Email This to a Friend
Will Obama Free Cuba?
Barack Obama's new Cuba policy may be based on "libertad," but it's unlikely to lead to freedom for the island nation's people.
Barack Obama addressed the once powerful Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) on May 23. His Miami speech is still reverberating in the news media and across the Internet.
“Obama toughens stance on Cuba,” proclaimed one British headline. “Obama says his Cuba policy is based on ‘Libertad,’” announced the Associated Press.
But what did he really say that has the media and the pundits all atwitter?
Obama rightly pointed out that Latin America is a mess, but he wrongly blamed President Bush for this fact. For example, about Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Obama had this to say:
Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples’ lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.
No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past.
Perhaps one of Obama’s aides should remind him that Chavez was elected in Venezuela in 1998, more than two years before George W. Bush took office.
Unfortunately, demagoguery and anti-Americanism in Latin America predates President Bush by several decades. Citizens of Latin American countries have an uncanny penchant for electing or otherwise backing anti-American caudillos (strong men). This has been exacerbated by Chavez’s use of Venezuelan petrodollars to buy influence in the region. In the last several years we have witnessed the democratic election of anti-American despots in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. How Obama would make it so that these candidates are less appealing to their respective electorates is not immediately clear, particularly when he has opposed free trade agreements with the few allies we have in the region.
It seems to me that Obama does, in fact, believe in his ability to convince murderers and tyrants of the error of their ways with his silver tongue and flowery rhetoric — as President Bush recently described past appeasers. I’m not so sure.
What is really striking about Obama’s CANF speech is how he characterized other political candidates as guilty of visiting Miami every four years, talking tough, and then going back to Washington while nothing changes in Cuba. Obama emphasized that he is different. His policy will be based on “libertad” (liberty). But the details of how he will achieve this elusive libertad for Cuba were conspicuous in their absence.
Presidential candidate Obama now claims he would not lift the embargo, a position that contradicts Illinois state senator Obama’s position in 2004. Yet it’s the embargo that is the greatest point of difference between most Republicans and most Democrats. Instead, Obama offers this minor modification to the embargo:
…I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island. It’s time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It’s time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.
Under current law Cuban-Americans can send immediate family $300 per quarter and visit immediate family in Cuba once every three years. To put that into perspective, the average Cuban earns less than $20 per month at his job working for the state. Under current policy they can receive five times that amount each month from relatives abroad. Theoretically, such Cubans can afford to quit their jobs and simply live off remittances, even under the current policy which is unfairly characterized by some as “draconian.”
If the goal is to make families “less dependent on the Castro regime,” I’d say we’re achieving that now. If remittances that amount to five times the typical monthly wage aren’t enough for the average Cuban then perhaps they should look to their “uncle Raul” in Havana rather than their aunt Juanita in Miami.
But would this policy tweak really bring libertad to Cuba? The current rules regarding remittances and travel restrictions were implemented in 2004, so in a sense Obama is advocating for a more permissive policy regarding remittances and travel to Cuba — one we’ve had before. Remarkably, that policy didn’t have the desired effect of Cuban libertad either.
As a matter of fact, the travel and remittance restrictions are easily bypassed by those who have true humanitarian intentions. Cuban-Americans can send unlimited sums of money to relatives in Cuba through Canadian companies that do business on the web, and travel to Cuba through places like the Bahamas or Cancun is relatively easy. Additionally, I’ve not heard of a single Cuban-American being fined by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (the government agency that enforces the commercial embargo on Cuba) for making a legitimate family visit because it didn’t technically meet the requirements dictated by current policy. In other words, the idea that the tightened restrictions cause undue hardships is a canard that is being used for political purposes in an election year. Isn’t this the kind of cynicism that Obama is supposed to be campaigning against?
Senator Obama claims to believe that going back to a more liberal travel and remittance policy — like the one in place before 2004 — is just the thing to free the political prisoners and bring justice to Cuba, but he doesn’t really explain why this time will be different. I guess it’s his confidence in that silver tongue again.
The reality is that Raul Castro will not implement important political and economic reforms willingly. If they are to happen at all he must be pressured into them, and the pressure needs to come from both inside and outside of Cuba. The president of the United States can use his bully pulpit to bring attention to the cause of the political opposition in Cuba and the prisoners of conscience. He can also use his influence with other heads of state to keep Cuba on the front burner. President Bush has done this consistently throughout his two terms. While it has not brought libertad to Cuba, today more people are aware of Cubans like the Afro-Cuban prisoner of conscience Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. They also know more about the reality of Cuban communism than ever before.
