Tema: Lift the Cuba Embargo?

I bet that Obama does not back down on the trade embargo. He has thrown something out there, now it's up to Cuba to respond in kind, like release those political prisoners and let them stay in Cuba, unharmed. Raúl may release one or two, not all of them. The trade embargo will remain in place.

Obama: Be Patient on Cuba
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/carlos_alberto_montaner/2009/04/the_current_discussion_the_us.html

By Carlos Alberto Montaner*
The Washington Post
Madrid, Spain, April 15, 2009

The Current Discussion: The U.S. will lift travel restrictions on Cuba, but leave the larger trade embargo in place. Is that a smart move? Does it go far enough? Too far?

President Obama has done well by eliminating the restrictions on Cuban-Americans' travel to the island and on the remittances they can send. It is an intelligent political gesture that indicates that Washington would look with interest on a response from the Cuban government that contained some measure of aperture.

Those restrictions had been imposed upon the Cuban dictatorship in 2004 after the repressive spasm of spring 2003, when 75 peaceful dissidents were imprisoned and sentenced to long terms (up to 28 years) for crimes such as lending forbidden books, writing accounts about the Cuban reality in foreign newspapers, and requesting a referendum to ascertain the political preferences of society.

In reality, the purpose of those punishments was to amass a large group of hostages who could be traded for five Cuban spies caught by the FBI while they acted on American soil and sentenced to prison in U.S. courtrooms.

Should President Obama now eliminate the rest of the commercial restrictions imposed upon U.S. society in its relations with Cuba? The so-called "embargo" today is limited to two fundamental aspects: the access to credit, and Americans' practical inability to travel to Cuba, given that the Treasury Department forbids them to spend money in that "enemy territory."

Obviously, those two aspects of the embargo keep the Cuban government from gaining access to a considerable amount of resources that would help it to consolidate its position. On the other hand, the United States is Cuba's principal supplier of food, selling the island more than $700 million a year in agricultural products. It is also the island's main source of humanitarian aid, all of it from private sources, and is the only country in the world that has not imposed a visa embargo on the island. While the other world nations give pitifully few visas to the Cubans, the United States grants them 20,000 visas per year, while a more-or-less similar number of Cubans arrive illegally in the U.S. by sea or through various borders and manage to legitimize their situation after about a year of living in the country.

That means that, when it comes to Cuba, no other country in the world may give lessons in humanity to the United States. It also means that the prudent thing for the Obama administration to do now is to sit back patiently to see how things develop in Cuba, before determining what Washington should do.

Within the power structure in Cuba, there are forces that favor profound changes in the political and economic fields. That explains the recent ouster of none less than Carlos Lage, the nation's top vice president; Felipe Pérez Roque, the foreign minister; and Fernando Remírez de Estenoz, the Communist Party's official in charge of international relations.

Practically everyone in Cuban society is aware that they are in an "end of regime" stage. Fidel Castro is a very ill 82-year-old man. His younger brother is 77 and known to be in less-than-fine health. Although they have made an effort, the Castro brothers have not managed to organize the transfer of authority, and we know that very few people still think that the system copied from the Soviet Union of the 1960s and 70s is a permanent way to organize the state and society. That system is condemned to disappear in Cuba, as it has disappeared everywhere else.

That is why President Obama should not, at this moment, lift the embargo. He would be sending the worst possible message to the Cuban reformers. He would be saying to them: "It makes no difference if the dictatorship doesn't change. The free world accepts the regime just as it is, without the need for a change of system." Exactly the type of message the small Stalinist minority needs to tell the Cubans: "See how right we were? There is nothing to change."

When would it be worthwhile for President Obama to make a new gesture?

First, after Fidel, the principal obstacle to the country's natural political evolution, disappears. Second, maybe after the Sixth Congress of the Communist Party, to be held in late 2009, so long as there are clear signs that the reformers have been heard. Washington should not take another step until it sees what happens in Cuba after those two episodes. To do so would be a costly imprudence for the Cubans.

It's up to Obama if we wants to make deals with him. However, Castro is not an elected leader and therefore does not legitimately represent the Cuban people. The 1940 constitution that both Batista and he violated makes that clear enough.

Castro Feeds on Cubans’ U.S. Cash Support as Obama Eases Limits

By Jerry Hart

April 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Cuban state pension that Juan Gonzalez-Corzo receives since he retired from a government job in 2003 makes life easier after more than 50 years of work.

So does the cash that comes regularly by wire from his son in West New York, New Jersey.

It’s part of an estimated $1.1 billion sent to Cubans last year by relatives and friends around the world, an amount equal to about 1.8 percent of the communist country’s 2007 gross domestic product.
“Most of the remittances end up used for consumption,” said Gonzalez-Corzo’s son Mario, 39, a Cuban-born assistant economics professor at Lehman College in New York City who has studied remittances and provided the estimates. “It helps.”

