I’ll briefly note for the record two new calls for change in Cuba policy that were amply covered when I was away.
Senator Lugar released a staff report on Cuba policy (pdf here), and said this as he released the report: “Economic sanctions are a legitimate tool of U.S. foreign policy and they have sometimes achieved their aims, as in the case of apartheid in South Africa. After 47 years, however, the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of ‘bringing democracy to the Cuban people,’ while it may have been used as a foil by the regime to demand further sacrifices from Cuba's impoverished population. The current U.S. policy has many passionate defenders, and their criticism of the Castro regime is justified. Nevertheless, we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests.”
And the Brookings Institution released a “roadmap” of policy recommendations for the Obama Administration (pdf here), urging that the U.S. government “not publicly link the initiatives to specific actions of the Cuban government,” because to do so “would give the Cuban hierarchy a veto over our policy.”
A collection of other recent reports and recommendations on U.S. policy is found here.
3 comments:
why don't you admit that you were the one who babysat the Lugar staffer in Cuba?
Lugar now has my respect. bravo.
Brookings institution, home to many leading scholars, has always had my respect. Soon CATO, the ultra right libertarian think tank, will come out against the embargo too, of course, CATO has always been against it from the beginning.
frankly the only ones for the embargo are 40 percent of miami cubans (many of whom, have never been to cuba).
From my interactions with average real cubans on teh streets in cuba, it appears that around 95 percent of cubans, even vehemently anti-castro, are anti-embargo and see it as a way the communists stay in power. Average real cubans, from my frank and informal interactions with them, also have real problem with USA embargo in terms of autonomy. they don't see it as 'liberating' rather as an infringement on national autnomy (ie. usa trying to dictate internal cuban policies).
Se olvida al sopesar el embargo o bloque, algo fundamental en política y jurisprudencia, el precedente. Puede parecer que no funciona el embargo, y puede que no funcione en el propósito final de llevar a Cuba a la democracia, pero otros aspectos no se han considerado, como por ejemplo, es contraproducente dar la impresión de que por inefectiva se remite un proceso justificado por muchas razones históricas y legales. El embargo respondió, entre los propósitos principales, a dar respuesta a la confiscación de bienes norteamericanos, esa condición no ha cesado, y de paso advertir a otros que intentaran la misma acción que no quedaría impune o sin respuesta. Como ley punitiva, mantiene su vigencia y validez. Muhos dolores de cabeza posteriores ha evitado el embargo, porque envía un mensaje claro y preciso de cual es la actitud ante arbitrariedades de otros gobiernos sobre propiedades extranjeras. Aquí es aplicable a su vez y por extensión al comercio internacional los males que ha evitado.
Contrario a lo que han omitido y omiten muchos por conveniencia, el embargo no impide comercio de artículos de imperativa necesidad para la población de un país. A mi modo de ver, no es un bloqueo, no se impide de manera total y por la fuerza el comercio dle país objeto.
Post a Comment