Tema: Lift the Cuba Embargo?

You don’t need to look further; here you have the answer from the “horse” mouth:

“It is necessary to impose financial, economic and material restrictions to dictatorships, so that they will not take roots for long years….Diplomatic and morals measures do not work against dictatorships, because these make fun of the Governments and the population”.- Fidel Castro

(Excerpt from the book “Fidel Castro and Human Rights”, Editora Política, Havana, Cuba, 1988)

What will bring "Change" to Cuba are free elections, the freeing of all political prisoners, and the implementation of a market economy.
Everything else is “mental masturbation!”

The survey by Bendixen & Associates, cited by Vargas Llosa, shows that only 42 percent of Cuban-Americans continue to back it.

The phone interview among 400 Cuban and Cuban-Americans adults in Florida, New Jersey and other states took place on April 15-16, 2009, few days after President Obama announced the relaxation of the travel restriction to Cuba. The margin of sampling error is +/- 5%.
http://www.bendixenandassociates.com/studies/National_Survey_of_Cuban_Americans_on_Policy_towards_Cuba_FINAL.pdf

A national telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen, released April 13, 2009, and conducted April 9-10, 2009, show U.S. voters evenly divided over whether the United States should lift its long-standing economic embargo of Cuba. 36% say the United States should lift its embargo on Cuba, 35% say that the embargo shall be maintained, and 29% are not sure what to do about it. 83% have an unfavorable opinion of Fidel Castro, including 52% who view him very unfavorably.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/36_favor_lifting_u_s_embargo_on_cuba_35_disagree

The Cuban Research Institute of the Florida International Universitypublished on March 20, 2009 the results of their survey, which included 1,000 randomly selected Cuban-Americans. The opinion survey was conducted during the presidential elections on November 2008. 57 percent of participants supported the continuation of the Cuban embargo. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.6%.
Link: http://www.fiu.edu/~ipor/cuba-t/

A survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, January 25-26, 2009, and published February 4, 2009, among 500 Cuban-Americans registered voters throughout Florida, these were the results: 72%

En una encuesta de opinión realizada por McLaughlin & Associates en enero 25 y 26 de 2009, y publicada el 4 de febrero de 2009, entre 500 Cubano-estadounidensesvotantes registrados en La Florida, estos fueron los resultados:Un 72% de los entrevistados están a favor de mantener el embargo, y un 58% favorece las restricciones impuestas en 2004 a los viajes. El 69% apoyan la prohibición de los viajes turísticos a Cuba. El margen de error de la encuesta es de +/-4.5%.

Link: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2009/02/04/10/poll.source.prod_affiliate.56.pd

What Cuba Embargo?
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=477329

OPINION
Posted 05/19/2009 06:05 PM ET

Trade: Many Americans favor ending the trade embargo on Cuba, saying sanctions don't work and Cubans' lives will improve. But a recent AP report unwittingly proves that trade only props up the oppressive regime.

Some 34,000 American tourists sneak into Cuba illegally each year, determined to get an "authentic" Cuban experience on Varadero Beach or in old Havana.

In Cuba's old hotels, they sip daiquiris, a pre-revolutionary Cuban cocktail, like Ernest Hemingway. These travelers kick in a share of the $1.2 billion tourist income to the Cuban economy.

The Associated Press found the experience they get is largely Made In America. The daiquiri mix used in Havana, for instance, is the same stuff you get in an Atlanta fern bar.

The AP also found the Communist Party's propaganda "newspaper" in the tourist hotel is made from genuine Alabama wood pulp.

Meanwhile, the Cuban bureaucrats who deny that same Alabama newsprint to a free press go shopping in special stores for the party elite brimming with goods stocked from — you got it — Uncle Sam's empire. Ordinary Cubans get nothing.

The whole tourist experience is bogus, with U.S. businesses telling AP that since Cubans are too poor — making $18 a month, on average — to buy their goods, they want more U.S. tourists to do so.

This shows that what passes for an embargo on Cuba really isn't one. The U.S. sells $718 million in goods to Cuba through a 2000 legal loophole that permits the sale of food, medicine and lesser-known goods like chemicals, crude materials, machinery and transport equipment, according to the Census Bureau.

The goods do nothing for average Cubans. No, these goods merely prop up the Castro regime through the circular dynamic of tourists and goods. The daiquiris come from the U.S., the tourists follow to drink them, and Castro's regime skims the profits.