In essence, with his flip-flopping on the embargo Obama is guilty of what he is preaching against, namely pandering. His innovative strategy is nothing more than a minor modification to an existing policy wrapped in grandiose rhetoric: libertad!
Henry Louis Gomez is Cuban-American and blogs at BabaluBlog.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
32 Comments
1. Adriana:It’s interesting that the Ladies in White, a prominent dissident group inside Cuba, don’t agree with anything that you are saying, Mssr. Gomez.
Do THEY know about the reality of Cuban communism?
.
May 25, 2008 - 7:51 am 2. Mateo:“Unfortunately, demagoguery and anti-Americanism in Latin America predates President Bush by several decades. Citizens of Latin American countries have an uncanny penchant for electing or otherwise backing anti-American caudillos (strong men).”
Absolutely. And the United States have an uncanny penchant for supporting military dictatorships in Latin America. The fact that they are opposed to the Castro tirany has nothing to do with promoting Libertad.
May 25, 2008 - 8:29 am 3. Henry Gomez:It was U.S. withdrawal of support for Batista that allowed castro to take power. Why does that get overlooked all the time?
May 25, 2008 - 9:14 am 4. Henry Gomez:I suppose the question is not whether some dissidents in Cuba agree with me, but whether Cuban-American voters agree with me. We will see in November, won’t we?
May 25, 2008 - 9:50 am 5. GM Roper:Very good post Señior Gomez, and likely right on the money.
His gaffe regarding the timing of Hugo Chavez’ ascension to power in Venezuela seems to jive with his other “misspeaking” such as the march over the Bridge in Selma being the cause of his parent’s getting together or visiting 57 states.
Which makes one wonder if A.)he really believes all this stuff he misspeaks about (which says something about how much education he really absorbed) or B.) he is the re-incarnation of the dreaded “Pander Bear.”
May 25, 2008 - 10:42 am 6. abu al-fin:Some populations are so childlike that they can only be controlled by a strong hand. Hugo Chavez understands this. Fidel Castro understood that, when he still had his faculties of thought, but perhaps Cuba was the wrong country to set his demonstration?
Obama understands this very well. He is leading his sheep to pasture, even as we speak.
May 25, 2008 - 10:59 am 7. crazy:Unlimited remittances and visits. Sounds exactly like current US policy towards Mexico. Can we expect the outcome to be much different?
May 25, 2008 - 1:06 pm 8. rotwang:Amazing how a small, irrelevant nation still sticks in America’s craw.
No one can admire what Castro has done to his own people. But no one can ignore how he has humiliated the giant, impotent superpower up north…for half a century.
May 25, 2008 - 3:18 pm 9. abu al-fin:Michelle Obama works out a lot, and is the enforcer in the family. She can always break a few legs, if the rabble refuse to submit to the Obama silver tongue.
May 25, 2008 - 3:20 pm 10. carlos orsini:The free world can not allow a Barack ObamA TO LEAD US.jUST THE SOUND,IS INTORABLE. oRSINI
May 25, 2008 - 3:58 pm 11. Marcie Soto:Adriana,
I guess in your opinion, we are not entitled to different points of view.
Dr. Oscar Elias Biscett, Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello, and Jorge Luis Perez Antunez just to name a few, are all prominent leaders of the opposition. Ever heard of them? They happen to agree wholeheartedly with Henry Gomez and the Cuban-American community.
May 25, 2008 - 4:10 pm 12. Will Obama Free Cuba? Barack Obama’s new Cuba policy may be based on “libertad,” but it’s unlikely to lead to freedom for the island nation’s people. « Tizona’s Weblog:[...] Pajamas Media [...]
May 25, 2008 - 4:31 pm 13. Tres artículos contra Obama:[...] Louis Gomez, en Babalú Blog. And in Pajamas Media, another [...]
May 25, 2008 - 4:37 pm 14. Henry Gomez:Obama understands this very well. He is leading his sheep to pasture, even as we speak.
To pasture or to slaughter?
The idea that some people need is a “strong hand” is exactly the racist attitude that prevails among American liberals who accept for others what they would not accept for themselves, namely abuses of human rights, censorship etc.
