"Thank You for C-Span"

Just like last week's PBS Newshour discussion with Roger Noriega and Peter Kornbluh, C-Span's Washington Journal program yesterday (Oct. 30) tackled US policy towards Cuba with guests Frank Calzon (executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba) and Elsa Falkenburger (program officer at the Washington Office on Latin America).

Yesterday's discussion (video available here, with discussion beginning at 52:40), was another example of the kind of programming missing in Miami. By presenting opposing viewpoints in a televised forum (and with calls from viewers), C-Span has provided an excellent public service that is rarely copied, especially in Miami where the US/Cuba discussion should be paramount.

At the end of the Washington Journal discussion on US/Cuba policy, C-Span mentioned an upcoming special program on US policy towards Cuba. This future program is scheduled for November 19th at 7pm EST, and will included video from Cuba and several interviews. Given that C-Span makes great effort to present various points of view in a fair manner, this upcoming program should be worth waiting for.

It should also be noted that, along with Cuban political prisoner Oscar Elias Biscet, Brian Lamb, the founder of C-Span, will be receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom next month.

Imperious Attitudes (Part 2)

I hardly watch my PBS channel, so thanks to the US-Cuba Normalization blog I noticed that the PBS Newshour last Wednesday had a good segment on Bush's recent Cuba speech.

The discussion on the Newshour was about US policy towards Cuba, and the show had invited Roger Noriega (visiting fellow at the "hard-line" American Enterprise Institute, and "governmental affairs professional" with Tew-Cardenas LLP) and Peter Kornbluh (director of the Cuba Documentation Project, which has helped produce several revealing books and important accounts related to Cuban history). Putting both experts together (who each hold opposing viewpoints on Cuba policy) is an example of the fair debate and discussion that should be common in democratic societies. But, note that such debates and discussions hardly occur in Miami's local media.

I urge readers to read or view the discussion on their time, especially since I will concentrate on one point: Roger Noriega's view that US policy towards Cuba is based on threats. On last Wednesday's Newshour discussion, Noriega interpreted Bush's recent speech:

"I think the U.S. is the most influential country in the world from the standpoint of Cuba. The president made that point to the [Cuban] military leaders, the would-be repressors [sic]. He made the point to the Cuban people that this is the time for a national reconciliation and to their oppressors: If you get in the way, it would be a tragedy, for one thing, if one more drop of blood, of Cuban blood, is shed in the service of this failed Fidel Castro, this project of Fidel Castro's, and they will be held accountable."

"Those are the sorts of messages and the message that we will use our leverage, economic and political relations, as an incentive to reform and a reward to people who bring about real change in Cuba."

It's not difficult to understand how the Cuban government (and even its citizens) feel threatened by a possible US intervention, especially when a former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs (2003-2005) is revealing the hidden assumptions of current US policy-makers.

But, beyond the US government, Cuban officials also have to worry about threats from organizations in Miami. Jorge Mas Santos, chairman of the Cuban American National Association (CANF), yesterday appeared on the local Maria Elvira Live! program and discussed the organizations plan to overthrow Raul Castro.

Currently, CANF is viewed negatively by "intransigent" hard-line exiles in Miami because they introduced an idea for "negotiations" with some Cuban government officials, and also are opposed to Cuban family travel and remittance restrictions. But, they still firmly believe "that talks with a post-Castro government should not be held until certain conditions are met." Since the death of the original CANF chairman, Jorge Mas Canosa, and the subsequent splitting of some of its former members, CANF has introduced a new plan of action.

According to Jorge Mas Santos (son of Jorge Mas Canosa), CANF is open to "negotiations" with Cuba's political leaders (especially the "young military men") who wish to initiate the overthrow of the Raul and Fidel Castro power structure. The exception here is that CANF won't hold "negotiations" with those who have "blood on their hands." According to Mas Santos, CANF has spent the last "five years" establishing communication lines to the Cuban political elite, whereby they feel confident in presenting their plan "directly or indirectly" to plot an overthrow.

It should be made clear that what CANF is presenting to some in Cuba's military oligarchy is not a dialogue (firmly reject by Mas Santos) or negotiations, but rather valuable incentives to plan a coup from Miami. On yesterday's show, the host Maria Elvira Salazar asked what were the incentives to the young Cuban military men brave enough to attempt such an action. Mas Santos responded with a possible monetary reward that would go beyond the offers of the Raul Castro government, and also other intangibles like admiration and respect in a post-Castro Cuba.

