In my view, the actions announced by the White House today are humanitarian, unsustainable, small-bore, a kind of inoculation, and a question mark. Let me explain:
- Humanitarian. The end of travel and remittance restrictions on Cuban Americans deserves applause. It’s the treatment that Cuban families deserve from the U.S. government, allowing those who with to visit and send help to do so, and respecting the right of the rest not to do so. At a humanitarian level, it will bring great benefits to many Cuban families that receive visits and support from relatives in the United States. If, as seems likely, it results in significantly increased travel to Cuba, it will bring an injection of purchasing power that will raise the incomes of Cubans who rent rooms in their homes or drive private taxis, and it will bring others into those businesses. Considering that Cubans are now allowed to visit and stay in hotels, it will probably bring more income to Cuba’s state tourism businesses too.
- Unsustainable. President Obama’s action probably makes the rest of our Cuba travel policy unsustainable. Most Americans will remain under the Cold War regulations administered by the Treasury Department. Meanwhile, Cuban Americans will be a separate class, able to travel to Cuba and send money at will, which in practice will mean that some will go for a weekend, at times for vacation. President Obama is also changing the character of remittances. Today, $100 per month is enough to buy some household basics. Now, for some, unlimited remittances will mean small-scale investment – money for a brother to buy a car that will serve as a taxi, for a family to buy a new house, for a cousin to get all the equipment he needs to make his little farm work, for an aunt to renovate an apartment and create a separate room that she can rent out. I’m all for honoring the rights of Cuban Americans to do these things. Leaving aside the White House’s “best ambassadors for democracy” rhetoric, I would just say that the rest of the country has rights too, and the rest of Americans aren’t chopped liver.
- Small-bore. Today’s action – affecting travel and remittances, telecommunications equipment and services, and gift parcels – was dramatic because it changes eight years of movement in the opposite direction. But it still leaves President Obama with a 90 percent-Bush Cuba policy. (Candidate Obama said that policy amounted to “tough talk that never yields results.”) Beyond Cuban Americans, it does not address the issue of broader contact with American society, whether from tourists, universities, professional associations, churches, synagogues, or other parts of our civil society. Nor does it address diplomacy, and the President’s spokesmen repeatedly dodged questions about what kind of dialogue the Administration might seek with Cuba. Presumably, these and other issues – TV Marti, the USAID program, etc. – remain part of the policy review that the Administration is conducting. In today’s press conference, the President’s spokesmen seemed to avoid foreclosing future options.
- Inoculation. The President’s press secretary said that today’s announcement was “in no way…done to quell so-called pressure” from leaders who have called for a new U.S. policy toward Cuba, and who will meet President Obama at a summit this week. Ok. We’ll see how it plays at the Trinidad summit.
- A question mark. The telecommunications provisions will have to play out. The full package of measures was framed in language that is not likely to play well among the Cuban political leadership, which would have to approve commercial agreements for new fiber optic links to the Internet or roaming agreements for U.S. cell phone carriers.
agree with most of your points and perspectives. political movements are made incrementally; i can't see how this won't lead to the end of all travel restrictions for all americans. but it has to be done little by little, take a step, wait till the shouting stops, then let things move on their own. obama is in a good position after taking HIS step to now sit back and let the congress take the next step; end all travel restrictions.
ReplyDeletedont expect much change in direction from Cuban govt re the telecommunications aspect. as long as embargo on they will continue to monitor anything like this closely, but it could be a good indication of what they are thinking
is there anyone who has current numbers for total amount of hotel rooms in Cuba currently.
anonimo
The telecommunication provisions remove the often quoted Cuban excuse for not allowing free access to the internet. Now the Cuban government cannot claim that internet access cannot be provided because the USA government does not allow them to connect to fibre-optic network.
ReplyDeleteUnleashing "American" transnational corporations to provide unlimited internet, telephone and television service to Cuba is last and MOST INSIDIOUS stage of the imperialist genocidal attack against Cuba! This cynical ploy must be STOPPED in its tracks by the Revolutionary Authorities!
