After a week in which President Obama announced new Cuba policy measures and discussed Cuba policy at the Trinidad summit, where do things stand?
In terms of the Obama policy: The President has delivered on his campaign promise regarding Cuban American travel and remittances. He signaled openness to other changes, saying “we are not dug in into policies that were formulated before I was born.” And he has reiterated his interest in talks with Cuba.
Whether there will be talks is another matter.
President Obama says Raul Castro’s statement from Venezuela last week, that Cuba is willing to talk with the United States about all issues including human rights, is a “sign of progress.” (Actually, except for the explicit mention of “political prisoners,” I thought it was a reiteration of a longstanding Cuban position, but it was a direct respons to Obama.) He said he is prepared “to have my Administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues – from drugs, migration, and economic issues, to human rights, free speech, and democratic reform.”
At any rate, after all the signals back and forth (see here and here), which include many references to the ball being now in Cuba’s court, there’s a key issue that hasn’t been defined. That is, is the Obama Administration ready to start talks with Cuba, or does it require some gesture on Cuba’s part before talks could begin?
I guess we’ll find out in the coming weeks.
In the midst of all this, Fidel Castro issued a commentary (English here), one of a series of post-summit commentaries, accusing President Obama of misinterpreting what Raul Castro said in Venezuela. Fidel didn’t at all make clear how Obama supposedly misinterpreted Raul’s words. Maybe that’s the subject of a separate article.
41 comments:
Fidel didn’t at all make clear how Obama supposedly misinterpreted Raul’s words.I thought it was pretty clear. Obama went around talking like he had achieved some breakthrough in the Cuban position. Like you point out Phil, there was little new in Raul's words. Cuba has always been open to talking about anything and everything. What Cuba will never accept is the notion that Cuba must make internal changes just to get to the table with the US - with no guarantee that the embargo, and Adjustment Act, and Helms-Burton, and the funding of subversion and the travel ban... would also be erased. US policies interfere with the Cuban people every day. Cuban policies are solely internal. Therefore they can not be treated as some quid-pro-quo, as Obama seems to want to think. The entire region (and world) is demanding a unilateral end to agressive US policies. Only the US is demanding fundamental political and economic changes in Cuba. US domestic politics is the only reason Obama persists in much the same mode as the previous 10 Presidents.
To conclude from Raul Castro's words in Venezuela that a new openness was about to happen can only be done ignoring the rest of his comments. Pres.Obama's response that the USA is willing to sit down to talk about specific issues rather than talk for the sake of talking was a rebuff of Raul Castro's position advocating a sort of open debate about which government is better: Cuban or US. If Leftside is correct, this signals an end of any potential normalization of relations because they would not be based on a give and take from both sides but just an acquiescence to the wishes of the Cuban government by the USA. Fidel Castro is furious that the Trinidad meeting did not turn into an act of "repudio" against the US but unfortunalely for Castro the ones that came out as anti-American (hemispherically speaking) were the trio Chavez-Ortega-Morales. In spite of their coziness with Fidel Lula, de Kirchner, Correa, Manning, Zelaya, etc. proved ineffectual in doing what was required by Fidel: expulsion of the United States from this hemispheric conference.
So where do we go from here? The best policy for the USA is to remove limitations in dealings with Cuba while insisting that Cuba meets its obligations under international law. But once that path is undertaken, the USA needs to be ready to respond to erratic acts from Cuba with firmness, and real costs for Cuba. Otherwise just let sleeping dogs lie.
And one last thing, I would suggest to Leftside and others that they stop talking about the Cuban people. They should refer to the Cuban government. The USA-Cuba problem is not between people but between governments. The only problem involving the Cuban people is between the Cuban government and them. If you don't believe me, ask any Cuban in Cuba about the "libreta" (ration book) and "tarjeta blanca" (the card allowing travel abroad).