But, Jorge Mas Santos made sure to describe these plans ("negotiations") as "non-violent."

[Part 1]

Imperious Attitudes (Part 1)

Yesterday, there was interesting commentary from some hard-liners related to Bush's recent Cuba policy speech.

Alberto De la Cruz from the Babalu Blog wonders if there's really any difference between the moral support of sanctions policy against South African Apartheid in the 80's and US sanctions policy now. There are plenty of differences, but its astonishing that most hard-liners cannot grasp them. The most obvious moral difference is the fact that the US administration at the time was initially opposed to sanctions towards South Africa (here's a chronology). Then-Pres. Reagan was actually calling for "constructive engagement" since the beginning of his term in 1981. By 1985, after years of pressure from international organizations, South African riots and UN resolutions for sanctions, the US Congress finally decided that it was time to follow the lead. That's one moral difference.

The basic political difference is the fact that multilateral sanctions were imposed on South Africa, not a unilateral embargo like the one imposed on Cuba by the US. And, even so, the multilateral sanctions imposed did not immediately end the Apartheid system in South Africa, as the economy sought ways to divert the "economic pain." In 1997, a book titled "Political Gain and Civilian Pain: Humanitarian impacts of economic sanctions" highlighted how the sanctions on South Africa had many negative effects on the civilian population, adding to what they were already suffering. It was around this time that international sanctions policy in general was being doubted and questioned. Today, the literature on sanctions is quite vast in investigation and opinion. That's also another moral consideration to compare.

Comparing South African and Cuban sanction policy, both originate from an understandable moral outrage. But, similarly we should consider what is the best policy option if we want to encourage change: unilateral, multilateral, sanctions or inducements. Furthermore, there are psycho-political considerations, especially between former colonial powers and their former subjects, in these cases there are plenty of examples.

But, some commentators don't understand this paradigm of super-power vs former subject. Carlos Alberto Montaner yesterday refused to acknowledge this fact as he praised Bush's Cuba speech. Montaner believes that the US is on the "ethical side of the conflict" with the Cuban government as the appropriate target of US pressure. But, its a very different picture around the world, as well as moral.

Also yesterday, US Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart appeared on the local show "This Week in South Florida" (WPLG) with Michael Putney. As one of the "select group" that met with Bush in preparation for his Cuba speech, Rep. Diaz-Balart made many revelations regarding the assumptions held by hard-liners. Putney asked some standard questions such as why should we support such an old and ineffective policy. Rep. Diaz-Balart actually told Putney that Fidel Castro is still an "omnipotent ruler" even if he succumbs to a coma! Diaz-Balart also revealed the imperious attitude behind Bush's speech: he said that US policy towards Cuba is "the only solution" to change on the island and that the rest of the international community "is making a mistake" by not supporting Bush.

As the old saying goes: "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak." (John Adams)

[Part 1]

Bush's Gettysburg (Part 4)

Plenty of additional commentary and information about Bush's new speech on Cuba policy arrived this weekend.

On Friday, Miami Herald's Alfonso Chardy reported on the preparation for Bush's speech and how Cuban exile hard-liners in Miami helped. According to Chardy, there was a "select group of 10 who met with Bush in Miami on Oct. 12." George W. Bush was in Miami on October 12, scheduled to give a speech at the downtown Radisson about "expanding trade and investment" with Latin America. While the majority of the speech dealt with recent trade deals concerning Peru, Colombia and Panama, Bush also had time to elaborate about strengthening "the forces of freedom and democracy throughout the Americas", which included a few words on Cuba: "And the vision I have for our hemisphere includes a free and democratic Cuba." This comment was followed with an audience member yelling out: "Viva Bush!"

Alfonso Chardy provided additional information to what Ninoska Pérez Castellón was already telling Radio Mambi listeners two days before. After Bush's speech on Wednesday, Pérez Castellón was mentioning on her 3pm show how she helped arrange some of the meetings on Oct. 12th with Bush and the families of the political prisoners mentioned. Including Pérez Castellón and Radio Mambi's programming director Armando Perez Roura, Chardy includes "Remedios Díaz Oliver of the U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC and the Liberty Council; former state Rep. Gastón Cantens, and Florida's Republican Cuban-American lawmakers, Sen. Mel Martínez and Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln and Mario Díaz-Balart" as part of the "select group of 10."