May 25, 2008 - 4:40 pm 15. Redmanfms:“The idea that some people need is a “strong hand” is exactly the racist attitude that prevails among American liberals who accept for others what they would not accept for themselves, namely abuses of human rights, censorship etc.”
Precisely, it’s more of the same liberal/progressive paternalism that is the hallmark of the DNC’s attitude toward blacks in this nation (both before and after they opposed integration and voting rights).
“No one can admire what Castro has done to his own people. But no one can ignore how he has humiliated the giant, impotent superpower up north…for half a century.”
This can be traced back to Kennedy’s gutless fence-sitting that doomed the brave men of Brigade 2506. After that, fear of Soviet reprisal in the form of nuclear war kept America from doing something substantive (like invading). After the fall of the Soviet Union attitudes toward the totalitarian regime became defined by Clinton’s (equally as gutless as Kennedy) policy of “wait-and-see,” with the belief that once the Castros were dead Communism would just evaporate.
May 25, 2008 - 7:50 pm 16. edouard:McCain put the laughter in slaughter, like Chuck Norris!
May 25, 2008 - 9:36 pm 17. Mateo:“It was U.S. withdrawal of support for Batista that allowed castro to take power. Why does that get overlooked all the time?”
Yes. That’s true. But after that the U.S. has supported dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Dominicana…
Maybe that’s the reason.
May 26, 2008 - 4:38 am 18. Elena Maza:“No one can admire what Castro has done to his own people. But no one can ignore how he has humiliated the giant, impotent superpower up north…for half a century.”
Humiliated…in the leftist media? At that bastion of justice and comity–the U.N.? I hardly think a country that is buying $840 million in foodstuffs from the USA to keep itself going is in a position to “humiliate” us. The media circus of so-called “international opinion” doesn’t count.
To translate a Cuban friend’s very apt quote: “When some of the sons of Latin-America start loving their own people more than they hate the USA,they will be able to achieve the peace and harmony they lack today and stop being useful idiots in the service of Satan.”
Prince Obama is just one more clueless useful idiot, pandering for the Cuban American vote!
May 26, 2008 - 8:15 am 19. Gringo:Mateo
Yes. That’s true. But after that the U.S. has supported dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Dominicana…
You need to acquaint yourself with history. History is more complex than slogans. Consider the 1943 coup in Argentina, in which Peron was one of the leaders.
That was not something the US supported. Peron was subsequently elected president three times and also deposed in a coup in 1955, which further shows the military involvement in Argentine governing. Colonel/President Peron harbored Nazi war criminals, not exactly a pro-American action.
President Carter spoke out against the human rights abuses of the junta. President Reagan’s support of Great Britain in the Falklands War was instrumental in Argentina’s losing that war and the junta’s stepping down.
Consider Chile. Those who consider the democratically elected Allende a victim of the US and CIA have examined the historical record in a very superficial manner. Three weeks before the coup, the also democratically elected House of Deputies passed by 81-47 a resolution titled the “Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy.” An excerpt follows.
In general and in specific, the resolution could be interpreted as an invitation to a coup. Allende himself called it such. The democratically elected members of the House of Deputies would not have passed such a strongly-worded resolution by a commanding 63- 37% majority if their constituents, the Chilean people, were not also disgusted with the Allende government’s repeated violations of law and democratic procedure.
Your complaint should rest not with the US but with the House of Deputies, who by passing this resolution, supported the subsequent coup.
May 26, 2008 - 8:42 am 20. ERE:Obama cannot win the general election. You will be shocked when you listen to Obama in his own words and What he really thinks of white people. Listen to the video and you be the judge.
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/05/25/shocking-obama-in-his-own-words-what-he-really-thinks-of-white-people/
May 26, 2008 - 8:59 am 21. Ocho ideas sueltas sobre el discurso de Obama en Miami:[...] crítica razonable es que el candidato demócrata peca de ingenuidad. La resumía hace poco Henry Gomez: It seems to me that Obama does, in fact, believe in his ability to convince murderers and tyrants [...]