Vecino de NF
i've asked thousands of cubans about the libreta; they prefer that than to starve. before the special period it was working much better, no kidding. but its better than nothing, although not sufficient. the tarjeta blanca is something i object to and hope to see the end of it. but its not as odious as people make out, it's not that hard to get; getting visas from the visiting countries can often be harder. i know so many cubans who get it, multiple times, not a problem. it is an anachronism from the 60s but its cuba's problem. there's a thousand stupid things wrong with the american system so bringing up a specific incident is really immaterial
but vecino i never quite get your point; what does the ration book or white card have to do with the USA and Cuba sitting down to negotiate? should cuba bring up the thousands starving every day in America? or the wonderful job done after Katrina?
I am amazed at your ability to predict the future though --how do you know how the talks will go or where will they lead? how do you know what give and take will occur. the whole point of negotiations is just that; both sides want something. Unfortunately American negotiation is usually 'we'll tell you what you have to give us before we'll talk to you" negotiations no, dictating yes.
please specify re cuba's international obligations.. its the embargo that is condemned internationally, it's American policies that have extra-territorial applications that is illegal. it seems the US should stop breaking international laws when it comes to cuba. you know, terrorism is illegal.
Everyone's an expert on the cuban people. well, not everyone. cause the cuban people see American policies (not US citizens) as their main problem. because it relates to their everyday lives and interactions with their government.
so nice try, although as usual quite obtuse.
anything else leftside said to perfection
anomino
Anonimo,
My only prediction of the future is based on the statements made by people in responsible positions. If Cuba does not want to accomodate USA requests, the USA is under no obligation to accomodate Cuba's requests. That's called negotiation. Negotiators all over the world make requests of their counterparts even if those requests can be considered intrusive. The USA would like to have a government in Cuba that agrees with the political provisions that all other governments in the Americas have agreed to. This is considered a vital US interest. The price that the USA is willing to pay for that agreement is normal economic and diplomatic relations, and support of Cuban interests in multilateral organizations (IMF, World Bank, etc.) The question that always remains is why does the Cuban government refuses to allow the basic civil liberties for the Cuban people.
I find quaint your defense of the libreta and the tarjeta blanca. It's so 1960s.
BTW all the US problems that you point out are real. That's why there are regular and competitive elections in the USA. Notice changes in the parties in power both at the national level, and at the state level. Also the response of the civil society institutions to real social problems in the USA is nothing to scoff at. They solve real problems quicker and better that any government solution. Government solutions should always be the last resort not the only resort if you believe in human dignity.
Vecino de NF
Anonimo,
I missed your question "what does the ration book or white card have to do with the USA and Cuba sitting down to negotiate?" but you missed my point. My answer before and now is nothing. The libreta and the tarjeta blanca are issues between the Cuban government and the Cuban people. The first tells the Cuban people what they should eat, wear, etc. and the second tells them when and where they can travel abroad. That's a government treating its population like children. So any normalization of relations between the USA and Cuba is a government to government issue not one between the Cuban people and the US government.
BTW obtuse is a nice word, usually misused but nice.
Vecino de NF
My point was that next time you and others complain about the USA-Cuba
Anonimo,
A quick question of the following two definitions of obtuse which were you using:
2 a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression
I sincerely hope you meant the b meaning because I thought you had become much nicer after our exchanges began. Needless to say using the word obtuse is rather obtuse according to the b meaning.
Vecino de NF
anonimo said "i've asked thousands of cubans about the libreta; they prefer that than to starve"
My friend, I'm Cuban and that's a big lie. I can't believe you said that with a straigh face.
My parents and brothers are still there and I just left 5 years ago.
The only real source of food in Cuba is blackmarket. The "libreta" doesn't feed my family by any mean.