It's pretty clear to see whose voices were represented in Bush's speech. Chardy also presents some interesting quotes, such as Armando Pérez Roura saying: "I said to [Bush] that for me he was the last hope of Cubans in exile and that we were concerned by the rapprochement [the Cuban regime] was pursuing, without instituting any change." I found this quote as either an honest sign of desperation by one of Miami's most hard-line voices, or another desperate attempt to coax Bush into supporting a hard-line position.

Also, according to Chardy, "[o]fficials familiar with the discussions, who declined to be identified because they did not want to talk publicly about internal deliberations, said the speech was in the works for months." This makes some sense. I found out that the cheesy line in Bush's Wednesday speech that goes "the light of liberty will shine on Cuba" goes back to April 28 when Bush said the same thing delivering a commencement address at the Miami Dade College. And, the inclusion of families of Cuban political prisoners, such as Yamile Llanes Labrada (wife of Jose Luis Garcia Paneque), was probably already being planned since early October given Labrada's appearance on Oct. 10th at the Rose Garden for the Hispanic Heritage Month celebration at the White House.

But, other things in the speech like the mention of Armando Valladares, a 22-year Cuban political prisoner, and the "tropical gulag" descriptor go back years! Valladares released a popular book in 1986 originally titled "Against All Hope: The Prison Memoirs of Armando Valladares", which recounts his torture in Cuba's prisons. The book helped coin the phrase "Castro's gulag" since "gulag" seemed the most apt for the time. Then-Pres. Reagan made sure to include Valladares in his speech on Dec. 1986 to designate Human Rights Day. The following year, Pres. Reagan nominated Valladares as a US representative to the UN. The Cuban government became fiercely opposed to the appointment. Today, Valladares' book is subtitled "A Memoir of Life in Castro's Gulag." Since then, Valladares has been repeatedly mentioned in other Reagan speeches, including remarks celebrating Cuban Independence Day (May 20th, 1902), a gesture also copied by former Pres. George H.W. Bush. ("Tropical Gulag" may have been coined by Global Options in 1987 with the publication of "Tropical Gulag: The Construction of Cold War Images of Cuba in the United States.")

But, in general, Bush's speech is unchanged since 2001 when celebrating Cuban Independence Day in the White House said: "History tells us that forcing change upon repressive regimes requires patience." Patience indeed! And, so we wait, just like Presidents before.

Carl Hiassen yesterday in the Herald characterized it well: "Bush's speech was recycled from his father, who recycled it from Ronald Reagan, who recycled it from Richard Nixon, who recycled it from Lyndon Johnson, who recycled it from John F. Kennedy." He's right.

(Babalu Blog's Henry Gomez has a rebuttal to Hiassen's column.)

[Part 1]

Bush's Gettysburg (Part 3)

After his inaccurate historical introduction, President Bush coins the basic theme of his Cuba policy speech: "Nuestro Dia Ya Viene Llegando" (Our Day is Coming Soon). Or, as I translate it: Let's wait and do nothing.

The background on the coined phrase comes from a 1991 Willy Chirino song, coincidentally titled "Nuestro Dia (Ya Viene Llegando)" [Spanish lyrics], which became quite popular in Cuba. Alex from the Stuck on the Palmetto blog describes well the personal and significant meaning of this song, and at the time when Cuba was undergoing difficult changes. It was also a time when many Cuba experts were expecting big changes in Cuba, and hard-liners were seizing the opportunity to further squeeze the island with sanctions.

Following this, Pres. Bush introduces us to his administration: Sec. Condoleeza Rice (who is the Chair of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba), Amb. John Negroponte (Director of National "Intelligence", who almost a year ago said that Fidel Castro only had "months" to live), and Sec. Carlos Gutierrez (who last month inaugurated a series at the Heritage Foundation supporting the US embargo, and which currently supports Congressional "hearings on ways that current [Cuban] threats to U.S. national security can be eliminated and market-based democracy can be promoted in post-Castro Cuba").

