Debate at USA Today

USA Today has posted a debate on the US embargo towards Cuba. The editors have made their argument against the embargo, and Radio Mambi's Ninoska Perez-Castellon argues for. Below is a brief summary.

USA Today argues:

"The embargo has failed embarrassingly in its original intention of removing communist dictator Fidel Castro from power and triggering a rush to democracy... Over the longer term, the new administration would do better to model Cuba policy on longstanding U.S. policy toward China. U.S. leaders have long held that engaging with China is the best way to foster more political freedoms. An Obama administration would still need to pressure the Castro regime hard to release political prisoners and allow more human rights...Relationships between nations, as in extended families, are shaped by history. When the reasons for old antagonisms are lost in the mists of time and are counterproductive, probing new approaches makes sense."

Perez-Castellon argues:

"There seems to be a renewed interest in lifting the embargo and normalizing relations with Cuba... To do so, would mean that the countless crimes committed by [the Cuban government] would be ignored and, what is worse, the existing ones would become acceptable... The fact is that for the embargo or the additional sanctions to be lifted, certain steps must be taken: Respect for human rights, the release of all political prisoners and free and democratic elections. It's the Cuban regime that must change, not U.S. policy."


In a nutshell, Perez-Castellon is saying that we should continue waiting for changes inside Cuba. How long we should wait is not stated. But, those who are familiar with Perez-Castellon's past comments know that she means the US should tighten sanctions further (maybe intervene militarily) and THEN we wait for a sign of weakness for the US to take advantage of.

On a related note, the Brookings Institution just released their recommendations concerning US policy towards Cuba. So far it looks GREAT. I will be reading them and posting them in a moment.

Breath of Hope

Cuban dissident, Miriam Leiva, last week wrote an article published by El Nuevo Herald. In it, she congratulates all Americans who participated in the recent Presidential election and sees the political process as an "aspiration" that she hopes to fulfill in the future for Cuba.

Concerning President-elect Barack Obama, Leiva writes that a "breath of hope emerged" ever since Obama proposed to lift travel sanctions on Cuban families. But, Leiva goes a bit further too.

"The free flow of visitors and the sending of remittances and packages would be in agreement with respect for human rights, that which the Cuba government is much criticized for violating, as well as being direct help to the most needy and promote the sharing of democratic ideas essential at this time, when urgent changes are needed in Cuba under the worst political, economic and social crisis in its history.

"But contacts should also be open to all people of North America. Tourism and academic, cultural, scientific and athletic exchanges should be commonplace. This doesn't mean the exporting of North American lifestyle [to Cuba], which perhaps the Cuban government would charge, but rather of natural ties between people that should have never been prevented."

[Full article in Spanish]

Congratulations Barack Obama

Yesterday was a memorable and historic day. Congratulations to Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joseph Biden.

Regarding US international relations, I share the hopes of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations. Here he is, in his own words, because I couldn't have said it better.

[Excerpt]

As Secretary-General of the UN, I look forward to working with the new administration to fulfill our common goals and enormously important objectives. This is, I believe, an historic opportunity.

During the campaign, I remember the President-elect speaking eloquently and with passion about "change you can believe in." He spoke about a "new era of global partnership" and building "bridges of cooperation with the UN and other nations."

"No country has a stronger stake in a strong United Nations," he said. And he added, if I may quote some more, "True partnership requires sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy, of progress and peace. It requires partners who listen to one another, learn from each other and, most important, trust each other."

I am confident, today, about future relations between the United Nations and the United States. I am confident that we can look forward to an era of renewed partnership and a new multilateralism.

[Entire comments here]

Last Words

Finally.

Last post I forgot to include the excellent work of the Center for International Policy through their Cuba Program, and their recommendations for US-Cuba cooperation in drug interdiction. This and other cooperative efforts are found in the recent Melanie Ziegler book, "US-Cuban Cooperation Past, Present and Future."

Anyway, I will be keeping my eye on developments in Cuba and related US policy. There's always something happening. I hope to return in a year to review the developments and prognostications made by US-Cuba observers, namely four of them.

• Recently, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, warned the Armed Services Committee that internal Cuban instability "is something we need to watch over the next six or seven months."