Joel
joel
i have cubans in cuba that use the libreta; it doesn't fulfill all food needs, that's what i said. it is better than nothing and before the special period was better. the point was it has nothing to do with potential USA-cuba negotiations.
its like criticizing the cuban health care system, sure it has lots of faults and there are tremendous shortages, but it is better than nothing, particularly for a developing country it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.
lot of rabidness out there today
anonimo
Joel, we all know a sizable black market for food exists in Cuba. But to say it is the "only real source of food in Cuba" is not really credible either. The ration book is able to provide somewhere between 35% and 50% of needed calories. Another third usually comes from one's school or workplace. The rest may come from farmers markets, state owned restaurants, street stands, "grey market" restaurants or indeed the pure black market (ie. stolen goods). But if someone's "only real source of food" is the black market, that is the person's choice.
The fact is, the Cuban state has made a decision to subsidize most of the food consumed in the country - to assure that no one starves and that every child is well fed. That is why Cuba has malnutrition rates that are the envy of Latin America/Carribean and the developing world. Now Cuba is talking about being more selective about who gets the ration card, which is probably a good idea. There is no reason for the Government to subsidize those who have enough money to eat from the black market or with hard currency all day.
Anonimo, Leftside,
If the Cuban government is able to feed the Cuban population, why keep railing against the embargo because it is denying food to that population?
Obtuse and unrabid,
Vecino de NF
vecino -- its b oh boy is it b.
cuba has NEVER said they wouldn't accommodate USA requests, because they aint requests, they are demands. once you get into negotiations then you can request things. when you say this or that has to be done before you even negotiate that's when it becomes a demand. and you can not negotiate when one side has their heel on your throat. but geopolitical power is something the USA has been using to demand, overthrow, force countries for the past 50 years. it's just what they have done to cuba is the worst.
the rest of the Americas can live with cuba's political/economic system now that the USA isn't forcing them to isolate Cuba, and there are enough countries to stand up to american bullying. So where does the USA get off being the only one demanding Cuba change -- no one else is. but then, again, look at the history that is still playing out -- USA could care less what system Cuba has as long as it was back under american hegeomy (21st century style.) If your analogy was correct then all would be embargoing Cuba
and when you say you know what cuba's intentions are -- that's obtuse. raul never said he'd capitulate to american demands, he said he's willing to talk about anything. anyone who reads more into that has a crystal ball i'd love to borrow. assuming you are not divine (you can look up that meaning as well) then i take what you say to be quite often obtuse.
define human rights (not civil rights)
so there's no starvation in USA under one political party??? how has changing political parties, both beholding to the business class, helped those starving people in the USA? the fact there are any starving, the fact Katrina happened, the fact the USA has caused this global recession does not bode well for anyone wanting to emulate American economic values. And all the torture really puts to end the 'moral authority' canard. My point is i'd love to see cuba more pluralistic -- end the siege, the reasons and let's see what will happen.
i'm not defending ration book or white card -- it's internal. no more than i'd defend USA's ridiculous health care system, it's internal.
there's your english lesson for today.
anonimo
oh yeah -- cuba's reponse to social problems is just as impressive, if not more so, than many other countries
an a correction -- you're right, civil liberties, certain ones, are restricted in cuba. every country in history under national security threats have done the same. (so never mind about the human rights definition. my bad)
anonimo
vecino:
re embargo comment. come on you can do better than that. the embargo is evil on so many levels and your depiction of it simply in terms of accessing food for cubans is beneath you (that's a compliment) cuba is buying millions of dollars of food from USA (they are top five in trade now). that has nothing to do with the morality of ending the embargo, or the complexities of the other aspects of the embargo. it's also illegal internationally
and guess what, trade is a two way street.
anonimo
Anonimo,
Thank you for your pedagogical efforts specially when it comes to the English language, and your kindness toward my too obvious intellectual limitations!
We agree that all US limitations on US contacts with Cuba should go. I have carefully read Fidel Castro's and Raul Castro's pronouncements and I can not see any changes from the historical rhetoric (Raul's being less acute than Fidel's) so I must keep repeating that they do not want to negotiate with the USA. I have also said repeatedly that normal relations with the USA poses a huge political dilemma for the Cuban government: it eliminates the Revolution's main reason for being: defending Cuban sovereignity from a hostile USA. So I would humbly suggest that the USA should keep pressing Cuba for negotiations, and engagement, and they should let everyone know that they are doing so, and that the Cuban government doesn't want to engage in negotiations or contacts. But let's agree that the USA like anyother person or entity also has a right to its opinions and desires even if they are found to be wrong!
