The friendly, anonymous, and slightly right-of-center folks at Western Hemisphere Policy Watch noticed something that caught my eye too: a change in the language that
When the Administration’s
Then, “transition” was counterposed with “succession,” a continuation of the current system under post-Fidel Castro leadership. The State Department even announced in 2004 that the
Now, the Administration is using the word “transition” differently.
“There is clearly some form of transition that is under way from Fidel Castro to his brother…”
The Secretary of State has made similar statements; what used to be called “succession” is now being called “transition.”
Are these semantics important?
First, it’s important to point out that the change in language is not accompanied by any change in
But I don’t think the change is accidental.
A new Administration Cuba team is in place since 2004, Fidel Castro fell ill and left public view ten months ago, and there has been no political turbulence in
A second move toward realism is in the Secretary of State’s description of Cuba’s dissidents, delivered en route to
Neither of these changes makes the Administration’s international pitch – that the way to influence