May 27, 2008 - 9:05 am 22. Mateo:Gringo, I wrote no slogans, but facts. The US supported GB in the Falkland Islands and that was instrumental in Argentina losing the war. That’s true. In Uruguay, while Carter was president and started to talk about human rights (while american marines butchered people in El Salvador), the relation of the military dictatorship with the US changed it’s course after years of carnal relations, and covered support from the CIA. And that Allende was a communist puppet, and that he supported guerillas with money from Cuba and czech weapons, has nothing to do with the fact that the US supported the coup and Pinochet afterwards.
And BTW, could you explain me why Latin America has been filled with Yankee soldiers for so long? Are they on vacation? If so, do they need to carry their weapons? How would you feel seeing french, russian, and chinese soldiers marching through the 5th. avenue?
I’m an isolated uruguayan libertarian that has no place to go in the political map of his country. I feel pity for the leftists and their ridiculous pseudo-religion, but when I remember this things a part of me understands them. And when I read a comment like yours, that part grows.
History is complex indeed. So complex that it has more than one side. And neither of those sides has to be good.
May 27, 2008 - 8:03 pm 23. Ocho notas sobre Barack Obama | Radiografía Mundial.Com:[...] 6-Otra crítica razonable es que el candidato demócrata peca de ingenuidad. La resumía hace poco Henry Gomez: [...]
May 28, 2008 - 3:03 am 24. Mary in LA:The last time I checked, Great Britain a.k.a. the United Kingdom was not a military dictatorship.
May 28, 2008 - 5:31 pm 25. Redmanfms:“The last time I checked, Great Britain a.k.a. the United Kingdom was not a military dictatorship.”
Not only is the UK not a dictatorship, Argentina was (and more or less continues to be).
“while american marines butchered people in El Salvador”
Now you’re just making shit up.
May 29, 2008 - 6:10 pm 26. Alex:Mateo:
“the relation of the military dictatorship with the US changed it’s
course after years of carnal relations”
This one made me laugh. I didn’t know governments could have carnal relations. Who’s on top?
“And BTW, could you explain me why Latin America has been filled with Yankee soldiers for so long? Are they on vacation? If so, do they need to carry their weapons?”
Where exactly in Latin America are American soldiers marching through avenues with rifles? Certainly not in Montevideo. More making shit up.
Redman:
where do you get that Argentina “more or less continues to be” a military dictatorship. It was a military dictatorship until the Falklands and that fiasco brought them down. The military in Argentina has been seriously defanged. They don’t have remotely the influence they had in the 60s, 70s and 80s. There’s no conscription anymore.
May 30, 2008 - 8:45 am 27. Redmanfms:“where do you get that Argentina “more or less continues to be” a military dictatorship.”
I read a blog by a fellow named “ferfal” (if you Google his name you’ll find his writings, they are quite interesting) in which he has been cataloguing the economic troubles Argentina has been suffering for nearly a decade. He’s not entirely convinced that they are a democracy, especially since both the FPV and the Justicialists still cling to Peronism.
Every election cycle the losing party’s voters demonstrate charging election fraud, which quite frequently descends into rioting. It could just be partisan bickering for all I know, I don’t claim to be an expert.
May 30, 2008 - 5:31 pm 28. Mateo:Alex, are you imbecile enough to not being able to understand a couple of metaphors?
Mary and Redman, when i said that about GB, i was acknowledgeing that Henry was right. He’sright also about Carter being softer with Latin America than his predecessors (Altough he was far from being and angel). When Carter started to talk about human rights in Latin America, the relations between the uruguayan dictatorship and the US government became strained. A little.
So, if someone wants to recapitulate what i’ve been reading in the next comment, he could just say that the US has behaved very well towards Latin America, and if some issues exists, is because we’re infantile voters. I definitely agree with this last one, but there’s no need to receive lessons by people governed by Dubya (And in some months by Obama. That´s gonna be really really funny).
May 31, 2008 - 1:39 pm 29. Redmanfms:“but there’s no need to receive lessons by people governed by Dubya (And in some months by Obama. That´s gonna be really really funny).”
It’s not necessarily “who” you people pick, it’s how that person is chosen. Latin America has a long standing tradition of voter fraud and manipulation and outright one-party non-elections. You (and others) may not like President Bush, and I certainly won’t enjoy an Obama presidency, but at least our elections are fair and true with corruption and fraud being minimal and localized events. The same cannot be said for most of Latin America.
Then there is that pesky problem of Latin American governmental leaders emptying the coffers of their nations and fleeing……
Jun 18, 2008 - 4:12 pm 30. TG4M:*This one article, can give us an Obama victory. The writer makes an excellent point.