No end to the embargo will stop that, because there is no consumer market for goods or services in Cuba; there's only bureaucratic distribution. The one thing Cuba's regime cannot create is a real economy that produces things of value, like tasty daiquiris.

For an authentic Cuban experience, tourists would need to experience rationing, shortages, long lines and bureaucratic indifference, because that's the real product of Cuba's regime.

The tourist activity is pernicious, because for outsiders it creates an illusion of a nation that only needs goods. The AP report shows that goods are plentiful — or potentially so.

The real problem is communism — not lack of trade. The only people the embargo's end will help are the party's oppressive elites.

Their first interest is in perpetrating their hold on power. If U.S. goods and tourists achieve that, then goods and tourists it will be.

Investor’s Business Daily pull back the curtain to expose the great and powerful media, academia and legislative smoke and mirror show.

Dorgan Seeks Frustrated Creditor Status
http://www.capitolhillcubans.com/2009/07/dorgan-wants-to-become-frustrated.html

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Last week, the Russian Federation's Audit Chamber revealed that the Cuban regime failed on three occasions to pay installments on the US$355 million credit deal it signed with Russia on Sept. 28, 2006.

This is just the latest episode in a saga that, in 2009 alone, includes:

1. Reports by Mexico's La Jornada and Spain's El Pais newspapers that hundreds of foreign companies that transact business with the Cuban regime's authorities, have had their accounts frozen since January 2009 by the regime-owned bank that is solely empowered to conduct commercial banking operations in convertible currencies, Banco Financiero Internacional, S.A. ("BFI").

2. "Cuba has rolled over 200 million euros in bond issues that were due in May, as the country's central bank asked for another year to repay foreign holders of the debt, financial sources in London and Havana said this week." Reuters, June 9, 2009.

As a reminder, in Castro's Cuba, you can only do business with the government, as private business activity severely restricted.

Yet, the National Journal reports this morning:

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., will offer legislation today to change a provision in the 2000 law that allows agriculture trade with Cuba so that the Treasury Department cannot require the government of Cuba to pay for food before it is shipped, Dorgan said Tuesday.

During the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the FY10 Agriculture appropriations bill, Dorgan said he had considered offering his Cuba amendment to the bill, but that he had been told that some members of the committee "would have an apoplectic seizure" so he will instead offer it today on the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill.

Dorgan noted that the Treasury Department had initially allowed Cuba to follow the normal commercial pattern of making payment before goods arrive in the country, but that in 2005 the Bush administration decided that "cash in advance" meant payment for the goods before they left the country.

Dorgan said he would introduce the measure because he has failed in his attempts to convince Treasury officials to change their position. "Someone down at Treasury apparently still can't hear," Dorgan said. "We've had meeting after meeting after meeting."

EDITOR'S NOTE: The U.S. can also join this ever-growing club of Castro's frustrated creditors by supporting Senator Dorgan's legislation.

Hasn't anyone learned any lessons about extending easy credit yet? What does it take?

Senator Dorgan intend to stick US taxpayers with the bill, this is not ignorance of Cuba's deadbeat status, it's criminal intent on his part.

These politicians are being influenced and manipulated by those Cuban Investment Experts that want the embargo to end without any real change in Cuba's government. Their job is to make sure that we continue to loosen sanctions of the embargo, so they can continue and secure deals that they currently have and plan for the future. They are very cleaver and are getting away with it. They control the fate of the Cuban claims and also what's going on with the embargo.

Hardships Increase, Not Ease
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=5613&Month=7&Year=2009

Jaime Suchlicki, Miami Herald

July 6th, 2009 - Despite mounting economic difficulties, the Cuban government is not likely to open up Cuba's economy or to offer meaningful concessions for normalization of relations with the United States.

The Castro brothers believe that increasing hardships will not produce an internal rebellion. Gen. Raúl Castro recently reduced the availability of food that Cubans receive through ration cards. If there was concern for popular unrest, this type of measure would have not been introduced.

Political and economic centralization and control, along with ideological rigidity, are the chosen policies to guarantee a successful succession and to prevent Cuba's transformation into a democratic, market economy.

Elites unsure

Major concessions would mean a rejection of one of Fidel Castro's main legacies: anti-Americanism. It may create uncertainty among the elites that govern Cuba leading to friction and factionalism. The Cuban population also could see this as an opportunity for mobilization demanding faster reforms. It could also be seen as a weakening of Cuba's anti-American alliances with radical regimes in Latin America, Iran and Syria and Cuba's defection from the anti-imperialist front.