ReplyDeleteI can look, but it's about 40,000 hotel rooms
ReplyDeletethanks phil, i gotta go talk to my holiday inn friends
ReplyDeleteanonimo
the telecommunications portion is interesting but all you right wingnuts out there remember, although you don't want to admit it, cuba is a sovereign country and it is Their laws that will govern what gets in and what doesnt. as long as the embargo and threats remain cuba decides. but it will be interesting re fiber optic connections and internet availability increases, what the financial arrangements are. just cause USA gives permission to their companies doesn't mean cuba will relinquish controls. its an interesting component to it all.
ReplyDeletebut now, the cuban-americans can come no restrictions. how can anyone justify average americans not able to go?
while you're looking it up Peters try and find out how many hotel rooms are bugged and planted with hidden cameras....
ReplyDeleteExcellent work Companero Phil. Your work is done for today. Rest up so we can begin Phase II of Operation Lickspittle first thing in the morning!
ReplyDeleteFC
Ano of 8.55
ReplyDeleteMaybe they are waiting to record a movie showing your beautiful a$$.
Cuba has 55,000 hotel rooms, as of 2005. I know they have opened a dozen or so "boutique" hotels since then, and a dozen or so are on the way.
ReplyDeleteM. Parmly offered optic fiber conexion to Cuba in the past; that's not new.
ReplyDeleteLa referencia pueden verla aquí
ReplyDeleteanon 855, unfortunately you're right. i have seen bugs in my room. it was a small cucaracha. haven't seen many gusanos, though that may change. depending on which hotel you're in
ReplyDeleteanonimo
I am Cuban and a Pedro Pan Kid from 1961. my father was in a Cuban prison for many years and I didn't even see him for 11 years.
ReplyDeleteAmericans don't even know who they are dealing with in Castro, it is a shame that many hear adore that devil of a man. Wake up America!
Most cubans DO NOT want the embargo lifted! We want an embargo on Obama!
It is always nice to see morons speaking in the name of whole countries, but wake up and get out of fantasyland: MOST CUBANS WANTS THE EMBARGO LIFTED AND NORMAL RELATIONS WITH USA
ReplyDeleteanon 942
ReplyDeleteyou are smoking crack when you saY:
"Most cubans DO NOT want the embargo lifted! We want an embargo on Obama!"
you obviously have not been to cuba or have spoken to real cubans in long long time. MOst average every-day cubans living in cuba , pro or anti-castro, want END to embargo, include famous real cuban dissidents and Yoani too.
anyone who is pro-embargo is anti-cuban people. they can spew whatever justification they want, they simply want to see the cuban people suffer for their own twisted political reasons.
ReplyDeleteanonimo
Anonimo,
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate that you equate pro-embargo with anti-cuban. This is like saying that a doctor wants to torture a patient when he proceeds with an operation or some other treatment that causes pain and suffering to the patient. Sometimes the treatment can be painful, but the question that should always be asked is if the treatment is better than the sickness.
The embargo was put in place not in a response not to a political system but to the expropriation of American properties in Cuba without just compensation from the point of view of the American owners. Over the years it has moved from a simple economic tit-for-tat to a foreign policy instrument. I think that most pro-embargo positions are taken from the basis that American moneys should not be used to prop-up a tyrannical Cuban government. I would point out that the main problem with normalizing trade between the USA and Cuba is not the compensation for expropiated properties but the extension of normal export guarantees by the US government to would-be exporters to Cuba. This would be a direct subsidy to the Cuban government in view that it has always believed that old debts are not paid and that new ones are allowed to age.
Following your past spirit for direct questioning, I would ask you whether you think that the Cuban people would be better off with a different type of government or they enjoy the best form of government?
Vecino de NF
PS I did not cop out on the other posts but you were all over the place, and it would take a lot of effort and space to deconstruct your comments, and then post an unrabid response. By the way I take it from your silence, that you agree with Alvarez' statistics.
vecino
ReplyDeleteno i don't agree with Alvarez, he was referring to sugar holdings, and on the initial agrarian reform. there's lot missing due to his specific focus. any credible history of cuba from Louis Perez or Gott's or a dozen others all point to the figures of 75 per cent arable land in cuba in foreign hands, and the vast majority in US ownership.
your doctor analogy is simply wrong. if the cubans wanted to get rid of a 'cancer' they'd do it in the streets and by revolt, like they did against the spanish and americans. it is the height of arrogance to say you know what's best for cubans, and that we'll starve them, harm them, blockade them until they smarten up and get rid of their government. the embargo helps entrench support, not dissipate it. after 50 years you think the pro-embargo side would get that.