Next, Pres. Bush introduces his favorite members of Congress: Sen. Martinez, Reps. Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Thaddeus McCotter, and Tim Mahony (all US Reps. who this July voted against the recent Rangel Amendment that simply sought to overturn a 2005 banking restriction on US farmers legally trading with Cuba).

(Pres. Bush also mispronounced Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's name too. He said "Leythien" as he read the name off his hard copy. Almost twenty years in Congress, and we get "Leythien"? Even I'm offended.)

[Part 4]

Bush's Gettysburg (Part 2)

In his Wednesday speech, after the first paragraph praising the US State Department, President Bush begins the second paragraph with an accurate remark: "Few issues have challenged this department -- and our nation -- longer than the situation in Cuba." After this sentence, it's all downhill.

Bush begins his speech with an inaccurate premise: "Nearly half a century has passed since Cuba's regime ordered American diplomats to evacuate our embassy in Havana. This was the decisive break of our diplomatic relations with the island, a troubling signal for the future of the Cuban people, and the dawn of an unhappy era between our two countries." Bush's history is quite incomplete here in reference to the "decisive break".

Months before the "decisive break", US/Cuba relations were already bad with the US imposing an embargo on Cuba on October 19, 1960. It was on January 3, 1961 that the Cuban government sent a telegram to the US Embassy in Havana telling them that their personnel "should not exceed eleven persons." A recent Fidel Castro speech "contended that the U.S. embassy was a nest of spies and demanded that the staff be reduced from 87 to 11." Why eleven? Eleven was the same number of Cuban personnel working at the Cuban Embassy in Washington at the time.

According to the US State Department's website, it was the US that, "in response to Castro's provocations, broke diplomatic relations on January 3, 1961." Not Cuba. It should also be added that by March of 1960 (NINE months before the "decisive break"), the US government was already secretly planning for and training guerrilla forces to overthrow the Cuban government.

Someone needs a history lesson.

[Part 3]

Bush's Gettysburg (Part 1)

So, let's get down to it. President Bush's new speech on Cuba policy was met with predictable reactions. After the speech, Radio Mambi was in a celebratory mood as Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart and Sen. Mel Martinez called in to Ninoska Perez-Castellon's 3pm show. BOTH described the speech as "historic." Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, of course, went ahead and compared the speech to Reagan's famous call for "freedom" on June 12th, 1987 in West Berlin. Henry Gomez at the Babalu Blog also couldn't help but make the same Reagan comparison. (Gomez also inaccurately wrote that the speech lasted about 40 minutes, when his own video link times the speech at about 30 minutes.)

Ironically, I think the Reagan comparison is apt. Looking back at George W. Bush's policy towards Cuba, not since Reagan's administration (1981-1989) has such confrontational rhetoric been spoken. (Still, in my opinion, Clinton's administration was far more aggressive and destructive in actual policy.) Recall Reagan's State Sec. Alexander Haig describing Cuba as "the source" of the communist threat in Central America.

Back in 1980, a report titled "A New Inter-American Policy of the Eighties" by the Committee of Santa Fe (Council for Inter-American Security) laid out the basic plan for Reagan's Cuba policy. With the fear of a communist threat coming from Cuba, the Committee of Santa Fe put it bluntly:

"If propaganda fails, a war of national liberation against Castro must be launched. The second alternative will be to encourage the Cubans to make a radical shift in their foreign policy... [W]e should make it clear that if the Cuban-Soviet alliance is ended, the United States will be generous.... Thus Havana must be presented with two clear options. It is free to choose either, but the United States must carry out the threat or the promise with equal vigor."

Currently, Bush's Cuba policy is a slight modification, emphasizing more the "generous" part (the so-called Freedom Fund for Cuba), without the obvious threat of "national liberation" connected to the old Soviet threat. But, note that according to the hard-line, (even without a Soviet threat, as if it mattered) Cuba still poses a "threat to US national security." In essence, current US policy towards Cuba is nothing but a Reagan rerun. This would also explain how hard-liners currently praise George W. Bush, and see him as a worthy successor to the Reagan legacy. But, even more astonishing, this morning I also heard Armando Perez Roura actually compare Bush's speech yesterday to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address! Yikes!

Anyway, let's analyze Bush's Gettysburg.

[Part 2]