U.S. recognition may mean a victory for Raúl and the legitimization of his military regime.

Yet it is a small price when compared to the uncertainties that a Cuba-U.S. relationship may produce internally and externally among Cuba's allies.

From Cuba's point of view, the United States has little to offer: American tourists, whom Raúl doesn't need to survive; American investments, which he fears may subvert his highly centralized and controlled economy; and products that he can buy cheaper from other countries. The United States does not have, furthermore, the ability to provide Cuba with the petroleum that Venezuela is sending with little or no payment. Aid from Venezuela, Iran, Russia and China, furthermore, is provided with no conditions. These regimes demand little from Cuba.

Correlation of forces

The periodic public statements that Raúl has made about wanting negotiations with the U.S. government are politically motivated and directed at audiences in this country and Europe. In particular, Raúl believes that the ''correlation of forces'' is such that Congress may lift the travel ban and end the embargo unilaterally, without Cuba having to make any concessions.

Serious overtures for negotiations are usually not issued from the plaza. They are carried out through normal diplomatic avenues open to the Cubans.

These avenues have never been closed, as evidenced by the migration accord and the anti-hijacking agreement between the U.S. and Cuban governments. In the past, both Democratic and Republican administrations have had conversations with Cuban officials and have made serious overtures for normalization, only to be rebuffed.

Real concessions

The issue is not about negotiations or talking. There has to be a willingness on the part of the Cuban leadership to offer real concessions -- in the area of human rights and political and economic openings as well as cooperation on anti-terrorism and drug interdiction -- in exchange for an alteration in U.S. policies. The United States does not drop major policies without a substantial quid pro quo. Only when Raúl is willing to deal -- not only with the United States, but, more important, with the Cuban people -- should he expect a reciprocal change in U.S. policies.

Jaime Suchlicki is director of the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American studies.

Greed propels the anti-embargo crowd to the detriment of the Cuban people. Stop looking at dollar signs and focus on human rights. The Castro brothers continue to play games with naive U.S. politicians.

Cuba's "bailout", by obtaining US-backed credit lines as well as the external debt of over $60 billion, will guarantee the continuation of the Castros regime, delaying instead of accelerating a transition to democracy.

No ‘Normalization’ Until the Castro Regime is Gone
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2966/pub_detail.asp

William R. Hawkins

When I was in Ankara, Turkey for a defense trade conference at the end of January, I had lunch with two French delegates. We spent much of the time re-fighting the UN debate over the Iraq War which threatened to sunder U.S.-French relations. At the end of the lunch, one of the Frenchmen turned to Cuba, arguing that if American business was allowed to reach the Cuban people, “the U.S. would own the island in six months.” I told him that America would be happy to help the Cuban people build a new life for themselves, but there would have to be a regime change first. Otherwise, the economic benefits of removing sanctions would be grabbed by the communist elite and never reach the average citizen.

The recent trip to Cuba by a delegation of six U.S. House members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) reinforces my point. The delegation did not meet with the people of Cuba, only with the regime. The entire delegation held a five-hour meeting with President Raul Castro. Then Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the leader of the group, Reps. Bobby Rush (D-IL), and Laura Richardson (D-CA) were personally invited to the Havana home of “retired” despot Fidel Castro for what was more like a pilgrimage that a diplomatic mission. Rep. Rush said of his conversation with Fidel, “It was almost like listening to an old friend…. In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor.” That Fidel Castro has also seen himself as the ultimate enemy of the United States did not seem to occur to the CBC idolaters.

According to CBC Chairwoman Rep. Lee, “The 50-year embargo just hasn’t worked. The bottom line is that we believe its time to open dialogue with Cuba.” But she also told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that the delegation had gone to Cuba to “listen to Cuban officials” which means she is not interested in liberating the people of the island, only strengthening the dictatorship that has opposed them for half a century. The Castro regime is facing a crisis as the ruling brothers age. There is a strong desire on the part of the American Left that there be no change in Havana’s “progressive” policies in the transition to a successor regime.

It is often said that the trade and investment embargo on Cuba be lifted because it has “failed.” But what is meant by this? The notion that economic sanctions are sufficient to topple a regime without additional pressure from domestic revolutionary groups or outside military intervention is a straw man.

Sanctions are a form of pressure. They are meant to persuade foreign states to refrain from behavior at odds with American interests and values by raising the costs of such actions. Where, however, a regime is determined to follow an adversarial course -- as has been the case of Castro’s Cuba where ideology has taken precedence over the welfare of the people, the aim of sanctions has been to weaken the ability of the rogue state to act by denying it material resources and financial aid.