Re embargo; it is not up to another person or country to decide what is best, or not, for the population of another. the prime reason for the embargo is to deny the govt the opportunity to conduct normal trading relations with the US; all it does is hurt the average cuban. It is also insidious in the fact that the embargo is portrayed as just between US and Cuba. it's not. the embargo has tremendous extra-territorial application, particularly with Torricelli and Helms Burton.
There are documents that make it very clear the point of the embargo was not to bring down the Cuban govt, only to make the people of cuba suffer and force the govt into increasing security measures. There are docs from the State Dept that admit it (See Kornblun and National Security Archive)
The embargo was not based on confiscation of property. Compensation was offered, it was refused, and the embargo developed as a way to punish the cuban people. Again you have to put this all into context of America's historical treatment of cuba.
too bad you can't answer my question re your supposition that the regime would fall once normalization. assume you hope it would, but the revolutionary aspects of cuban history is based on self-determination against colonizers; first Spain then USA. the desire for patria won't end if US normalizes. im sorry if you find it too complex.
there are just so many experts from the UN to the dissidents who decry the embargo and make it clear how counter productive it is.
and since when it is the place of the American govt to dictate to all its companies who they can and can't trade with? I would think the individual businesses in the US should be able to make their own choices, let them trade with cuba as they see fit, or not.
and of course i'm sure you know the US is now within the top five trading partners with cuba; food purchases since 2000. seems they've solved that problem re your concerns on payment etc.
any pro-embargo type is anti-cuban by definition. it's only design is to harm the cuban people, to create shortages and make things more desperate. and to embargo food and medicine is not criminal, its medieval.
now, to answer your direct question. No i do not think the current Cuban government is the best. I do believe tremendous improvements and reforms are needed.
But my opinion is the majority of Cubans want things to improve under a socialist system; change, reform, advance yes. but to destroy the current governmental system entirely -- I've never met a Cuban who lives in Cuba that would agree to that.
change or reform is impossible under siege, however.
one quote from UN special rapporteur Carl-John Groth re human rights in cuba over a decade ago:
ReplyDelete"The prolonged economic trade and financial embargoes imposed by the United States are now an obstacle to the necessary opening up of a sytem shaped and justifed to a large extent by the preceived need to withstand external pressures and hostile acts with threaten national soverignty."
than, combined with the thousands of terrorist attacks, and what do you have? a government under siege that can not move towards substantial reform.
now, i hope that's not too complex for your to comment on
anonimo, and 5:37 too
Anonimo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your explanation! I think that your approach is too manichean for my taste. Although there is a marked trend for Cubans to try to make Cuban history function like a dialectic, the reality is that the so-called Cuban independence movements against Spain were not a massive uprising of the population against an unpopular metropolis (by the way the same can be said of the American Revolution). It was more like a civil war. By your analogy to the current situation, if the Cuban population was really set against Spain in the XIX century, Cuba's independence would have been established in the late 1860s or early 1870s not in 1902. Also to define Cuba as opposing USA hegemony all the way all the time is extremely simplistic considering that baseball is the national sport and that many Cubans (in Cuba) perceive many things coming from the USA as objects or systems to be emulated. Take for example the name for Cuban political police, G-2 (Ge-DOS in Spanish) which is identical to the historical title for military intelligence in the US Army, or for that matter Fidel Castro's most significant title: Comandante en Jefe, a direct lift from the US President constitutional role. Heck even the official Cuban Communist Party newspaper is named Granma (abuelita en English). Cuba has been, is, and will always be an archipielago destined by geography to be influenced by its neighbor to the North. This is why it is virtually impossible to define Cuban sovereignity in absolute terms without confronting real and imagined threats from that neighbor.
I hope that this was not too rabid. By the way I think Alvarez citation refers to the conversion of US owned land to sugarcane plantations not that it was originally sugarcane land.
