exposure over pirated goods, one computer engineer on the island said.
"The day we finally resolve our problems with the United States, Microsoft's Bill Gates will try to collect the bill. And it will be huge," he said, asking not to be identified.
A spokesman for Microsoft declined to comment.
In the meantime, Cuba should focus on the future rather than worry about the past, said Business Software Alliance's Duran.
"Nobody expects them to pay for what has been done, but governments should legalize their products and lead by example. People need to understand that piracy is a crime similar to stealing a car," she said.
Cuba took a step toward addressing the problem last year when it developed a variant of the free, open-source operating system Linux and promoted its use in the country's computers.
Cuban leaders said conversion to Linux would ease their security concerns about the widespread use of U.S. software and create another front in their long fight to resist U.S. domination. (Editing by Jeff Franks and Doina Chiacu)
Even in this article about pirating goods, Reuters manage to take a shot against the embargo. What makes Reuters thing that free commerce with the Castros’ regime is going to control pirating? Well, logic is not the point, the point is to attack the embargo.
Excellent article by Stephen Johnson about the attempts by the Castro regime to clean up its image and secure its complete control on power. The regimen has used this tactic on many occasions. The mainstream media should have recognized this latest tactic as the same one used before, if it were not so ignorant of Cuban history.Cita:
Cuba: No lifeline to a dying regime
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/03/cuba_no_lifeline_to_a_dying_regime
By Stephen Johnson
When in a bind, Cuba's Castro brothers sometimes ease their repressive grip on the island's population. Case in point: during the current economic crunch, President Raúl Castro has released some two dozen political prisoners, revived a lapsed self-employment experiment, and allowed foreigners to lease land for 99 years. Impressive, except we've seen this movie before.
And to remove any doubt about its meaning, President Raúl Castro reportedly told his National Assembly that it does not signal a change in the 50-year-old anti-American police state. Which is why the United States should not significantly alter its equally long-lived trade embargo. The tougher it gets for the regime, the more likely that a few small freedoms will last longer -- hopefully until the two brothers go to the great commune in the sky.
It may be useful to remember that the harshest periods of the brothers' rule were when their coffers were flush and the revolution was strong. That's when the Soviet Union supported it with subsidies worth up to $6 billion a year as a regional arms trafficking and subversion hub. During that time, the regime reportedly held as many as 60,000 political prisoners, according to some estimates.
Yet in 1980, when outside help wasn't enough to pay the bills and thousands of Cubans took to the streets, then-president Fidel Castro allowed nearly 125,000 citizens -- some from prisons and mental hospitals -- a one-time good deal to flee to the United States. It was either appear magnanimous or lose control.
After subsidies dried up with the Soviet collapse in 1991, he licensed some 200,000 workers to earn their livings as cuentapropistas, self-employed street vendors and taxi drivers. At the end of the decade, when the economy had adjusted and Venezuela started providing subsidized oil, many permits were not renewed.
During the same period, the Cuban government began inviting foreign businesses to engage in joint ventures with state enterprises. In 1999, a project with a Canadian firm to refurbish a Soviet-built power plant seemed on track until the regime arbitrarily terminated the partnership and used the company's proprietary plans to shop for new partners, sinking a $9 million investment.
Now facing a cash crunch on the heels of a disastrous sugar harvest, brother Raúl is consulting Fidel's old playbook -- releasing jailed dissidents, ramping up self-employment, and making nice to foreign businesses, which, by the way, must abide by Cuban policies of denying workers' rights, in violation of International Labor Organization conventions. Meaningful reform? You be the judge.
Last year, President Obama rolled back Bush-era restrictions on family-member travel and remittance payments, and promised to allow U.S. companies to provide cell phone and satellite telecommunications services. Now he is about to encourage visits by academics and artists in a return to Clinton-era policies of purposeful engagement. Such measures might foster more people-to-people contact, but he should be careful about going much further.
The more radical 2010 Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act (H.R. 4645), reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on June 30, would streamline financial transactions with Cuban banks to speed U.S. farm exports and lift the U.S. ban on tourist travel to the island. While enhancing sales is a good thing, a horde of American vacationers now could revive the army-run tourist industry and kill the current cuentapropista revival.
Tempting as it may be to view Cuba's tactical retreats as reforms, they are stopgaps. However, for as long they last, they provide certain benefits to ordinary Cubans. In that sense, the Obama administration and Congress would do well to stay the current course and abide by principled policies designed to pry open access to individual freedoms for Cubans wherever possible. To tweak U.S.-Cuba policy and perhaps minimize the embargo's impact on American businesses, U.S. policymakers could:
· Link seeming concessions to more positive behavior. As U.S. officials urge Raúl to release all prisoners of conscience, they could caution against booting them out of their own country.