The money also helps the island’s $58 billion economy, as the Cuban government charges fees that take about 20 percent of exchange-wired dollars, Gonzalez-Corzo said.

That troubles U.S. politicians who say the transfers support the totalitarian state created by Fidel Castro in 1959 and now run by his brother Raul. President Barack Obama this week eased restrictions that had limited money transfers by Cuban-Americans, most of whom live in southern Florida.

“The Castro government will confiscate a high percentage of those dollars, further propping up a regime that suppresses human rights,” said Representative Kendrick B. Meek, a Democrat who represents parts of Florida’s Miami-Dade and Broward counties.

About 735,000 people around the world -- more than half from the U.S. -- sent an average of $150 to friends or relatives in Cuba last year, according to a study by Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research organization. The cash sent in 2007 was equal to 42 percent of the island’s tourism income and 4.7 times more than its sugar exports, Gonzalez-Corzo said.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aoNduw5GDRCY&refer=home

The article highlights the ingenious nature of the remittance business which is just as admirable as any organized crime scheme. People naturally want to help their families. The regime exploits this for its own benefit to the tune of billions of dollars annually.

The majority of those people who send money to Cuba send significantly less than what they were legally allowed to until the other day. It's because of this and the slow economy that I don't expect there to a sudden increase of new remittances to the island.

Call: Don't expect big changes soon on U.S. Cuba policy

http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/17/call_dont_expect_big_changes_soon_on_us_cuba_policy

By Eurasia Group analyst Heather Berkman

Does the recent White House announcement on relaxation of U.S. policy toward Cuba signal bigger things to come? Probably. But while these first steps were easy to take, high political hurdles lie ahead -- and substantial change in U.S.-Cuban relations is not yet on the horizon.

These moves represent real change. The Obama administration announced it would lift restrictions on remittances, allow Cuban-Americans to travel freely to the island, and ease telecommunications regulations. The announcement wasn't surprising, given Obama's campaign trail rhetoric, and it was probably timed to establish a cooperative tone leading up to this week's Summit of the Americas.

But the White House is also testing the political waters for further changes to its Cuba policy and will probably wait to see if Congress takes the lead on removing the travel ban for all Americans. Obama has the power to sidestep lawmakers by issuing executive orders that don't require congressional approval that encourage person-to-person communications and the exchange of information with the island. But there are bills pending in the Senate (the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act) and the House of Representatives that would abolish the travel ban altogether. The White House knows these laws might well pass, though they will face a long road through committees and procedural votes. Congressional action would provide Obama with useful political cover.

Cuban leaders would welcome a lifting of the universal travel ban, since it would provide a huge boost for the country's tourism industry. But they also know there's an element of White House strategy at work here. The changes to telecommunications policy will allow U.S. companies to work with Cuban carriers to establish fiber-optic cable and satellite telecommunications facilities linking the two countries, provide roaming services, and offer satellite radio and television service. Cuba's low level of telephone usage (11 percent of the population, according to one estimate) and broadband subscription reveal huge growth potential in telecommunications.

This leaves the Cuban government with an uncomfortable choice: Open Cuba as never before to ideas and information from the United States, or keep the door closed and accept greater responsibility for Cuba's international isolation. With Obama administration rhetoric aimed at promoting democracy on the island -- ostensibly at the expense of the Castro regime -- the Cuban government will remain cautious toward increased and unrestricted communication with the United States.

Despite these (significant) first steps, outright repeal of the 47-year-old economic embargo is not yet on the horizon. Domestic political considerations will continue to weigh heavily on congressional action, despite changes in Cuban-American demographics and evolving political attitudes among Cuban-American communities. A poll conducted in December 2008 by FIU-Brookings suggests that a small majority (55 percent) of Cuban-Americans now favor ending the embargo. But congressional action is required to rescind the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as Helms-Burton) that wrote the embargo into law, and the Obama administration will have to think long and hard about how much political capital it wants to spend on a broader diplomatic opening to Cuba.

Given other foreign-policy and domestic priorities, it won't be an easy choice. The Castro regime could make the process easier with changes that address criticism of its human rights record and authoritarian governance. Raul Castro, who officially replaced his brother as president in early 2008, has enacted limited economic reforms, but Fidel continues to cast a very long shadow. Until both Castros leave the scene, government tolerance for genuine democratic reform on the island will remain limited.

The good news is that Fidel says Havana is ready for talks with Washington. The bad news: the aging revolutionary probably remains more interested in monologue than dialogue.

This is why Obama's election wasn’t good to the cause of Cuban freedom. He could say until he's blue in the face that he's going to keep the embargo but congress will keep eroding it and he'll have his "political cover".

The Castro regime could make the process easier with changes that address criticism of its human rights record and authoritarian governance.