Also please note that Cubans in Cuba by everything they do to survive daily privations are breaking every socialist norm. They do not need to take to the streets to subvert the regime. The government knows this and tolerates it because it can always be used to crush any real or potential political dissent under the guise of fighting corruption. (see the Ochoa case when the way to discredit the Heroes of the Revolution was to accuse them to hoard goods that anyone in the US could buy in one hour at a local COSTCO or similar big box store).
Vecino de NF
of course there is no absolutes regarding the revolution against spain or USA. there was always a large segment of the population opposed to revolution against spain -- the planter class, bourgeoisie and others. they were scared to death of the rebel victory and openly supported US annexation. that doesn't diminish the overall support for the rebels attempts for independence. i mean jose marti meant something, didn't he? and of course there was all sorts of opposition to fidel's revolution, from those in power and with most to lose. and they still oppose
ReplyDeletebut to the winners go the spoils and the revolution won and so the historical dialogue is determined.
there are few things more complex than the historic cuban-usa relationship. but read louis perez cuba in the american imagination and you'll understand the dynamics so much better.
granma was the name of the boat, did fidel pick it because it was an english name? hardly.
cuba was not independent in 1902. please, are you implying that under platt cuba had any level of independence? even the governor Wood admitted cuba was controlled by usa. and after platt was rescinded cuba was firmly under usa economic, political control.
come on, you must know cuban history.
ochoa was a drug runner. see -- there's always two sides to the cuban question. but the overriding element is will you be able to adjust to the regime surviving for another 50 years, usa relations normalized, economy better, reforms underway, socialism advancing.
what's your view of the best govt in cuba
anonimo
Anonimo,
ReplyDeleteThe best government in Cuba is the one that is determined by the Cuban people without coercion from Cuban or foreign despots. That government should be open to change both in structure and in personnel on a periodic basis, and on an emergency basis. It should be built on the basis that opinions are not be punished nor the way at arriving at them: free media access and production, free assembly, free speech, etc. Any objections?
By the way since we are playing twenty questions. What has had a worst impact on the Cuban people: the embargo or the current Cuban government?
I'll look up Louis Perez' book. I tend to gravitate toward original sources though. Thanks!
Vecino de NF
there is no better commentator on cuba than Perez. hope you can absorb what he says and why, and then maybe you'll have a better understanding of Cuban reality today.
ReplyDeleteif you believe what you say, and you don't live in cuba now, then step aside and let the cubans decide. the only ones i'm concerned about are the ones living in cuba now. no other opinion matters as much, especially the exile ones regardless of how rabid or not.
no one has the guts to answer this question-- how can Cuba change, move towards reform, when its under siege. how can it be open to change when the US has its hands around cuba's throat.
of course i agree with your perception of what the govt should be, so start working towards it by ending the threats from the US. (and don't say the cuban govt wouldn't respond, you have no proof of that cause ever since the revolution began the US has tried to destroy it)
still waiting if you think cuba was independent in 1902. what was platt all about?
you do really like to gloss over the tough questions, true independence, the terrorist war, american aggression. but that's typical of how the anti-castro side has tried to control the message and set the dialogue. hopefully with the end of the travel restrictions that will end too.
anonimo
Anonimo,
ReplyDeleteWhy are you so belligerent? At least in my case, all I have done is state my opinion. I apologize if I insulted you in anyway. If I did, it was inadvertent. Now to your question:
The Platt amendments were repealed with the 1940 Constitution, and they cease to apply in any practical way after September 4, 1933 thanks in no small part to that mid XX century Cuban revolutionary Fulgencio Batista (revolutionary at least until he became a colonel.) So could we go forward rather than revisiting the past?
Look if the Cuban government is truly interested in normal relations with the USA, they can afford to be magnanimous and liberate the handful of political prisoners. They can easily control them whether they are inside or outside of prison. They don't even have to make a public annoucement. Just let them go home.
Also they could be quiet and engage in vigorous bilateral diplomacy. I am sure that there is incredible will from the current US administration to normalize relations. It would be a great accomplishment and there could also be some aid and political assurances thrown in the package. So Deal or no Deal?