· Take advantage of resurging self-employment. Business information and news of micro-financing opportunities on U.S. official broadcasting to the island might fuel popular expectations of further liberalization.
· Facilitate free expression by easing more U.S. restrictions on cell phone and equipment sales, and service agreements consistent with broader U.S. technology transfer limits. Wider ownership of laptops, mobile phones, and other consumer electronics (now legal in Cuba) can further complicate the regime's ability to control communication.
· Consolidate America's position as a key goods supplier to the island. President Obama could urge Congress to expand the list of what can be exported under the embargo's cash and carry sales rules that now contemplate food, clothing, and medicine.
To sustain leverage over Cuba's government on the cusp of transition, the United States should continue to:
· Deny financial support and credit until Cuba releases its captive labor force and pays creditors, and
· Condition normal diplomatic and economic relations on respect for human rights and civil liberties such as freedom of expression, of assembly, movement, and access to due process of law.
Since they came to power in 1959, the Castro brothers' goal has been the survival of their socialist dream. Adaptability has been the key to success, retreating at critical junctures without altering the regime's basic structure. Such measures often looked like signs of change because we wanted to see them as such. On close inspection, they were skillful maneuvers to get through a crisis.
A number of congressmen and business groups are now saying that Raúl is sending friendly signals to Washington like crazy. Perhaps. But it would be crazy for us to believe he would admit that a life spent building a repressive police state was just a mistake. Rather, we would be better off dealing with new leaders willing to take Raúl's retreats to the next level by guaranteeing human rights and civil liberties, respecting ordinary citizens' right to choose their leaders, and allowing a market economy to flourish.
Look that it is a lose-lose proposition for the regime. If it allows tens of thousands escape from the island and look for refuge in the US, it will create a diplomatic confrontation and show the world the extreme discontent of the Cuban people with the regime. If the Castros’ regime, on the other hand, crack down on the dissatisfied Cuban citizens, their resistance will built up to a breaking point were rage overtake them and take matters on their own hands. I believe the end of the regime is closer that we think.
The embargo as political, diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba continued to deteriorate. The Eisenhower administration, after the Castroit regime nationalize the American oil refineries on June 28, and the nationalization of all US businesses and commercial properties in Cuba in July 15, 1960, imposed a partial trade embargo against Cuba on Oct. 19, 1960, prohibiting all U.S. exports except food, medicine and medical supplies and a few other things requiring special licenses. But Cuban imports -- including sugar -- were allowed. In 1961, President Kennedy cut the Cuban sugar quota to zero but it wasn't until 1962, after the Bay of Pigs invasion of the previous fall, which Kennedy announced a total embargo of Cuba would begin.Cita:
Engagement with Castro has Clearly Failed—Time to Try an Embargo
http://theamericano.com/2010/08/31/engagement-castro-failedtime-embargo/
By Humberto Fontova
Gosh, maybe if we were only nice to Castro?” goes the liberal mantra on Cuba.
In fact the U.S. elite’s fetish for “engagement” with Fidel Castro began before he was even in “office.”
“Me and my staff were all Fidelistas,” (Robert Reynolds, the CIA’s “Caribbean Desk’s specialist on the Cuban Revolution” from 1957-1960.)
“Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except (Republican) ambassador Earl Smith.” (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.)
Their advice was taken and January 7, 1959, thus marks a milestone in U.S. diplomatic history. Never before had the State Department extended diplomatic recognition to a Latin American government as quickly as they bestowed this benediction on Fidel Castro’s that day.
Nothing so frantically fast had been bestowed upon“U.S.-backed” Fulgencio Batista (note the obligatory prefix, used in every MSM and “scholarly” mention of him) seven years earlier. Batista had in fact been punished by a U.S. arms embargo and heavy diplomatic pressure to resign for a year. Batista was subsequently denied exile in the U.S. and not even allowed to set foot in the country that “backed” him.
In fact, during Castro’s first 16 months in power, the U.S. State Dept. made over 10 back channel diplomatic attempts to ascertain the cause of Castro’s tantrums and further “engage” him. Argentine President Arturo Frondizi was the conduit for many of these and recounts their utter futility in his memoirs.
Result: In July 1960 Castro’s KGB-trained security forces stormed into 5911 U.S. owned businesses in Cuba and stole them all at Soviet gunpoint – $2 billion were heisted from outraged U.S. businessmen and stockholders. Not that all Americans surrendered their legal and hard-earned property peacefully. Among some who resisted where Bobby Fuller whose family farm would contribute to a Soviet-style Kolkhoze and Howard Anderson whose profitable Jeep dealership was coveted by Castro’s henchmen. Both U.S. citizens were murdered by Castro and Che’s firing squads.