As far as all the problems with the USA, I would humbly suggest that you try to fix them. Run for office, start a business, organize a non-profit, just do it!
As far as human rights, I would refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. I am pretty sure that you have read them.
Still obtuse, but unrabid!
Vecino de NF
Anonimo,
Thank you for your pedagogical efforts specially when it comes to the English language, and your kindness toward my too obvious intellectual limitations!
We agree that all US limitations on US contacts with Cuba should go. I have carefully read Fidel Castro's and Raul Castro's pronouncements and I can not see any changes from the historical rhetoric (Raul's being less acute than Fidel's) so I must keep repeating that they do not want to negotiate with the USA. I have also said repeatedly that normal relations with the USA poses a huge political dilemma for the Cuban government: it eliminates the Revolution's main reason for being: defending Cuban sovereignity from a hostile USA. So I would humbly suggest that the USA should keep pressing Cuba for negotiations, and engagement, and they should let everyone know that they are doing so, and that the Cuban government doesn't want to engage in negotiations or contacts. But let's agree that the USA like anyother person or entity also has a right to its opinions and desires even if they are found to be wrong!
As far as all the problems with the USA, I would humbly suggest that you try to fix them. Run for office, start a business, organize a non-profit, just do it!
As far as human rights, I would refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. I am pretty sure that you have read them.
Still obtuse, but unrabid!
Vecino de NF
Apologize for the double entry! (To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer!)
"Embargo is evil"? Explain that one to me because I am being obtuse class a! Refusing to trade with another is a basic right of any country with any other country. If the USA is pissed off at Cuba for any reason, they can refuse to trade with Cuba. Wonder how you felt about the trade sanctions against Rhodesia, South Africa, and others? Those were put in place for purely political reasons. That these countries had unexcusable racist governments is not in question. What I am asking is about the evil nature of embargoes per se, and the right of any sovereign country to decide its own trade policy?
Vecino de NF
Anonimo,
Just curious, what civil liberties are not limited in Cuba?
Vecino de NF
human rights is perspective -- the UN declaration was written from a US centric point of view after WWII and places undue emphasis on western concepts of political rights.
developing nations determine human rights as food, shelter, education and health -- all of which Cuba meets far in advance of most developing countries, despite the embargo etal. political rights re assembly, pluralism, free press very important, but freedom to starve is no freedom at all. refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
and since when did the US care about democracy, as long as the people voted the way they wanted to. explain iran, Guatemala, chile. oh but that was then. ok, hamas, haiti, Venezuela, iraq. democracy has always been how america defines it, and if they don't like your democracy they'll do everything to undermine it.
and no country facing national security threats of the level cuba has does not place restrictions on certain civil rights. look at what US did in WWI and II, when they were'nt remotely directly threatened in proportion to what they did to Japanese in WWII or others like Eugene Debs in WWI. and look at reaction after 9/11 -- patriot act, homeland security.
again, the one question i can never get answered is what would you have the Cuban govt do in response to the national threat they have faced historically. (terrorism, invasion, bio warfare, isolation etc) obviously the other side don't want to touch that one.
embargo is evil when it is meant to punish a people for their choice of government. embargo is evil when it coerces others to restrict trade with cuba based on the punishment they may receive if they don't -- the extraterritoriality of the embargo is an international crime.
the embargo is evil when it prohibits food and medicine. the embargo is evil when it hurts the people of cuba and tries to force them to act in a way the US wants them to.
the embargo is evil for its pure hypocrisy.