We must face: Why Barack Obama can lose on “Election Moment”. And what we must do so he Wins.
America can be seen as a nation of instant gratification, shock value and wishful thinking. Through these valid perceptions our ability to succeed against great odds is proven often. Our will to have good triumph over evil is undeniable. And most of all; our fortunate gifts living in this land prevail against our own internal enemy’s of thought.
This coming Presidential Election Day will require us all to do great battle with the enemy’s of thought, the high-jackers of thinking, the masters of influencing spontaneity.
HOW DEEP WILL YOU GO.
Barack Obama will lose if we don’t drudge out every ounce of racism alive and well in America. Our nations public voice and face has behaved at the highest levels of proper presentation; pretending that racism is dead or at least almost gone. But our private thoughts, deep in the gullies of ones own mind, lives the uncertainty of our personal truth. On “Election moment”, as we choose will America vote for a person who is not a white male? *There is nothing wrong with voting for a white male, that is not the point of this commentary.
HOW OBAMA MAY LOSE.
I can assert many voting Americans will walk to the voting booth on Election Day and gravel with their choice for a president based on color. And I can confirm, many voting Americans will inequitably vote for anyone but a black, mulatto or ethnic president. This “Election Moment” must be influenced by a character choice, nothing else.
THE SOLUTION.
On our campaign road to an Obama White house, we must remember to keep it simple. This Election Moment is not about Democrat or Republican, man or woman, even the color of a persons skin. This Election Moment is about Character.
THE CHARACTER FACTOR
A persons character, their thought process, their ability to lead, to change course, to admit their errors, to put in corrections, to adjust their course, to learn, grow, to be wrong, to have faith beyond one’s own faith and many more of these attributes is what we need as Americas next generation of leaders.
ONE QUESTION WILL REVEAL THE CHARACTER FACTOR
Will you abolish the failed forty seven (47) year old U.S. Embargo on Cuba? It’s a yes or no question.
Any politician or person that still has to think about saying yes. Or is determined to maintain, tighten and enforce a U.S. Policy that has not worked for forty seven years clearly does not have The Character Factor.
YES IS THE ONLY ANSWER
Yes to abolishing the five decade old failed policy against Cuba is the only answer that will demonstrate a person’s character.
WHAT YOU CAN DO.
“Will you abolish the failed forty seven (47) year old U.S. Embargo on Cuba?”
I ask that you include and ask this question to every politician you meet. Ask it on every blog you participate in. Make this election about the character factor of the person running for office.
JOHN McCAINS CHARACTER FACTOR
Ask McCain every chance you can. Why is he committed to continuing the embargo on Cuba that has not worked for forty seven years?
What does it say about McCain that he will not consider anything but enforcing a U.S. Policy that has not worked for almost five decades.
OBAMA HAS THE CHARACTER FACTOR
Obama is committed to new relationships with Cuba.
VOTE FOR CHARACTER
Lets make sure we bring to the forefront the number one issue an American should think of when they reach their personal Election Moment vote.
Am I voting for a person who has Character? In that one Election Moment, when an American goes to vote, we must trust that their Character factor will prevail above all else.
Your time is appreciated, and your response is welcomed.
With much respect,
Luis Moro
Filmmaker +
See 1400 free photos of Cuba. At: http://www.EveryThingCuba.com
ADD ME AS YOUR BARACK OBAMA FRIEND
Review diverse perspectives on Barack Obama and Cuban policy at: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Cuba
Support Independence, buy our Award Winning Indie films. http://www.MoroFilms.com
Thank you for supporting independent films. Luis and Bobbi Moro
Aug 18, 2008 - 3:15 pm 31. Linda:This is the door that will swing open in which will flow the military of the Communistic leaders BO is making friends to right now. These military butchers will come here on BO’s beckon call to protect BO and his comrades from the uprising of the people of the US who will attempt to protect the US from Communism.
Apr 4, 2009 - 12:05 pm 32. Noticias LA » Blog Archive » Viajar a Cuba, sin embargo:[...] Lo ideal sería que, sin prisa pero sin pausa, se tomasen más medidas, más cercanía; que se diesen más oportunidades a un pueblo ávido de sueños. [...]
Apr 13, 2009 - 2:53 pm