In July 1961, JFK’s special counsel Richard Goodwin met with Che Guevara in Uruguay and reported back to Kennedy: “Che says that Cuba wants an understanding with the U.S., the Cubans have no intention of making an alliance with the Soviets. So we should make it clear to Castro that we want to help Cuba.” (how Che managed a straight face during this conversation requires an article of its own)
Result: Soviet nuclear missiles locked and loaded in Cuba a year later–and pointed at Goodwin and Kennedy’s very homes.
In 1975, President Gerald Ford (under Kissinger’s influence) allowed foreign branches and subsidiaries of U.S. companies to trade freely with Cuba and persuaded the Organization of American States to lift its sanctions.
Result: Castro started his African invasion and tried to assassinate Ford. You read right. On March 19, the Los Angeles Times ran the headline “Cuban Link to Death Plot Probed.” Both Republican candidates of the day, President Ford and Ronald Reagan, were to be taken out during the Republican National Convention. The Emiliano Zapata Unit, a Bay area radical group linked to the Weather Underground, would make the hits.
Jimmy Carter, in a good-will gesture, lifted U.S. travel sanctions against Cuba and was poised to open full diplomatic relations with Castro.
Result: More thousands of Cuban troops spreading Soviet terror (and poison gas) in Africa, more internal repression, and hundreds of psychopaths, killers and perverts infiltrated onto the boats and shoved our way on the Mariel boatlift.
Ronald Reagan sent Alexander Haig to meet personally in Mexico City with Cuba’s “Vice President” Carlos Raphael Rodriguez to feel him out. Then he sent diplomatic wiz Gen. Vernon Walters to Havana for a meeting with the maximum leader himself.
Result: Cubans practically take over Grenada, El Salvador and Nicaragua. (but unlike the aforementioned Democrats, Reagan responded to Castro’s response–and with pretty dramatic results.)
Pres. Clinton tried playing nice again in the 90′s.
Result: Three U.S. citizens and one resident who flew humanitarian flights over Florida straits (Brothers to the Rescue) murdered in cold blood by Castro’s MIGS. Castro agent Ana Belen Montes moles her way to head of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Cuba division, resulting in the deepest and most damaging penetration of the U.S. Defense Department by an enemy agent in modern history…
Now looks like we’re back to square one.
Juuuuuuuust maybe an embargo would work?
But “come-ON, Humberto!” you say. “Don’t we HAVE an embargo against Cuba?”
Not according to Websters dictionary, that defines “embargo” as “a government order imposing a trade barrier.” As a verb it’s defined as “to prevent commerce.”
But according to figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. transacted $710 million worth of business with Cuba in 2008, and has transacted more than $2 billion worth of business with Cuba in the last decade. Currently the U.S. is Cuba’s biggest food supplier and 5th biggest import partner. Furthermore, the U.S. has been Cuba’s biggest donor of humanitarian aid including medicine and medical supplies for decades. All this together with the almost $2 billion a year in remittances sent from the U.S. ranks our nation right between Red China (who did $1.5 billion with Castro last year) and Hugo’s Venezuela as a Castro business partner.
Humberto Fontova holds an M.A. in Latin American Studies from Tulane University and is the author of four books including, Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant and Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him. For more information and for video clips of his Television and college speaking appearances please visit Humberto Fontova Official Site.
Although the embargo has remained tight, it has been modified through the years to include the export of U.S. food products and medicine to Cuba as well as the import of Cuban art and music to the United States
Cuban experts say “sanctions aren't working,” so they shall be lifted. The same experts say “sanctions are working,” so they shall be lifted. Which is which? They used to be sure, but now they changed their mind. So much for the “experts”Cita:
Cuba move is a victory for U.S. policy
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/22/cuba_move_is_a_victory_for_us_policy
By José R. Cárdenas
The Castro regime's stunning announcement that it is planning to lay off more than 500,000 state workers in the next six months, dropping fully one-tenth of the country's labor force into a barely existent "private sector" has sparked a flurry of commentary on just what the move portends for the captive island's future.
Does it mean Cuba going capitalist? Are they importing the China model? Who's really in charge, Fidel or brother Raul? And, of course, that hardy perennial, whatever the announcement means, the U.S. should immediately lift the embargo and restore full diplomatic relations with the Castro regime (see here, here, and here).