If the American govt doesn't want to conduct trade with cuba that's one thing, but what right to they have to dictate to every single one of the privately owned companies in the US who they can and can not trade with. they can only do that in time of war (trading with the enemy act) and so that the embargo remains logically means the US still considers itself to be at war with cuba. which gets back to how is the Cuba govt suppose to react when the world's greatest power considers itself to be at war with them.
Re embargo again -- even worse, what right does the American govt have to tell businesses in other countries that they can't trade with cuba. that's evil pure.
are you equating south africa's apartheid with cuba. the rest of the world supported the restrictions against south africa. american stands alone for its reasons of regaining control.
if the embargo isn't evil, how would you describe it
anonimo
Leftist and Anonim:Don't waste your time, I know NF from others blogs and he is always the same:nothing that cuban government do is good, everything done against Cuba is ok, even bombing planes and hotels, shooting towns in cuban coast,sending viruses to destroy the foods sources for the cuban people.After all, those people deserve it, because they support Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution.And of course, Posada Carriles should be awarded with the Purple Heart.
Well, "Leftside" is dogmatic spokeman for the Castro dictatorship. He, and a few others, believe in nothing but myths when it comes to this 50 year period in Cuban history. Starting with the noun "Revolution" applied to that, now two-men, dictatorship.
A little more background on the "usurious" 10% fee charged to the conversion of all US dollars in the country (not just remittances):
As part of the application of Washington’s economic and trade embargo, the U.S. Federal Reserve went after a Swiss bank for handling U.S. dollars from Cuba. The $100 million fine it imposed in that case discouraged other foreign banks from taking dollars from Cuba, complicating the island’s international trade payments. Havana hoped the 10 percent surcharge would discourage the circulation of U.S. dollars and that visitors would instead spend Euros, pounds sterling, Swiss francs and other convertible currencies which can be exchanged for the local currency at the going world rate.
and that one example from leftside demonstrates how the embargo affects other countries dealings with cuba -- and how the US has tried to apply its policies extraterritorial. that's why its illegal, and evil.
anonimo
what's evil, ano-nimo, is a military regime that refuses to listen to its peoples' cries for change and clings to a bankrupt system that produces only poverty and misery...and refugees.
Leftist and Anonimo,
Although I am glad that Elpidio Valdez has read my postings elsewhere, I would challenge him/her to produce any postings where I have advocated or justified any of the actions he/she details in his posting. Of course, I respect your right not to respond to my queries. I do not know who Elpidio Valdez is so I am not going to characterize him/her except to say that based on his/her posting I would not be surprised if you start finding postings signed with my handle advocating or justifying the activities he/she mentioned. I like to leave in this posting a clear statement that I do not advocate or justify any violent act against any government outside of a declaration of war between two parties but I do understand the social and historical conditions that may lead to them in the same way that I do understand acts of non-political violence even though I do not condone them.
I like to thank anonimo for his clear explanation of how he finds the embargo evil but I would point out to him that the embargo does not apply anymore to the actual trade of food and medicine except in its limitation on credit.
Anonimo,
Am I right in concluding that you can not identify a single civil liberty in Cuba that is not subject to limitations? Also if the UN Declaration of Human Rights is not the appropriate reference for human rights, what would you propose that we use as a reference?
Vecino de NF
anon 1008 -- hey don't be so hard on the american eco-politico system. -- its far from perfect but they do their best
anonimo, hyphen less.
yeah right, ano, all that misery and poverty and refugees....
vecino
re others comments of your postings. everyone has an opinion and i deal with you as i feel appropriate. im glad you feel that way re violent acts; assume you condemn the 50 years of terrorism waged against cuba. his point is you never acknowledge any good in cuba, and i can't say he's wrong. you seem absolutely scared to death of the prospect of normal relations, and one can only assume its because you support those who want to force change from without for (mostly ) economic control reasons, instead of working for reform within.
