"A call to dialogue"

Palabra Nueva published an interesting interview with Cardinal Jaime Ortega last week; the text is here (pdf), AP’s coverage is here, and Cuban Colada translated excerpts here.

At the Havana Note, Tom Garofalo wrote a very useful explanation of the meaning behind some of the terms the Cardinal used when he expressed his desire for dialogue in the interest of the common good of the Cuban nation.

Cardinal Ortega focused mainly on the situation inside Cuba, discussing Cuba’s sharp economic difficulties, and stating his view that there is basically a “kind of national consensus” on changes that are urgently needed to address them.

He is not swooning over President Obama. He makes a modest assessment of the new President’s actions toward Cuba, saying that “important steps were taken that modified some counterproductive measures imposed by the previous Administration.” But when it comes to dialogue, he said:

“…with time the campaign proposal was changed. The old policy prevailed again: to begin at the end. I am convinced that the first step should be to meet and talk and, as the dialogue advances, steps could be taken to improve difficult situations or to overcome the most critical points.”

In other words, President Obama has it backwards.

And Cardinal Ortega gives the issue of U.S.-Cuba dialogue more importance than one might guess.

The remarks cited above came in response to this question: “Do you truly believe that the conflict with the United States affects the lives of Cubans in a decisive way?” His answer began, “I believe a Cuba-United States dialogue would be the first step needed to break the critical circle in which we find ourselves.” That sounds as if he’s saying that the state of Cuba’s relationship with the United States affects the country’s internal dynamics. He wouldn’t be the first Cuban to express that opinion, but it would be interesting to know why he thinks that is the case.

Finally, the Cardinal described the coverage of Orlando Zapata’s death as a “war of words of the communications media of the United States, Spain, and others.” He went on to say that the coverage constituted “a form of media violence” to which the government reacted “in its own way.” I understand and support the Cardinal’s idea that dialogue all around would be a good idea. But news is news, and coverage of it isn’t “violence.”