On the latter, it is a measure of the investment so many have made into their opposition to U.S. policy that even as they cite the abysmal state of the Cuban economy as the central factor in forcing the regime's decision, they cannot recognize the significant role played by U.S. economic pressure in bringing that situation about. The embargo has indeed been pocked with holes in recent years, but two critical escape hatches for the Cuban economy -- U.S. tourist travel to Cuba and the extension of trade credits -- remain beyond the regime's grasp, and thankfully so.
In short, the decision on layoffs was dictated by the bankruptcy of the Cuban economy and the lack of prospects it will improve anytime soon. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
It thus defies logic to argue for any lessening of the pressure against a regime that has fought tooth and nail against any liberalizing reforms since the collapse of the USSR. Just as in the early 1990s, when the regime had its first go around with limited self-employment, as soon as the economy ticked up a few notches, the hammer came back down on those attempting to eke out an existence beyond state control.
Easing pressure now will only serve to halt in their tracks whatever steps the Castro brothers conjure next to try and reverse their declining fortunes. Policymakers need to remember that what drives this regime is survival, not appeasing the United States in the hopes of some policy concessions or allowing, out of some sort of beneficence, more freedoms for the Cuban people to better their lots.
So what do the layoffs mean, besides the fact that the regime is broke? The simple fact is we don't know, because we don't have any insight into the ruling clique's thoughts. It's probably safe to say they have no idea where they are going either.
What we can say with some degree of assurance is that the regime is taking a huge gamble in putting up to an eventual one million Cubans on the street to fend for themselves -- a gamble that could have serious repercussions for the regime's continued grip on power. That's because they are going to be extremely hard pressed to create any semblance of conditions where half a million or more Cuban workers are going to be able to find any employment on their own.
We need to remember that this regime consists of a dwindling cohort of dogmatic revolutionaries whose only accomplishment in life was to shoot their way into power fifty years ago and stay there. They no more understand market economics than they do Einstein's quantum theory of light.
Also, an important clarification for much of recent news reporting -- which has it that laid-off Cubans will be free to start "small businesses" -- is necessary. More accurately, they are micro-enterprises, an important distinction in order of magnitude. And the relatively few micro-enterprises that do exist -- a beautician here, a taxi driver there -- struggle to operate under such a mountain of regulations as to who they can hire, what and where they can sell, on how much they can earn (no one is allowed to become "too rich") as to make the whole effort practically fruitless. Many Cubans simply opt for the underground economy.
Be that as it may, the regime is going to have to figure out how it is going to deal with the social impact of a large group of idle Cuban workers unable to make a living honestly or dishonestly. It is a volatile mix that could lead to an upsurge in crime or other social agitation that could challenge the regime's internal security apparatus. Policy critics will likely argue just that point to justify a U.S. rapprochement with the Castros: that we need to help the regime achieve a "soft landing," as opposed to a descent into instability on the island.
But decisions on a soft versus hard landing in Cuba won't be made in Washington; they will be made in Havana. Those concerned about the latter ought to focus their lobbying efforts on the ruling clique there, not on policymakers in Washington. What is the appropriate role for Washington is to continue to close off all economic escape hatches for this obsolete regime and let it continue to face the consequences of its own misrule.
Very soon fear mongering news articles about the social impact of the embargo will appear, arguing that it is the primary cause of the regime instability that will be facing a human security crisis, leading to another Mariel boat lift.
While American can travel freely to the rest of the world without interference of the US government, Cubans cannot do so without the government permission, and even Cubans who live abroad need the government approval to return to their country. I cannot imagine a US citizen having to ask permission to Washington to travel or to return to US after living abroad.Cita:
Elections delay Cuba travel policy expansion
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/17/1828781/no-word-on-easing-travel.html
The Obama administration was expected to ease restrictions on travel to Cuba, but this may not happen until after elections.
BY LESLEY CLARK AND JUAN O. TAMAYO
jtamayo@ElNuevoHerald.com
The Obama administration has remained mum on when -- or if -- it will unveil a long-expected expansion of U.S. travel to Cuba, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said Thursday.
Peter Brennan, coordinator of Cuban affairs at the State Department, gave no indications at all on any changes in the travel policy when she and Mario Diaz-Balart met him Wednesday, Ros-Lehtinen said.
She said the South Florida Republicans requested the meeting because of the many news media reports that the administration plans to ease travel to Cuba.
Her understanding from Brennan was that there was ``no policy decisions that are ready to be announced,'' she said. ``But we know those changes are coming.''
State Department spokeswoman Virginia Staab did not comment on the news media reports but said the administration ``remains committed to promoting policies that advance the Cuban people's desire to freely determine their country's future, that enhance the independence of the Cuban people, and that further the [U.S.] national interests. Mr. Brennan did not say anything to the contrary to members of Congress.''
