Perez Roura's plan

Armando Perez Roura, Miami AM radio king and head of Unidad Cubana, issued a statement on the Radio Mambi website in the name of Unidad Cubana and its constituent groups. It is called “Plan of Concrete Steps for Change in Cuba.”

The statement was to be issued at an event at Miami’s Manuel Artime theater Monday night. But according to press accounts and people who attended, it was not issued there because Mr. Perez Roura said the lighting was bad and he could not read it.

Hate it when that happens.

The Diario las Americas story is here; the Herald’s is here. At Babalu, they posted a nice reflection on the event that didn’t name the speaker, didn’t mention the statement, and seemed to be based on a concern that people would ridicule the event, the audience, and everything.

I hadn’t realized that el exilio vertical, which really, really knows how to dish it out, needs to be handled delicately. But no matter, let’s deal with their ideas, starting with the positive.

The statement calls for a “prohibition on evictions from housing in urban and rural areas.” Good for Unidad Cubana. There is no elaboration, but maybe we can guess at the reasoning. Maybe it reflects the idea that if you deal with Cuba’s property issues by threatening to throw people out of their homes, you encourage people in Cuba to circle the wagons, you reinforce the worst stereotypes of the exile community, and you make change less likely. Note to Secretary Gutierrez: if you are to the right of Mr. Perez Roura, it’s safe to change your position. The Administration would do itself a big favor by disavowing its commission’s vision of Cuban “tenants” being evicted from their homes.

Now for the rest.

The statement is based on the assumption that change is coming soon to Cuba and calls for consensus among all Cubans on steps to take to “avoid last-minute improvisation” when the opportunity to ensure “freedom, justice, and peace” arises.

The statement was released without any sign of support from anyone or any group in Cuba, or even any connection with anyone in Cuba. Maybe the reason is that, among its calls for legal and constitutional reforms; special tribunals to judge military commanders, interior ministry officers, and others responsible for the “Cuban national tragedy;” establishment of an electoral process; and more, it includes a call for the ilegalización permanente – a permanent legal ban – of the Cuban communist party. And also the “re-establishment” of political parties and non-government organizations, but only those “whose programs express respect for private property, a fair market economy, respect for human rights. and a representative, multi-party democratic system.”

This is interesting. Step one in establishing democracy is to ban the existence of a specific political party. That doesn’t say much for Cuba’s future democracy or the confidence of its proponents who issued the statement. And who would certify that parties and private organizations support, for example, a “market economy?” What if a future Cuban party advocates, for example, maintaining complete government operation of health care, education, and other social services? Sounds like socialism to me – so, would that party qualify? Who would decide?

While the Helms-Burton law says that the United States will not recognize as democratic any government that includes Fidel or Raul Castro, it places no such conditions on participants in Cuba’s political debate. It defines a “transition government” in Cuba as one that “has legalized all political activity” – “all” – and sets the stage for elections “with the participation of multiple independent political parties.”

Things are getting interesting in Cuba. Each day seems to confirm again that Fidel Castro will not return to office; the latest sign comes from Bolivian President Evo Morales. Generational change is a certainty, economic reform a distinct possibility, a national debate on economic policy a new and intriguing development. As things stir and possibilities of change loom, the debate outside Cuba is getting more interesting too. Sadly, Unidad Cubana’s statement accentuates its distance from the Cuba of today and, I strongly suspect, from the Cubans who live in Cuba today. Except, that is, those who embrace the idea of regulating speech and banning political parties.