How is this any different than what we Cuban exiles have been saying all along, that the power to lift the embargo lies in Havana.

Until both Castros leave the scene, government tolerance for genuine democratic reform on the island will remain limited.

I agree with the author's sentiment on this point.

The good news is that Fidel says Havana is ready for talks with Washington. The bad news: the aging revolutionary probably remains more interested in monologue than dialogue.

Even the silver-tongued Obama can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Americas Summit: Missed Opportunity

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018390302433097.html

By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

If President Barack Obama's goal at the fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago this weekend was to be better liked by the region's dictators and left-wing populists than his predecessor George W. Bush, the White House can chalk up a win.

If, on the other hand, the commander in chief sought to advance American ideals, things didn't go well. As the mainstream press reported, Mr. Obama seemed well received. But the freest country in the region took a beating from Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Bolivia's Evo Morales, and Nicaragua's Danny Ortega.

Ever since Bill Clinton organized the first Summit of the Americas in 1994 in Miami, this regional gathering has been in decline. It seemed to hit its nadir in 2005 in Mar del Plata, Argentina, when President Nestór Kirchner allowed Mr. Chávez and his revolutionary allies from around the region to hold a massive, American-flag burning hate-fest in a nearby stadium with the goal of humiliating Mr. Bush. This year things got even worse with the region's bullies hogging the limelight and Mr. Obama passing up a priceless opportunity to defend freedom.

Mr. Obama had to know that the meeting is used by the region's politicians to rally the base back home by showing that they can put Uncle Sam in his place. Realizing this, the American president might have arrived at the Port of Spain prepared to return their volley. They have, after all, tolerated and even encouraged for decades one of the most repressive regimes of the 20th century. In recent years, that repression has spread from Cuba to Venezuela, and today millions of Latin Americans live under tyranny. As the leader of the free world, Mr. Obama had the duty to speak out for these voiceless souls. In this he failed.

The subject of Cuba was a softball that the American president could have hit out of the park. He knew well in advance that his counterparts would pressure him to end the U.S. embargo. He even prepared for that fact a few days ahead of the summit by unconditionally lifting U.S. restrictions on travel and remittances to the island, and offering to allow U.S. telecom companies to bring technology to the backward island.

The Americas in the News

Think that helped cast the U.S. in a better light in the region? Fat chance. Raúl Castro responded on Friday from Venezuela with a long diatribe against the Yankee oppressor and a cool offer to negotiate on "equal" terms. In case you don't speak Cuban, I'll translate: The Castro brothers want credit from U.S. banks because they have defaulted on the rest of the world, and no one will lend to them anymore. They also want foreign aid from the World Bank.

Anyone who thinks that Raúl is ruminating over free elections is dreaming. Nevertheless, the Cuba suggestion to put "everything" on the table became the "news" of the summit. And while it is true that Mr. Obama mentioned political prisoners in his list of items that U.S. wants to negotiate, he could have done much more. Indeed, he could have called Raúl's bluff by putting the spotlight on the prisoners of conscience, by naming names. He could have talked about men like Afro-Cuban pacifist Oscar Elias Biscet, who has written eloquently about his admiration for Martin Luther King Jr., and today sits in jail for the crime of dissent.

The first black U.S. president could have named hundreds of others being held in inhumane conditions by the white dictator. He could have also asked Brazil's President Lula da Silva, Chile's President Michelle Bachelet and Mexico's Felipe Calderón where they stand on human rights for all Cubans. Imagine if Mr. Obama asked for a show of hands to find out who believes Cubans are less deserving of freedom than, say, the black majority in South Africa under apartheid or Chileans during the Pinochet dictatorship. Then again, that would be no way to win a popularity contest or to ingratiate yourself with American supporters who are lining up to do business in Cuba.

Instead the U.S. president simply floated down the summit river passively bouncing off whatever obstacles he encountered. The Chávez "gift" of the 1971 leftist revolutionary handbook "Open Veins of Latin America" followed by a suggestion of renewing ambassadorial relations was an insult to the American people. Granted, giving the Venezuelan attention would have been counterproductive. But Mr. Obama ought to have complained loudly about that country's aggression. It has supported Colombian terrorists, drug trafficking and Iran's nuclear ambitions. As former CIA director Michael Hayden told Fox News Sunday, "the behavior of President Chávez over the past years has been downright horrendous -- both internationally and with regard to what he's done internally inside Venezuela."

Too bad Mr. Obama didn't have a copy of the late 1990s bestseller "The Perfect Latin American Idiot" as a gift for Mr. Chávez. Another way Mr. Obama could have neutralized the left would have been to announce a White House push for ratification of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. That didn't happen either. He only promised to talk some more, a strategy that will offend no one and accomplish nothing. It is a strategy that sums up, to date, Mr. Obama's foreign policy for the region.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com