Ros-Lehtinen said she and Diaz-Balart told Brennan they oppose softening the travel restrictions because that would only help the Cuban government ``at a time when the regime is very weak.''
The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald and other news media have reported the White House had decided to ease restrictions on educational and cultural travel to Cuba. Some reports predicted the changes would be unveiled during the recent congressional recess, but no announcement was made.
The Washington-based United States-Cuba Policy & Business Blog, which favors easing U.S. sanctions, reported Saturday that the White House had delayed the announcement until after the Nov. 2 elections.
South Florida Democratic Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek -- who is a Senate candidate -- and Sen. Bill Nelson pushed for the delay to avoid hurting their party's chances, the blog added.
Opposition from Cuban-American Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., also helped to delay the announcement, said a Democratic party operative. ``But it [the announcement] is still going to happen,'' he added.
Meanwhile, a bill that would lift all restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba remained in limbo, with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., telling reporters earlier this month that he's five short of the votes needed to send it to the full House.
Berman said he was looking for the five votes, but the Washington blog said he was ``mostly half-hearted and not very inspiring . . . He may be `committed' to the issue but only to a point.'''
Cita:
Cuba move is a victory for U.S. policy
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/22/cuba_move_is_a_victory_for_us_policy
By José R. Cárdenas
The Castro regime's stunning announcement that it is planning to lay off more than 500,000 state workers in the next six months, dropping fully one-tenth of the country's labor force into a barely existent "private sector" has sparked a flurry of commentary on just what the move portends for the captive island's future.
Does it mean Cuba going capitalist? Are they importing the China model? Who's really in charge, Fidel or brother Raul? And, of course, that hardy perennial, whatever the announcement means, the U.S. should immediately lift the embargo and restore full diplomatic relations with the Castro regime (see here, here, and here).
On the latter, it is a measure of the investment so many have made into their opposition to U.S. policy that even as they cite the abysmal state of the Cuban economy as the central factor in forcing the regime's decision, they cannot recognize the significant role played by U.S. economic pressure in bringing that situation about. The embargo has indeed been pocked with holes in recent years, but two critical escape hatches for the Cuban economy -- U.S. tourist travel to Cuba and the extension of trade credits -- remain beyond the regime's grasp, and thankfully so.
In short, the decision on layoffs was dictated by the bankruptcy of the Cuban economy and the lack of prospects it will improve anytime soon. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
It thus defies logic to argue for any lessening of the pressure against a regime that has fought tooth and nail against any liberalizing reforms since the collapse of the USSR. Just as in the early 1990s, when the regime had its first go around with limited self-employment, as soon as the economy ticked up a few notches, the hammer came back down on those attempting to eke out an existence beyond state control.
Easing pressure now will only serve to halt in their tracks whatever steps the Castro brothers conjure next to try and reverse their declining fortunes. Policymakers need to remember that what drives this regime is survival, not appeasing the United States in the hopes of some policy concessions or allowing, out of some sort of beneficence, more freedoms for the Cuban people to better their lots.
So what do the layoffs mean, besides the fact that the regime is broke? The simple fact is we don't know, because we don't have any insight into the ruling clique's thoughts. It's probably safe to say they have no idea where they are going either.
What we can say with some degree of assurance is that the regime is taking a huge gamble in putting up to an eventual one million Cubans on the street to fend for themselves -- a gamble that could have serious repercussions for the regime's continued grip on power. That's because they are going to be extremely hard pressed to create any semblance of conditions where half a million or more Cuban workers are going to be able to find any employment on their own.
We need to remember that this regime consists of a dwindling cohort of dogmatic revolutionaries whose only accomplishment in life was to shoot their way into power fifty years ago and stay there. They no more understand market economics than they do Einstein's quantum theory of light.
Also, an important clarification for much of recent news reporting -- which has it that laid-off Cubans will be free to start "small businesses" -- is necessary. More accurately, they are micro-enterprises, an important distinction in order of magnitude. And the relatively few micro-enterprises that do exist -- a beautician here, a taxi driver there -- struggle to operate under such a mountain of regulations as to who they can hire, what and where they can sell, on how much they can earn (no one is allowed to become "too rich") as to make the whole effort practically fruitless. Many Cubans simply opt for the underground economy.
Be that as it may, the regime is going to have to figure out how it is going to deal with the social impact of a large group of idle Cuban workers unable to make a living honestly or dishonestly. It is a volatile mix that could lead to an upsurge in crime or other social agitation that could challenge the regime's internal security apparatus. Policy critics will likely argue just that point to justify a U.S. rapprochement with the Castros: that we need to help the regime achieve a "soft landing," as opposed to a descent into instability on the island.