• Last July, Andy Gomez, senior fellow at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, said in a PBS interview: "I say that Raul [Castro]-like many of my colleagues that watch Cuba on a regular basis-Raul's in charge of the day to day operations. Raul's got six months to a year to bring about some positive change. I'm not talking political reform. Minimal economic reforms. If he doesn't, then I dare to say, that you can have a large migration out of Cuba." Gomez predicts a worst case scenario of half a million migrants.

• Last September, Phil Peters from the Lexington Institute was interviewed on the Maria Elvira Live! show. [Watch the interview here.] He said: "I predict... there's no guarantees, no proof, but the sensation I now have is that there are many things being done [in Cuba] to prepare for an economic change, that within a year we will see initial steps [toward change]. Regardless if Fidel remains alive or not."

• And then, there's a very dire prediction made by a Cuban historian (hint) who over the phone, last year, told me: "in two years... the blood is gonna flow" in Cuba. Obviously a militant.

So, I look forward to returning. In the meantime, keep updated with the blog list on the side, especially with the Cuban Triangle Blog, and best wishes to all.

The Cuba "Threat" (Part 1)

Back in the eighties, amidst the Cold War, most policy analysts focused on Cuba as a potential international threat. The Heritage Foundation was among the many who made it a priority to point this out. But, once Cold War rhetoric dissipated (and with the Cuban economy left in ruins), it became a bit more difficult for hard-liners to continue painting Cuba as a potential threat to the US (or its neighbors). By 1998, US intelligence and defense agencies agreed that the Cuban military had been weakened and fit only for self-defense measures. But, some hard-liners have remained committed to argue that Cuba is still a threat to the US (some by recalling events from the Cold War). It's a simple and convenient image of Cuba as the enemy, and the US as the potential (and perhaps innocent) victim. This manipulation serves many political interests, but carries very dangerous consequences. As the US embargo continues to be dismantled, its supporters are likely to become desperate in their accusations against the Cuban government, potentially exploiting the current fears of the general public.

Last month, Frank Calzon from the Center for a Free Cuba appeared on the Diane Rehm Show with US Secretary of State Carlos Gutierrez. They made sure to remind the public that Cuba is still an enemy of the US.

Calzon: "The policy of the United States [towards Cuba] is driven by American interests. To come and say that it's not a concession to provide [Fidel] Castro with additional resources at a time when Cuba AND Venezuela are playing such a significant role in organizing and orchestrating against the United States in Latin America I think is missing the whole picture."

Sec. Gutierrez: "[Through the US embargo] We have denied resources to a regime that has declared itself from the very beginning an enemy of the US, and that has shown that any time they do have resources they will use them for means that are not in the interest of the US; whether it be overseas guerrilla groups or terrorist organizations or wars in Africa... But, one thing we will never know is what would [Fidel] Castro have been like, and what damage would he have done, had he had resources, and that's something we have prevented through our policy."

Of course, these comments are manipulations of the facts. Whenever a hard-liner makes an accusation about any enemy country they usually first set aside difficult realities because if these realities are actually spoken hard-line rhetoric is reduced to absurdity. Sec. Gutierrez realized this on the Diane Rehm Show after he made the mistake of incorporating facts with rhetoric.

Sec. Gutierrez: "So the President's policy has always been to support the people of Cuba, but not to support the regime. And we recognize that anything we do to support the regime, anything we do to help them, will just cement their power and their ability to repress the Cuban people. Now, I will say this, that we [the US] today supply about one-third of [Cuba's] food and medicine. The second source of revenue in Cuba is remittances from Cuban-Americans in Miami. So, ironically we have helped them more than we will ever get credit for, but we're not looking for that, but we have helped them a lot throughout the years."

Therefore, according to Sec. Gutierrez, Cuba is still an enemy, and US policy denies them resources, but our policy also "helps" them to "cement their power and their ability to repress the Cuban people." A repression which the US has helped with "a lot throughout the years." (Listen to the audio for a good laugh around the 30:00 mark.)