Rep. Lee and her cabal are clearly interested in providing the Castro brothers with more resources by lifting trade sanctions. They want to open the U.S. market to Cuban exports, pump investment capital and bank loans through state agencies, and expand the island’s tourism business. As Rep. Lee said, "When you look at new markets, my God – Cuba has a lot of manufacturing equipment. We talked about tourism. We talked about what possibilities exist for America and Cuba.” The resulting flow of funds would give the regimen the means to keep itself in power, while claiming to be a success.

The United States first imposed economic sanctions on Communist Cuba in 1960. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1964, Secretary of State Dean Rusk laid out the aims of the policy, which it should be noted did not include any expectation that the sanctions alone would lead to the overthrow of the Castro regime.

“First, to reduce Castro’s will and ability to export subversion and violence to the other American states; Second, to make plain to the people of Cuba that Castro’s regime cannot serve their interests; Third, to demonstrate to the peoples of the American Republics that communism has no future in the Western Hemisphere; and Fourth, to increase the cost to the Soviet Union of maintaining a Communist outpost in the Western Hemisphere.”

Measured by its aims, U.S. sanctions policy has been successful in Cuba, and should be maintained because it continues to serve the first three of the four ends set out by Secretary Rusk.

The only goal that is no longer a concern is number four, as the Soviet Union has disintegrated. Before its collapse, the USSR was providing Cuba with $5 to $7 billion in aid each year and spending scarce hard currency on the purchase of oil for Cuba. With some effort, it was able to offset Cuba’s loss of trade with the U.S. though the cost became another nail in the Soviet coffin.

It was also during this time, that the Castro regime was sending troops to fight in support of Marxist regimes in Africa and sending money, weapons and advisors to revolutionary groups and terrorist organizations throughout Latin America. It was also modernizing its own military and internal security forces which are the foundation of Castro’s control of the island. In other words, when Castro had the means to do so, he showed his determination to destabilize the international order.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Castro lost his Moscow subsidies. U.S. trade sanctions have taken an increasing toll on Cuba’s resources in the years since. Castro has not been able to send his troops abroad, and his ability to support violence in Latin America has diminished. Leadership of left-wing subversion in Latin America has shifted to the Hugo Chávez regime in Venezuela where oil revenue provides the means to cause trouble. Chavez has also taken on the burden of subsidizing the Castros.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), another CBC member and chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, has in the past suggested that Cuba be allowed to join the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The CBI was established by President Ronald Reagan to support the growth of democracy and capitalism in the region to better defend against Castroite influence. Members of the CBI are given trade preferences. The fragile economies of these countries need U.S. help. The creation of a Cuban trade rival would take away part of their American export market and divert capital from their needs to Havana. Trade policy should be conducted for the mutual benefit of friends and allies, not to aid adversaries.

American policy should certainly not be used to bail out a failed dictatorship and help it survive to fight another day against American and allied interests. Relations cannot be “normalized” with a Cuban despotism that is not “normal” in its ideology and actions.

FamilySecurityMatters.org William Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues.

A (Timely) Historic Reminder

http://www.capitolhillcubans.com/2009/09/timely-historic-reminder.html

September 1, 2009
by William Hawkins*

The United States first imposed economic sanctions on Communist Cuba in 1960. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1964, Secretary of State Dean Rusk laid out the aims of the policy, which it should be noted did not include any expectation that the sanctions alone would lead to the overthrow of the Castro regime.

"First, to reduce Castro's will and ability to export subversion and violence to the other American states; Second, to make plain to the people of Cuba that Castro's regime cannot serve their interests; Third, to demonstrate to the peoples of the American Republics that communism has no future in the Western Hemisphere; and Fourth, to increase the cost to the Soviet Union of maintaining a Communist outpost in the Western Hemisphere."

Measured by its aims, U.S. sanctions policy has been successful in Cuba, and should be maintained because it continues to serve the first three of the four ends set out by Secretary Rusk.

The only goal that is no longer a concern is number four, as the Soviet Union has disintegrated. Before its collapse, the USSR was providing Cuba with $5 to $7 billion in aid each year and spending scarce hard currency on the purchase of oil for Cuba. With some effort, it was able to offset Cuba's loss of trade with the U.S. though the cost became another nail in the Soviet coffin.

*"No 'Normalization' Until the Castro Regime is Gone," Family Security Matters, April 10, 2009.