But decisions on a soft versus hard landing in Cuba won't be made in Washington; they will be made in Havana. Those concerned about the latter ought to focus their lobbying efforts on the ruling clique there, not on policymakers in Washington. What is the appropriate role for Washington is to continue to close off all economic escape hatches for this obsolete regime and let it continue to face the consequences of its own misrule.
Cuban experts say “sanctions aren't working,” so they shall be lifted. The same experts say “sanctions are working,” so they shall be lifted. Which is which? They used to be sure, but now they changed their mind. So much for the “experts”
Very soon fear mongering news articles about the social impact of the embargo will appear, arguing that it is the primary cause of the regime instability that will be facing a human security crisis, leading to another Mariel boat lift.
According to the National Statistics Office (ONE), the U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba were $ 675 million in 2009, making the U.S. the fifth commercial partner of the island, after Venezuela, China, Spain and Canada in that order. The most recent report from the Center for North American Studies at the Texas University A&M concluded that U.S. exports to Cuba in 2009 involved a commercial activity of $600 million. The difference of the data with the ONE is due to insurance and freight costs. After reaching a peak of $ 711 million in 2008, the Cuban purchases to the U.S. in 2009 fell by 26 percent, according to the report of the ONE.
Some newspapers, like The New York Sun, get it right. The Sun is one of the few bright spot in a landscape dominated by the liberal media darkness.Cita:
Castro’s Gift
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/castros-gift/87102/
Cubans Fleeing To America Threaten Him Not Us
Editorial of The New York Sun | October 4, 2010
“If U.S. leaders were to pause and reflect as Fidel Castro has, they, too, would recognize that times have changed. Cuba is no longer the security threat that it was during the Cold War; it’s just another failed communist state. The biggest threat now is the potential for waves of economically desperate refugees.”
The quote above is from an editorial in the September 27 number of USA Today calling for an end to the embargo of Cuba. We first read it in a blog of the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. USA Today’s editorial catches our attention because we’ve rarely seen a quote that so succinctly illuminates one of the important underlying differences of opinion on this issue. One side — let’s call it the USA Today view — sees the “biggest threat” we’re now facing from Cuba as the “potential for waves of economically desperate refugees.” The other side — let’s call it the New York Sun view — sees the “potential for waves of economically desperate refugees” as no threat whatsoever to America. The refugees’ departure is a threat only to Cuba. By our lights, the exodus of Cubans to America has been a great boon to our country. An ironist could call it “Castro’s Gift.”
Irony aside, who among the liberal intelligentsia is prepared to stand up and say that the great influx to America of Cubans fleeing communism has been a bad thing for America and not a blessing for our country? It has handed up senators and corporate chiefs, athletes and artists and hundreds of thousands of hard-working immigrants who have contributed to the growth of Florida and so many other communities that have been lucky enough to get them. A fact sheet issued by the Pew Hispanic Center reckons that in 2004 there were 1.4 million Cubans in America, of whom 912,000 were foreign born. On average Cuban Americans have been enormously successful in America, attaining incomes higher on average than other Hispanic Americans and in many cases than the average of all Americans.
It may well be that there are good reasons for lifting the embargo of Cuba. Certainly one of its animating concerns, articulated by President Kennedy, was the danger of the alliance between Mr. Castro and “Sino-Soviet communism.” The Wall Street Journal, famous voice for free minds and free markets, concluded some years ago that ending the embargo would be a good step, though even the Journal would not, if we understand it, be prepared to lift the embargo without any conditionality. In any event, at no time can we recall reading in the Journal of a fear of desperate Cubans — or any others — hungering to take part, as have so many other desperate persons from so many other countries, of our freedoms. Policies — and editorials — based on such fears smack of xenophobia.
For our part, we are against lifting the embargo of Cuba, which is what Mr. Castro wants as a farewell salute. To judge by the decision of Congressman Howard Berman to delay a hearing on the issue, Congress isn’t prepared to give him a salute. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican member in the House foeign affairs committee, has the more realistic — and idealistic — view. We reject the notion that the embargo has been, as USA Today put it, an “utter failure.” There were good reasons for bringing it in. They were articulated by President Kennedy in his 1962 proclamation. Kennedy’s reference was primarily to Castro’s alignment with “Sino-Soviet Communism.” We do believe it has hampered Castro’s ability to export his ideology, though, even with the Soviet Union now dismantled, the mischief the Cuban regime is intent on perpetrating is evident in, among other places, Venezuela. Julia Sweig has a piece in the Times today fretting that the Europeans will get in to Cuban markets ahead of us. But by our lights the logical time to lift the embargo would be after the Castro brothers are in the custody of a free Cuban government, a process of lustration has begun to deal with the communists’ collaborators, and an effort is underway to address the claims of those whose property was taken and whose lives were ruined during by the communist tyranny. In the meantime we’d be happy to welcome as many Cubans as America can get.