Facts are certainly a nuisance to hard-liners, especially when they are trying to accuse Cuba of being a threat to the US. The case of John Bolton, former US Undersecretary of State, is another example. In May 2002, he accused the Cuban government of having "at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort." His accusations made headlines as quickly as they attracted skepticism due to the obvious lack of evidence presented (in a speech at the Heritage Foundation). Analysts from the Center for Defense Information and the Center for International Policy quickly noted the manipulations made by Undersecretary Bolton. One month later, a Senate committee hearing provided sobering facts with testimony from Bolton's original source of intelligence: Carl Ford Jr., assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. At the Senate hearing Ford said [PDF]:

"Among the various weapons of mass destruction, biological warfare [BW] is perhaps the most difficult to clearly identify absent unambiguous, reliable intelligence information. Owing to the dual use nature of the technology and materials used to support a BW program, in today's world many nations including Cuba have in place robust biotechnology infrastructures as some of the world's best scientific talent has turned to this avenue of modern science to promote medical and agricultural advances in their countries."

"The nature of biological weapons makes it difficult to procure clear, incontrovertible proof that a country is engaged in the illicit biological weapons research, production weaponization and stockpiling. Cuba's sophisticated denial and deception practices make our task even more difficult. That said, we have a sound basis for our judgment that Cuba has at least a limited developmental offensive biological warfare research and development effort."

In 2004, after no "weapons of mass destruction" were found in Iraq, the US Intelligence community adopted stricter standards of threat assessments and "concluded that it is no longer clear that Cuba has an active, offensive bio-weapons program."

The latest threat assessment [PDF] by the US Director of National Intelligence did not mentioned these "limited developmental" programs. On the other hand, US intelligence seems more concerned with Cuba's internal problems, in which they conclude that Cuba is "likely to remain stable at least in the initial months" with Raul Castro as the new president.

But some hard-liners today seem to have a new strategy to again inculcate fear into the public about Cuba. (Thanks again to the work of the Heritage Foundation.) And this time they don't need to worry much about presenting evidence, public paranoia is enough to work with.

[Part 2]

Rohrabacher the Militant

Yesterday, Jay Weaver of the Miami Herald and Wilfredo Cancio Isla of El Nuevo Herald updated readers on developments of the Luis Posada Case. As you may know by now, Luis Posada Carriles is a militant Cuban exile who has been accused of terrorism. Writing and documentation about his violent history is extensive, and sufficient enough to raise the suspicions of any honest person.

But, Luis Posada Carriles has his defenders (dare I say "apologists"). I myself have found that most of Posada's defenders provide elaborate exonerations for him, but which are filled with many distortions and omissions. And, then there's Rep. Dana Rohrabacher from California.

This past November, the House Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight reviewed the case of Luis Posada Carriles. I recently finished viewing the almost 4-hour video of the meeting and it was very informative, and I highly recommend its viewing for those interested in the case. [Video and full transcript (PDF) available in the archives section for November 15, 2007.]

The Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts (long-time opponent of the US embargo towards Cuba), and includes ranking member Rep. Rohrabacher (long-time opponent of Communism). What a couple.

Rep. Rohrabacher is a complex man. He calls himself a defender of human rights, but supports the death penalty; a practice opposed by most human rights organizations. During the November meeting, Rep. Rohrabacher kept reiterating that "[a]nybody who is involved directly in killing innocent civilians in order to obtain a political end... that person is a murderer and should be executed." Rep. Rohrabacher also defends practices like extraordinary rendition, again in direct contradiction with human rights organizations who believe this practice is illegal.

Last April, Rep. Rohrabacher made some controversial comments in defense of extraordinary rendition during a subcommittee hearing (includes video):

"[W]e are at war, and we’ve got to make sure that we do not let go 50 terrorists who will go out and plant a bomb in London and kill 20,000 people in order to protect that one person who we arrested accidentally because his name was the same. That’s the type of unfortunate consequence.

[Audience groans.]

"Well, I hope it’s your families, I hope it’s your families that suffer the consequences."

But, this would all make sense if you understand that Rep. Rohrabacher is at war. Last June, Rep. Rohrabacher made a speech at the Dedication of the Victims of Communism Memorial. In his speech, he made it clear that communism was an "evil ideology that was a monstrous threat to the people of this planet for seven decades." But, since we defeated that monstrous threat, it's "fitting" that Americans now have a special duty: "Americans represent every race, religion and ethic group found on this planet, so it comes to us to take the stand, to lead the way in those battles that determine the fate of mankind." According to Rep. Rohrabacher, "there is a new scourge threatening the free people of the world in the form of radical Islam."