embargo -- so then why have it? purchase of foods is conditioned on many restrictions, but there is no two way trade. so don't try and suggest the embargo still doesn't have affect. and its not just food, its every other commercial transaction. and do you agree it should have extra territorial applications (lets hope he answers that one.) the embargo from day one was designed to harm the cuban people --as acknowledged by the state dept -- and that is evil. the embargo is rarely recognized as to the harm it does, all the while opponents point to cuba's economic hardships.
re human rights, my point is perspective. the UN declaration is of great importance, but that doesn't mean it can't be defined in various ways. we live in a complex world. are you saying that food, shelter, education and health are not human rights? again, you never seem to answer direct -- can you not see there is a difference between human rights and political rights. for a developing country the basic needs have to be met first -- political development is impossible without economic advancement. and economic advancement is impossible without national security. because certain human rights were narrowly defined by first world framers does it have to be taken as gospel by third world realities? thats as arrogant as to say the american system is the one the rest of the world has to follow --oh wait that's what they've been trying to do for the past 50 years.
civil rights are restricted in cuba, i never said they weren't. i wish they weren't, and the vast majority of those living in cuba want them lifted. i object to the govt restricting civil rights. but my position is there is rationale (whether you agree with it or not) from the govt side. based on threats to national security, and every govt in history has reacted the same way. and id rather see the govt try and deal best they can with the food, housing, health and education rights. the people of DR, Haiti have civil rights, and many have the right to starve, have no access to health or higher education, and live in shacks. so no system in developing countries is perfect, but cuba has always been america's special target for such levels of viscous approbation.
why is it perceived to be so easy to condemn the cuban govt for seeing things differently, for prioritizing things that you and others object to -- and there is a lot of rabid gusanos out there that just will never admit any good in cuba. that's ridiculous and thank goodness their kind will soon be passed by forever.
now its your turn to answer this is the last time i'll ask -- how would you suggest the cuban govt respond to protect itself and its citizens from the terrorist war, the embargo, the isolation, the threats to regime change, the invasion, the unrelenting hostility and demands from the worlds greatest power. if you answer it sans obtuse, without obfuscation, then we can continue. specifics, not meaningless generalities that don't address the realities of life.
anonimo
Anonimo,
I have been trying to find common ground. I am sorry if you think that results in "meaningless generalities". I will repeat again: I look forward to normal relations between the US and Cuban governments and I am personally indiferent to whether that happens or not so I can afford to try to be objective. It doesn't scare me at all but I do not think that it can happen without a give and take from both sides. Right now I think that main obstacle to furthering the process is the Cuban government. It needs to make the next move. It doesn't have to be a concesion to the USA. It just have to be a move that requires recognition by the USA that Cuba wants to normalize relations.
I am sorry that you could not cite any document other than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a reference on human rights. That makes any discussion on the topic pretty much aimless. How can we compare the declaration to any other standard if no such standard is available? It could be a speech, a poem, anything but without it we must rely on UDHR as the only reference. I do not agree that one can pick and choose which human rights are important without another reference.
As far as not finding anything good in the actions of the Cuban government, I would explain that my problem in that area is that the Cuban government does not allow any critical assesment of anything in Cuba so being an skeptic by nature I can not bring myself to rely on its rosy assesments of anything in Cuba. (Many times I have encountered hypersensitive responses to simple observations.) Let's take as an example infant mortality! Cuba has declared that they have brought down infant mortality (deaths within a year after birth) to a very low level by any standard. That is laudable but there is no way to confirm it through an independent analysis. We must rely on Cuban government statistics. My experience has always been that a second set of independent eyes improve the statistical process, and more importantly it validates it. Approving independent analysts based on their political trustworthiness destroys the trustworthiness of their analyses.
I welcome critiscism even when I disagree with it as evidenced by my postings here and elsewhere because they help me better understand my ideas. Why can't the Cuban government adopt the same position as a matter of public policy instead of taking any critiscism as an existential threat to it? Much of the dissent in Cuba since the Padilla trial is homegrown within the Revolution. That the dissenters have to go abroad to communicate their views within Cuba is a major failure of the current government. An argument is won on its merits not by shouting down or shutting up the dissenter. I grant you that audiences can be manipulated but I suspect that they like human beings grow up and mature into acute discerners of truth. I suspect that the Cuban government does not trust the Cuban audience's ability to agree with it, and that's why all these human rights issues come forth.