Certainly the Cuban refugees have been a blessing in disguise for the US. As Castro systematically destroyed the framework of the Cuban economy, many Cubans manage to flee to the US shores and started to realize their dreams of a better future for their families. The American economy benefitted from their hard work, just like it has benefitted from the arrival of previous immigrant groups.
Castro ran off the people who could make Cuba grow, the people the nation needed to feed everyone else. These same cast-off exiles through their own efforts, blood, sweat and tears, turned Miami into a world-class bustling metropolis, a paragon of International business success and prosperity.
Cuban-Americans make up approximately 4% of the Hispanic population in the United States, yet own approximately 34% of Hispanic businesses. That savoir-faire, the initiative, the drive, the work-ethic and educational diligence, the determination to succeed exhibited by the Cuban exiles in America, could have been the bed-rock for a beautiful economically successful Cuban democratic republic. Instead, universal destitution, misery and starvation are Castro's legacies, his gifts to future generations.
If there is a case of successful assimilation that deserves to be studiedwith attention, is that of Cubans in the US. In five decades, Cubans in the UShave integrated remarkably in American society. The Cuban Americans has threesenators and four representatives in the U.S. Congress, and five active Ambassadorsand seven retired.
According to the US census, the secondgeneration of Cuban-Americans has a higher degree of education and income thanthe US average. The Cuban-Americans community own 138 of the 500 greater Hispanic companies in the United States, equivalent to 28% of those companies although onlyrepresent 3.4 percent of the Hispanic community. The number of enterprises created or owned by this group is one of thehighest among all the ethnic groups studied by demographers and sociologistswho study this branch of econometrics.
The Cuban exiles have demonstrated by their unparalleled success in this country that there is no adversity which they can't overcome. It would have been easy for them to wallow in self-pity and literally "shut down" physically and mentally. But they didn’t, neither they forgot their roots and their past. This is why George Gilder wrote in “The Spirit of Enterprise", in the chapter on Cuban immigrants, 20 years ago:"Cuban-Americans are the most successful immigrants in the history of this nation of immigrants."
This is something for which neither the Progressive Anglo establishment nor the permanent Black/Latino underclass will ever forgive Cuban-Americans. It is and has always been politically correct for them to defame and ridicule Cuban-Americans, whom shattered the former's myth of superiority as well as disposing of all the excuses which the latter had for their endemic failures.
The study, based on U.S. Census Bureau and survey data, considered assimilation as of 2006 on three fronts—economic, cultural and civic—and assigned each immigrant group a number ranging from zero to 100 that indicates how similar its members are to native-born Americans. The higher the number is, the more assimilated the group. Cubans born scored 43 well above the national average of 28 on Vigdor’s assimilation index.
Index Average Cuban born
Economic--------87------------------100
Cultural----------62--------------------63
Civic--------------41-------------------55
Composit--------28--------------------43
The unprecedented success of the Cuban immigrants is proof that communism does not work. If the Castro brothers tyranny hasn’t keep restriction on emigration, by now half of the population would have left Dr. Castro’s island. Those that were arrested for trying to escape, persevered, some escape and others died in the intent. Their great success in the US illustrates the grate lost suffered by Cuba. The problems in Cuba are due to a 54 year old Castroit military dictatorship, who has deny the Cuban people their fundamental rights and the pursuit of happiness as they see fit.
If Castros’ military dictatorship weren’t in control of the country, thousands of Cubans wouldn’t need to risk ninety mile of dangerous and shark infested waters to come to the US since Cuba would be probably by now the most prosperous nation in Latin America, and one of the most prosperous in the world, based in previous accomplishment of the island. Instead Cuba is nowadays the most indebted nation and the second poorest in the Americas.
The Castroit tyranny failed economic policies isrelying on half economic measures and foreign subsidies to prop up theregime, instead of allowing the entrepreneurial spirit of theCuban people to do the job of bringing prosperity to the island.
When the Cuban people getrid of the tyrannical regime, we will see the same transformation of the Cubansociety that has happened in those nations freed from the communist tyranny inEastern Europe.
