Sen. Norm Coleman has an excellent piece in the Miami Herald about why he no longer supports open trade with Cuba. As he puts it:
I continue to believe that both tides of change are inevitable. Thanks to the brave efforts of people such as Payá and others, Cuba will change someday. And I am equally certain that the United States one day will lift its embargo and travel restrictions.
I want to go back to Cuba. I want to enjoy its beautiful beaches and to engage its welcoming people. I want two million Americans tourists to spend money in Cuba and lift up its economy — but not while Chepe, de Miranda and many others serve unjust prison sentences for seeking freedom.
The United States should end its embargo on Cuba when the Cuban government ends its embargo on its own people.
Castro, let your imprisoned dissidents go — and when you do, I will gladly join the chorus of people seeking to end the travel ban and trade embargo.
What Coleman saw clearly effected him, and given the horrible human rights record in Cuba that is not terrifically surprising. However, there is still a persuasive argument that says that the best way of liberating the Cuban people is through a policy of constructive engagement. However, the economic issue is only one issue.
Fidel Castro is not viewed as the tyrant that he is by many in the world. Governments in South America and Europe have given him a legitimacy that he does not deserve. So long as this continues, Cuba will not change regardless of our trade policy towards that nation.
Until Castro’s regime is treated with the same sense of moral outrage that was placed on the Soviet bloc by brave dissidents like Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Pope John Paul II the situation in Cuba will not change. Castro is a tyrant, and deserves condemnation for being so. Unless pressure is put on Castro, any benefits of trade will go towards reinforcing his regime rather than helping the Cuban people.
I thought that the Eastern bloc fell because they all wanted to be like the West. If we trade with Cuba, the Cubans living there (as opposed to those living in Florida who are the only ones who truly believe the embargo is working) will see how good their lives can be and will finally over-throw Fidel. If materialism worked for the Florida Cubans it will work twice as well with the Cuba Cubans.
I like this stance: it’s the exact same stance held by Howard Dean.
That is one theory, and there are persuasive arguments to be made for that stance.
On the other hand, the question is will a policy of constructive engagement be effective? Clearly that’s the path we took with China, and China has made some tentative reforms (although not nearly as many as one would like) in regards to Hong Kong and economic liberalization. Would such a policy work in Cuba? I am honestly unsure that it would, but I remain open to evidence.
As I’m fond of saving, even a broken clock is right twice a day…
“As I’m fond of saving, even a broken clock is right twice a day…”
…which puts a broken clock slightly ahead of jayreding.com.
Oh, and for the record, or the four brave men you mentioned (Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Pope John Paul II), have any of them ever endorsed the US stance towards Cuba, or have they all recognized that, since our ideas are better, we should be waging intellectual and not economic war with Castro by engaging Cubans in dialogue with the US? Just wondering, what with you deputizing into your argument at least one Pope that’s visited Cuba in an attempt to help call attention to the suffering still permeating the island, despite our sanctions.