I hope we can keep talking. If not, it's been real like they say on the West Coast. I'll keep commenting and responding to specific postings until I am barred from the blog so do not be surprised if I address you even if you ignore me.
Still not foaming at the mouth and hoping not to be too obtuse (either under meaning a or meaning b)!
Vecino de NF
Yeah, perhaps Vecino can tell us how the US Government would handle Iran, Cuba, Hezbollah or North Korea actively funding and supporting subversive groups and individuals in the US. Or, given that CANF was up to its knees in terrorism up to a few years ago, how Cuba should treat dealings with that group - and others that advocate regime change by any means necessary?
Anonimo,
I have no idea what should be the Cuban government's next move but I would venture that if they release the 200 or so prisoners of conscience (as defined by AI) to their families in Cuba the US government would reciprocate in a way that the Cuban government's request. That request should be in the form of a written communication to the US Secretary of State from the Cuban Foreign Minister that it wishes that the US names a special envoy to open a permanent and direct dialogue between both governments. The first measure would allow the USA government some domestic cover while not jeopardizing the Cuban government's internal security (there is enough MININT personnel to keep tabs on the released prisoners.) The second (btw the letter could be given to read not to keep) would allow for the setting of the agenda. Ultimately the negotiations would have to be conducted by large teams but designating special envoys would allow both sides to know that what they are saying is being communicated to the principals not to the bureaucracy. I would also suggest that the contacts be held in an out of the way third country accesible to both (Belize or some of the Lesser Antilles might be the ideal place if privacy is desired.) Eventually negotiations must be held near Havana and Washington.
Hope this answers your question! Just an opinion not a political prescription!
Sorry I lost your question in my previous response!
Vecino de NF
Leftside,
The countries or groups that you mention (Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Hezbollah) have actively funded and supported subversive groups and individuals against US interests in the US and abroad. The way you handle this is by making sure that none of their plans come through, but you must eventually engage them with a hope that they renounce their hostile intentions. That was the case with Al Fatah, Lybia, and the Baath Party in Iraq. The last time that I check neither of the first two can be called US stooges. The third one remains to be seen how it behaves after the pullout from Iraq. All three are as self centered as ever except now they are not advocating terrorism.
I do not know of a single insurgency that has come to a negotiated end without the recognition by the standing government of the grievances and rights of the insurgents. The Cuban government does not want to do that. This is evident in its continous vituperation either directly or through its surrogates against the Cubans either in Cuba or abroad who do not agree with it.
As far as condemning terrorism, you can read my previous postings. I would respectfully suggest to you that you do not characterize me but rather address my comments on their merits. It appears to have help in my communciations with my very acute fellow poster, Anonimo.
Vecino de NF
there is UN verifiable organizations re cuban health care accomplishments, level of literacy, etc etc.
the cuba govt certainly reports the bad news; failure of sugar crops, damage from hurricanes, industries losing money; goals not met. so believing the bad but not the good is the height of politics.
still awaiting your answer re how cuban govt should have reacted to american hostile policies and national security threats for the past 50 years. awaiting, but not hopeful.
when the US ends war on cuba then maybe the govt will treat its 'insurgents' 'dissidents' or whatever differently. the US is at 'war' with islam extremists. if cells were found in US how would they react? through accommodation or recognition as you suggest. is US recognizing their grievances or rights? no, they torture them. nice moral authority you got there.
anonimo
Anonimo,
I know that we have a difference of opinion about what came first: the attack on US interests by the Cuban government or the US attempts to subvert the Castro government, but I am going to argue that that process is part of history, and that the US government in 2009 is very different from the US government in 1959. The US government in the last few years have prosecuted those that try to attack Cuba from US terrritory, and although has supported internal dissent in Cuba it has done it in a rather transparent way. The question remains what is the Cuban government prepared to do now in view that the current US administration is ready to normalize relations. I have already answered your question about what the Cuban government should do next but it appears to me that they are not ready to do anything except make public pronouncements.