Just like Cuban exiles militants (who are still at war with communism), Rep. Rohrabacher is prepared to overlook (or deny) the violent sins of some in order to keep all eyes on the enemy. In doing so, it is more likely to be accepted that innocent people, in the margins, be sacrificed ("unfortunate consequence") in the name of a greater cause. Those who accept this doctrine are, thus, more likely to view men like Luis Posada Carriles as heroes who made great sacrifices for this great cause. As Rep. Rohrabacher put it:

"We remember them and we are grateful to those who put themselves in harm’s way and often gave their lives to protect the free people of the world , to prevent us from becoming victims of communism."

Needless to say, Posada's attorney, Arturo Hernandez, had expressed similar views about the "monstrous threat" in front of the Subcommittee last November:

"In the final analysis, the historical record is clear, Cuba has stood for years as a poisonous dagger aimed at the side of the United States. Mr. Posada Carriles, as an ally of the United States, does not deny that he confronted Cuban-trained and rebel insurgencies in Venezuela and in other countries in defense of their democracies."

Posada's alleged sins are then forgotten.

The two articles in the Herald and Nuevo Herald are incomplete summaries of the November Subcommittee hearing. I encourage readers to read the full transcript or view the video. The testimony by Ann Louise Bardach and Peter Kornbluh are together a convincing reason to further investigate this case, and seek answers for the victims of terrorist actions.

[Addendum: El Nuevo Herald includes a response letter (in English) by Rep. Rohrabacher about the November Subcommittee hearing. In the letter, Rep. Rohrabacher ignores the ample evidence presented by Ann Louise Bardach (testimony) and Peter Kornbluh (testimony), and makes his final judgment based on one single piece of evidence. In an apparent case of denial Rep. Rohrabacher concludes: "With due admiration and respect for Chairman Delahunt, the hearing of own our subcommittee was not definitive enough to convince me that Luis Posada Carriles is a murderous terrorist instead of a Cuban exile trying to bring democracy to his country and prevent Communist dictatorships from taking hold in other Latin America countries."]

Cuba Policy: Obama vs Clinton

I was again very satisfied to see that US policy towards Cuba was brought up in the debate last night in Austin, and happy to see that the leading Presidential Democrat candidates had different views on the matter. But, in my opinion, Sen. Barack Obama's comments were very impressive.

Last July, Sen. Obama made headlines when he responded to a YouTube question asking if he would meet "without precondition" and "during the first year" of his administration with leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba. Sen. Obama said yes. His reason: "the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous." Sen. Obama then added that diplomatic talks with Syria and Iran concerning missions in Iraq would help in "stabilizing the region."

Yesterday, he reiterated similar remarks, but with more focus on US policy towards Cuba, and with important clarifications. "[A]s a show of good faith," Sen. Obama would loosen the Cuban family travel and remittance restrictions imposed by the current administration, and be open to meeting "without preconditions" with the leaders of the Cuban government. But, he added that an "agenda" of calls for human rights, release of political prisoners and press freedoms would be prepared if such meetings would occur. Sen. Clinton, neck-and-neck Democrat challenger, did not show support for these specific and brave steps.

[Transcript of yesterday's Cuba policy debate provided by Presidential Candidate Cuba Watch]

Last July, Sen. Clinton called Sen. Obama's comments "irresponsible and frankly naive." Yesterday, Sen. Obama received applause for his position.

But, what I found most impressive was Sen. Obama's comments near the end of this policy debate. Last July, I wrote about how Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, noticed that Sen. Obama showed "humility" in his support for diplomacy with other nations. Yesterday, Sen. Obama further articulated this feeling:

"... the problem is, if we think that meeting with the President [of the United States] is a privilege that has to be earned [by other nations], I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it’s important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step."

He's right on the money. Again, Sen. Obama reiterates the important psychological value of sensing how others nations may perceive our actions [as a Superpower], and understanding the asymmetrical relationship that exists between certain countries, such as between Cuba and the US. Simply put, it means placing yourself in the other's shoes.

Application of this form of empathy to the US/Cuba relationship has been covered by respected historians James G. Blight and Philip Brenner in their important book titled "Sad and Luminous Days: Cuba's Struggle with the Superpowers After the Missile Crisis." In the book, Blight and Brenner explain what they call "realistic empathy":

"[W]e propose that a perspective rooted in realistic empathy provides a way to appreciate the nature of the U.S.-Cuban relationship without ideological blinders. As applied to this case, an empathetic approach would begin with the assumption that neither the United States nor Cuba holds the balance of virtue, and that the aims of both countries deserve to be accorded respect. It requires careful listening to both sides, devoid of the temptation to rush to judgment. It then suggests an approach to reduce the hostility between them, and enable those who could find common ground to do so."