If you note by the tone of my postings, although I have a definite point of view, I am all in favor of respectful two-way dialogue and agreement. Also after dismissing what some others may interpret as condescencion on your part, I look forward to catching up with Prof.Perez' works.
Vecino de NF
Anonimo,
ReplyDeleteDo you live in Cuba now?
Vecino de NF
no, don't live in cuba now. not full time anyway.
ReplyDeletesorry if i came across belligerent, it's tough sometimes to get the right tone in a one dimensional blog. and some days are better than others. there's nothing like a good discussion on Cuba to rile up the blood.
but please, history is so important when talking cuba-usa relations. without understanding what happened in the past how can one comprehend the present or have any inclination as to the future.particularly when it involves these two countries.
platt was unilaterally decreed null and void by Grau San Martin in 1933, on the day of his inauguration. He was a real revolutionary who in many respects was the precursor of fidel. not surprisingly, the americans didn't like his reforms and his ideas of Cuba first for Cubans, so they didn't let him stick around too long.
his declaration against platt ws ignored till a year later when the americans decided they would shut it down. batista had little to do with it. except to overthrow Grau on the american's insistence.
when platt was instituted it was to ensure american hegemomy over Cuba; even the US president admitted that cuba had no independence under platt. after 30 years it had done its work, cuba's economic, political and social structures were in the majority controlled by american interests. there was a huge colonization of cuba under the legislation permitted under platt. it epitomized america's racist, superior attitudes towards what they believed was the incompetency of the cuban people -- that the cubans could not govern themselves and only the superiority of the americans would do.
platt accomplished what it was intended to do -- establish a neo-colonial rule over cuba. the americans graciously agreed to end platt, they had already got what they wanted. and that's not even considering a discussion on Gitmo
the dissidents i don't agree they should be jailed. but i also dont agree what has happened with the Cuban Five. both are internal matters i think can be used for negotiating purposes. but the cubans have justifiable reasons to treat the dissidents, not all, as working to advance harmful american policies. the Five were just trying to stop terrorist attacks. Im sure you're familiar as to how the cuban govt shared info with the americans re terrorist groups in Florida, then the americans turned around and arrest the five. very classy.
the key, the absolute key to all this is how any government the small size and little power of cuba is suppose to stand up to the unrelenting aggression of american foreign policy since the revolution. look at what USA did after 9/11; but cuba isn't suppose to react in any way after thousands of terrorist attacks, the embargo, the threats to destroy the regime, all the hostility. i've never understood how the anti-castro side never realizes that. well, i guess i do understand, they don't want to admit reality. my opinion, not belligerent. Well, not too much.
again, i've enjoyed our conversations and apologize for any disrespect. none was intended. now i'm off for my anejo especial y partagas series d. very calming
anonimo
Anonimo,
ReplyDeleteYou got the tone right but you are confusing the notes. The only reason why Grau could abolish the Platt amendments to the 1902 Cuban Constitution was because a Sargeant named Fulgencio Batista pulled a military takeover on September 4, 1933, and installed a University professor as government figurehead. That later in 1934 then Colonel Batista deposed Grau and more importantly his minister Guiteras in a follow-up coup with the complicity of the USA envoy to Cuba, Sumner Wells, is not in dispute here. The fact remains that except for certain unusual periods in Cuban history since 1902, Cuban politicians have opted for an uprising or a dictatorship rather than a compromise to settle political disputes can also not be disputed. This has expressed itselft in three strongmen since 1902: Machado, Batista, and Castro. As the Bard wrote many years ago, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings." Sure the USA and then the Soviet Union, and then the EU, and now Venezuela have enabled strongmen rule in Cuba but ultimately its the Cubans fault that they have chosen confrontation over compromise, and strongmen rule over democratic discussion as ways to solve political and social issues. The more benign feature of that choice is expressed in foreign policy pronouncements. The deadliest feature of that choice can be found in the physical and mental graves of those Cubans that got caught in the weaker side of the bargain, and the loss of humanity by those Cubans on the stronger side.