BTW morality is never part of politics, and also remember the problem with the US response to Al-Qaeda is that it has to deal with a non-governmental foreign entity which by definition falls outside of the bounds of both domestic and international law so the government has to make it up as it goes. So as far as moral authority in cases like this all you can argue about is whether the ends jusify the means. Not nice but like you said those are the realities of life. This is very different that issues arising between two governments or between a government and an insurgent populations.
Vecino de NF
"The ration book is able to provide somewhere between 35% and 50% of needed calories"
It's evident you don't have to live out of the "libreta".
I give up, say whatever you want.
Joel,
The discussion on the libreta reminds me of a joke about a guy who asks for food because he says he is hungry. Instead of food he is forced to drink glass after glass of water. After drinking 10 glasses of water, he is offered food which he declines claiming he is full. At that point the person who gave him the water, promptly declares that he was not hungry just thirsty. I found you insight on how the libreta affects your family credible. Don't give up, just state the facts over, and over, and over ... again! If nothing else you will have added to the record that the world is not as some others would say it is. Look at the bright side, nobody insulted you ... so far!
Vecino de NF
and my inlaws in cuba appreciates the libretra, with all its deficiencies, because it does help, it doesn't hurt. and my close friend in havana knows it doesn't cover all, but he understands what it is meant to be. so what the heck is your point? if the libreta only provided 5 per cent is that not better than nothing? it is a sick
perspective that constantly tries to diminish any effort regardless of intentions.
i know 60 families in cuba that don't want the libreta to stop, you know 100 that do? so the point is what???? NO ONE ever said the libreta solves all problems. but it is better than nothing. or is that a concept just too far beyond comprehension. geese guys, pick on something else. because you're looking like fools over this one.
ya bastante
anonimo
i used to live in honduras. i would have killed for a ratio book that covered ANY thing.
you are sick making fun of something that is a positive and trying to turn it into something negative.
gusanos puros
Anonymous 5:04PM,
Where do you live now? If you do not live in Cuba, I take it that you prefer more opportunities to provide for yourself rather than the government providing for you. But I may be wrong. Please elaborate.
My point was to make fun of the way that Joel's point of view (the libreta rations was not enough for his relatives in Cuba) was dismissed. If he said that they said that the libreta was not enough to meet their needs, it's not enough for them, period. No need to tell Joel or his family that it is enough for them.
I have no problem with a society providing food assistance to those that can not provide for themselves. My biggest objection to the libreta in Cuba is that it applies to everyone, and for a long time getting anything outside of the libreta was illegal. That started to be relaxed in the 1970s but in some fashion or other is still the way that things operate in Cuba (what is not allowed is prohibited, what is allowed is mandatory). This has caused an extreme dislocation between productive potential and standards of living in Cuba (heard about the medical doctor who could make more money as a taxi driver, or the teacher that would be better off as a waitress.) This sort of dislocation is not healthy for any society.
BTW the libreta was not the gringos' idea. That was an entirely homegrown revolutionary idea.
Still unrabid after all these posts!
Vecino de NF
so you perceive the libreta to be part of the problem re standards of living in cuba. so before the revolution the libreta wouldn't have been a help. so there is no dislocation in first world -- i guess new immigrants with doctor and lawyer degrees don't end up driving cabs anywhere else but in cuba.
keep dancing vecino, but i'm starting to agree with valdez
and why won't you answer the question i keep asking, it appears there is more than reluctance. ignoring it just indicates acquiescence. and its getting tiring.
anonimo
Anonimo,
What was your question again?
Vecino de NF
Another Triumph of the Revolution: the Libreta!
Post a Comment