I think Sen. Barack Obama has shown that he understands this important value, and can lead the United States away from past deleterious policies of isolation and hostility.

Debate, Discussion, Disagreements...

I've been enjoying the renewed media coverage about Cuba and US policy towards Cuba. Certainly, with the recent news of Fidel Castro's resignation, people in the US are wondering what the whole deal is, such as the effectiveness and potential of current US policy towards Cuba, and the various political alternatives that others argue for. Yesterday, C-SPAN and NPR provided wonderful forums for debate and discussion. And, Cuban Triangle blogger Phil Peters (also Vice-President at the Lexington Institute) found himself at the two forums among the various experts who spoke at length about Cuba and US policy.


WASHINGTON JOURNAL

On C-SPAN yesterday morning (Washington Journal) Phil Peters appeared with Reuters correspondent Anthony Boadle, and later with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Rep. Bill Delahunt. Both Boadle and Peters provide their thoughts on the current situation in Cuba, and Peters answers plenty of questions from callers. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen calls in to the show (acting over-friendly as usual and awkwardly greeting Peters as "friend") and voices her support for current US policy, even supporting part of her argument by citing reports from Freedom House which receives regular funding from the US government (USAID). Of course, she dares not mention the recent statements by the two leading human rights organizations that oppose the US embargo.


DIANE REHM SHOW

Then there was NPR's Diane Rehm show, which provided an excellent 50 minutes of commentary from Phil Peters, David Adams from the St. Petersburg Times, Frank Calzon from the Center for a Free Cuba (where one need only look at their "Research Council" to know where they stand), and later with US Sec. of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez. Highlights are Frank Calzon calling himself a defender of human rights while never mentioning the fact that the leading human rights organizations have and continue to oppose US policy towards Cuba (without question his perspective on human rights is quite selective), and Phil Peters being left "speechless" and describing Sec. Gutierrez as "disconnected from basic facts" about Cuba (some one had to say it). Of course, Calzon responds to that comment and also finds himself "speechless" about Peter's comment.

Kudos to Phil for taking a stand for accuracy.

Florida, Oil and Cuba

Phil Peters from the Cuban Triangle Blog gives us an update on how Florida politicians are reacting to oil exploration off Cuba's coast.

News last March of possible new Cuban oil exports due to "anticipated production growth" by Canadian energy firm Sherritt International saw Florida politicians react, namely Sen. Mel Martinez, who immediately sought to place sanctions on "foreign companies and investors who help Cuba drill for oil and natural gas near the shores of Key West" (meaning Cuba). Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen had already shown her opposition since 2006 to oil exploration off Cuba's (which happens to be near Florida's) coast. "[Cuba is] not a friendly country. It's a terrorist state but even if it was a great ally we should not allow drilling 45 miles off of our coast," said Rep. Ros-Lehtinen. Both have concerns about the "maritime habitat" off Florida's coast being vulnerable to "unnecessary drilling."

As I wrote back then, both Rep. Ros-Lehtinen and Sen. Martinez don't exactly have the environmental record to be taken seriously. But, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida does (according to the League of Conservation Voters).

A bill introduced in the Senate last month by Sen. Nelson calls for the nullification of the 1977 US-Cuba Maritime Boundary Agreement [PDF]. It also:

"Amends the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 to exclude from U.S. entry an alien who: (1) is an officer or principal of an entity, or a shareholder who owns a controlling interest in an entity that makes an investment of $1 million or more (or any combination of investments that equals or exceeds $1 million in any 12-month period) that significantly contributes to Cuba's ability to develop petroleum and natural gas resources off its north coast; or (2) is a spouse, minor child, or agent of such person."

Sen. Nelson is the only sponsor on the bill so far, and has been leading the push since Brazil and Cuba signed an agreement allowing Brazil to explore for oil off Cuba's coast (just like many other nations have done so far).