Cita:
Guest view,10/10: Taking exception to Cuban ‘opportunity’
Frank Calzon excellent article, hit the bull’s eye. Liftingthe embargo and travel ban, without meaningful changes in Cuba, would:Cita:
http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/article_94a98d56-d405-11df-a73a-001cc4c03286.html
By FRANK CALZONJournalStar.com | Posted: Sunday, October10, 2010 12:15 am
The stated premise of your editorial (Loosentrade with Cuba, 9/29/2010) that "recent moves by Fidel and RaulCastro present a new opportunity" is simply wrong and, I fear, leading youto recommend policy changes that offer no relief from poverty to the Cubanpeople and will leave American taxpayers holding a worthless Cuban IOU.
It is correct that the Cuban government has announced it will "lay offa half a million workers," about 10 percent of Cuba's workforce. It doesnot follow that this means "a move toward the free market system."
In 2002, Fidel Castro announced the closing of 71 of the country's 156 sugarmills, leaving thousands of workers unemployed. Like the new layoff, the oldlayoff was a move toward greater misery, poverty and despair for workers andfamilies.
Closing the mills also was the demise of an industry that had fueled Cuba'seconomy and development since the 18th century and a testament to the crueltyof the tight control the Castro communist government exerts over the island'seconomy.
The 178 "self-employment" jobs open to Cubans include: animalcaretaker, barber, baby sitter, servicing carts pulled by animals forchildren's use, clown, re-filler of cigarette lighters, repairman of wickerproducts, salesman of paper flowers, future teller, collector of grasses foranimal feed, mattress repairman, doorman, peeler of natural fruits, pet-hair cutter,servants, umbrellas repairman, and exhibitor of trained dogs.
Cuba is a beggar state, dependent on the remittances of exiles to preventwidespread hunger. The Castro Regime imposes high taxes on those remittances,ignoring President Barack Obama's request to reduce those taxes and rejectingproposals to normalize postal service. Re-establishing postal service wouldhelp millions of desperate Cubans, but the regime a
wards its supporters withprivate freight concessions and takes a cut of their profits.
Here is the historic record: By 1962, the Castro government had assumedcontrol of all major economic activity in Cuba and had confiscated about $1billion in American-owned properties. By 1968, virtually every vestige ofpre-Castro free-enterprise had been eliminated, including fruit stands andbarber shops.
Even by communist standards the Cuban government has exercised anunparalleled level of economic control. Today, Cuba is broke. Its governmenthas no clue as to how to deal with the most serious economic crisis in theisland's history, except to freeze the bank accounts of foreign investors"due to a liquidity crisis" and urge American tourists to visit andrescue it.
The biggest economic reform it could muster is to allow"Paladares" to increase seating to 20 from 12. Paladares arerestaurants in the home of the cook. This is a far cry from the economicactivity allowed by the also repressive Vietnamese and Chinese communistregimes.
In 2007, America sold Havana $437.5 million dollars in foodstuffs. In 2008,the number was $710 million. Unlike exporters from other nations, the U.S.exporters got paid because the United States requires that any trade with Cubabe made on a "cash and carry" basis. The United States cannot extendcredit to Havana without also providing export insurance and guarantees thatforce American taxpayers to pick up the tab when Cuba defaults. Havana alreadyowes billions to European nations.
Counterintuitive as it may sound, it simply is not in the best interests ofthis country to lift sanctions unilaterally. With U.S. dollars flowing into itscoffers, the Cuban government most likely will strengthen its repressive,domestic security forces, halt any pretense of economic reform, and increaseits worldwide anti-American campaigns. That's been the history of Castro'sCuba, and it is why Cuba remains on the State Department's list ofstate-supporters of international terrorism.
Those who believe that "increased economic contact with Cuba cannothelp but increase the desire among Cubans for freedom of speech and otherpolitical rights" should know that that desire already is strong. Whatpro-democracy advocates in Cuba need is support and solidarity with the UnitedStates in keeping pressure on the Castro government to reform. Have you everheard anyone trading with Havana, call on the Castro regime to reform itseconomy? Hold free elections? Uphold human rights? What you hear from those nowtrading with Havana is silence.
Change will come to Havana. When it does, U.S. policy, no doubt, willfacilitate a successful transition to democracy and market economics. For now,let's help the Cuban people by denying subsidies to their oppressors.
Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba inArlington, Va. His e-mail address is frank.calzon@cubacenter.org.
1.Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structures.
2.Strengthen state enterprises, since money will flow into businesses owned bythe Castroit regime.
3.Lead to greater repression and control since the Castroit regime fear thatU.S. influence will subvert its power.
4.Delay instead of accelerate a transition to democracy on the island.