Blaming non-Cubans for Cuba's problems is easy. Solving them require maturity. I keep repeating all the new Administration likes to normalize relations but they need some minor changes from Cuba to save face. It's up to the Cuban goverment to make the next move. If they want to keep justifying their position based on historical grievances, nothing will change.
Vecino de NF
the historical grievances are taking place right now. is the embargo a historical grievance? gee vecino, you must be cuban cause you dance so well.
ReplyDeletestill awaiting an answer re how a government reacts to siege
and please support your contention that batista was behind graus announced ending of platt. no evidence whatsoever,
batista installed grau, got rid of him, controlled country etc. but don't give him credit for platt's abrogation. it had simply done its job.
Nothing politically was done without the complicity of the US from 1898 to 1959. a portion of cubans supported that, but it was not cuban independence.
people support strong men in time of security crisis.
if the administration wants normalization what's stopping them. they hold all the cards, they hold all the threats. what do you want cuba to do? typical US foreign policy strategy, demand conditions before negotiations even begin. cuba should demand the release of cuban five before any further negotiations. and that's as stupid as US demanding cuba response for such a little thing obama did (important, but hardly earth shattering in context)
so give it your best shot if you are serious --
what should the cubans do next
what should the cuban govt have done under 50 years of aggression and a seige mentality.
are you saying american aggression has had no impact on cuba national policies or how it has conducted international relations? if you equate recognizing responsibility with blame then its time for a wee adjustment.
ya
anonimo
Anonimo,
ReplyDeleteI am following your advice and not telling the Cubans what to do next. According to you nobody should tell them what to do unless they are Cuban and living in Cuba. (I am guessing that you are currently in Cuba because you are opining about Cuba). All I am suggesting that if the Cuban government wants normal relations with the USA, they must do certain things to allow the USA to save face. (Allowing your counterpart to save face is what you do in the course of normalizing relations specially when it doesn't cost you much. There is little or no profit for the USA in normalizing relations with the Cuban government just a lot of political uncertainty.) Releasing the political prisoners like it was done in the 1970s under Carter would be the right thing to do. But this time they should be allowed to stay in Cuba if that's what they want. They are Cuban after all, and they are harmless as per the Cuban government's own admission.
BTW sometimes countries do not turn to strongmen because of objective reasons. Strongmen just take over. In the case of Cuba, there was no security reason for Machado's constitutional maneuvers, Batista's 1952 take-over, and Castro's antagonism to US interests in early 1959 (pre first Agrarian Reform decree). All three individuals chose their course of action and took the Cuban people along for the ride.
As far as September 4, 1933, without Batista, Grau would continue to be a University professor not a political figure. So Batista was a revolutionary in those few months, and later he allied himself with the Cuban Communist party.
Vecino de NF
yeah, then when the americans told him to stop the puppet batista cracked down hard on the communists in the 50s.
ReplyDeleteyou are an expert in avoiding the issues -- what impact did platt have on cuban society; how does a society survive under siege; what did you want the cuban govt to do under the unrelenting hostility of the americans, hostility that continues to this day
i'm not telling what the cubans should or not do; its up to those living in their country to decide. i have an opinion, you have yours. what i object to is others (american policy,gusanos) demanding that Cuba should do this or that. each country should find its own path obama said, ooops except if you are cuba
riots in streets, people protesting, civil unrest, all sorts of things happening in 1930s cuba in objection to politicians like machado, you saying the revolultion of 1933 didn't have security elements to it.
what face does US have to save; it's their gun in the face of the cubans, not the other way around. saving face isn't acknowledging 50 years of a failed policy, it's called reality.
now give it your best shot to try and address the issues here
anonimo
Anonimo,
ReplyDeleteI have to get over the temptation to emulate your example and direct you to read up on Cuban history. Instead I will point up that the "1930 Revolution" was the result of Pres. Machado amending the Cuban Constitution to extend his Presidential term. This happened in the late 1920s way before the turmoil that followed the death of Trejo in 1930 which was the event that detonated the cycle of uprising and repression that characterized the last three years of Machado's term.
The rest of your points I have already adressed elsewhere. I think that it is clear right now that the USA is expecting some movement from the Cuban government. The question is whether the Cuban government wants to tango, and like the saying goes it takes two to do that.
Vecino de NF