A bi-partisan bill by Senators Larry Craig and Byron Dorgan (both supporters of increased trade with Cuba) counters the Martinez and Nelson bills and supports "the exploration for and extraction of hydrocarbon resources from any portion of any foreign exclusive economic zone contiguous to the exclusive economic zone of the United States [which includes Cuba]; and (2) export without license authority all equipment necessary for the exploration for or extraction of such hydrocarbon resources."

C-Span Debates US-Cuba Policy

Don't miss out on today's C-Span coverage of US-Cuba Policy. It includes a September 17th Heritage Foundation speech by US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez beginning at 5:37pm EST. In the Gutierrez speech, Cuba's policy towards the US is summed up as:

"Anything that can hurt the U.S. That has been their policy for over 48 years, and that has been more important than putting a focus on the plight of the people in Cuba."

C-Span's special coverage of US-Cuba policy begins at 7pm EST, and is scheduled until 10pm. The program is scheduled to include several interviews and video from Cuba.

---------------------

[Update: Nov. 20, 2007]

The three hour program on C-Span yesterday was incredibly informative. It is a program that would best serve those who would like to learn more about the debate on US policy towards Cuba, and its principle actors. It is also the kind of program that is sorely needed in Miami, but has been denied to its English and, especially, Spanish-speaking audience. The program included an excellent and lengthy interview with GaryMarx, Chicago Tribune reporter on Latin America and the Caribbean. Marx and his family lived in Cuba for about five years (2002-20o7) until his press credentials were not renewed earlier this year by the Cuban Government, and had to leave the island. According to Marx, the director of the Cuban International Press Center told him:

"This is nothing personal, this is business. Our overseas image is very important to us. We weighed your positive stories against your negative stories. There are too many negative stories. We think we can do better with someone else."

According to John Dinges, reporter on Latin America,:

"Reading Gary Marx's voluminous catalogue of stories from his five years living and writing in Cuba, one is struck--as Fidel once was--that this is a tremendously thorough journalist who not only understands a lot about Cuba but has a good deal of affection for the country."

Also in Dinges' article, AFP's Havana correspondent, Marie Sanz, said:

"Gary Marx is a very balanced reporter... He went everywhere on the island. He's not an arrogant American. He is unusual in that he is full of empathy for the Cuban common man."

The Marx interview was a very honest view about Cuba. As an American journalist in Cuba, Marx talked about how he felt living in a police state, and about the feeling of being constantly watched and mindful of his conversations, even at home. Marx revealed that he did not allow his children to be enrolled in public schooling in Havana because of the political indoctrination and its suppression of individual creativity on its students. On the flip-side, Marx, living in Havana for five years, fell in love with the country and its people, and considers Cuba his "second home." He hopes one day to return to the island.

The other highlight of the C-Span program was the debate between Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Rep. Jim McGovern. Both speakers clarified their positions well on US policy towards Cuba, and showed the public the depth of disagreement on current policy. Rep. McGovern was mostly opposed to the US embargo based on its travel restrictions and ineffectiveness over nearly 50 years, while Rep. Diaz-Balart supported the embargo based on the accusation that Cuba is a state-sponsor of terror, and a country that "kills Americans."

Rep. Diaz-Balart's argument is easily refuted by the research collected at the Center for International Policy (CIP). US State Department reports accusing Cuba of giving refuge to members from ETA, FARC or ELN are also easily dismissed. According to the latest article from CIP:

"...the Spanish government had no concerns about ETA members residing in Cuba. They are there as the result of earlier agreements. Spain has no evidence that any are involved in terrorist activities and regards the question of their presence in Cuba as a matter strictly between the Spanish and Cuban governments which is being handled satisfactorily."

The same applies to FARC and ELN:

"... conversations with the Colombian embassies in Washington and Havana last year indicated that they are there with the acquiescence of the Colombian government, which continues to see Cuba's efforts to broker a peace process in Colombia as 'helpful and constructive.'"

Also, Rep. Diaz-Balart misrepresented the shootdown of the Brothers to the Rescue planes in 1996 as a case of terrorism. There's important background on the incident to consider, but constantly ignored or denied in Miami. When the UN's Special Rapporteur on Cuba presented his report to the General Assembly on the shootdown, he posed two questions:

"The high command of the Cuban Army was aware that shooting down the aircraft would add a new obstacle to the already difficult relations between Cuba and the United States. One can thus legitimately ask who in the Cuban Government has an interest in causing incidents that create such obstacles, and why. At the same time, one can also legitimately ask why the United States authorities did not take effective measures to halt additional flights by these aircraft which could be expected to have tragic consequences. One possible reason is the existence of groups in Miami whose relevance depends on the continued existence of confrontational policy between the two countries. "

Babalu Blog's Henry Gomez has his own thoughts on the debate, with a lengthy rebuttal to Rep. Jim McGovern. Gomez's argument is based on the assumption that "the original goal of the embargo was to punish Cuba for those unlawful expropriations" more than 45 years ago(!), and which over the years has included "additional criteria" towards the Cuban government. Gomez doesn't mention the actual economic restrictions over the years and their consequences (material and psychological) placed on a nation (not just the government) only 90 miles away, who once depended heavily on its northern neighbor economically.

[Once yesterday's program is available online, it will be posted.]

"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 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]

The Gutierrez and Shannon Show

After President George W. Bush gave his "historic" speech on Cuba policy, US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon gave an "On the Record" Briefing to the press.

What I found interesting about this exchange with the press is the fact that Sec. Gutierrez avoids specifics about the so-called "international multi-billion dollar Freedom Fund for Cuba." The Fact Sheet attached to the President's speech says that Sec. Gutierrez and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice will "lead the effort to form the Freedom Fund", but Sec. Gutierrez avoided the question asking if the Freedom Fund is "something that you are setting out to do or is it something that may happen." He gave no answer.

I personally think the "Fund" is BS.

Also, in the beginning, Sec. Gutierrez incorrectly states the official conditions that would initiate the Freedom Fund for Cuba. He adds the condition of releasing all Cuban political prisoners, which is absent in the President's speech and the Fact Sheet.

Thomas Shannon really has nothing spectacular to say, but Sec. Gutierrez gets some tough questions. And here's some weird answers:

Question: I would like to know why this speech now? Why today? Why not one month before? Why now? Is there a timing or -- Secretary Gutierrez: Well, you know, the President of the United States' calendar is very full and today happened to be a good day to get it on his calendar and to make the speech. And it seemed like as good of a day -- better than tomorrow and better than yesterday. So you know it's just one of these things.

[...]

Question: You just mentioned that you want to see changes first (inaudible) before, but a year has passed already since the transition between Fidel and Raul and there is no talking, discussions with the Cubans. What if the Raul government keeps on going by their own hand for the next five years? The U.S. will still keep -- Secretary Gutierrez: Yes. I mean, that's the policy -- the President was very clear if that's the future of the Cuban regime, then that's very, very unfortunate for the people of Cuba because then it means that people will be living under oppression, they'll be living without freedom of speech, without freedom to read, without freedom to travel, without freedom to open up a business, without freedom to worship. So what if? I would say that's a big, big shame for the people in Cuba who deserve freedom.

[...]
Question: But that policy hasn't worked in 48 years, so what about trying something new? Secretary Gutierrez: No, but as we've said before and the President's said, the policy is designed to not give oxygen to a dictator, to not put resources in their hands. Again, we have the benefit of 48 years. When they had resources, they -- at one time, they wanted to keep those -- you know, going back to 1962, the missile crisis, going back to their adventure in Africa, going back to their adventure in Central America. When they have had resources, those resources have never been used to improve the lives of Cubans. They've been used to harass governments overseas. They've been used for foreign adventures. Again, we've had 48 years to observe and I don't think we should be naive about that.

On the Political Front (Part 2)

By 2005, the Latin America Working Group (LAWG), an advocacy coalition opposed to the US embargo, had noticed the impact of the US-Cuba Democracy PAC (USCD PAC). In the House that June, "a five-year trend of support for easing the [Cuba] travel ban" was suddenly reversed when votes showed opposition to amendments aimed to reduce restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba. LAWG put the blame on campaign contributions by USCD PAC.

According to LAWG, USCD PAC "donated between $1,000 and $5,000 to 111 representatives in 2004. Of these members, 33 had consistently voted to lift restrictions on travel to Cuba in previous years. After accepting a campaign donation, however, these 33 members reversed their support for measures easing the travel ban and embargo."

When the general elections of '06 changed the face of the House, LAWG used "tempered optimism" in analyzing the new Congress. After the impact of USCD PAC in 2005, LAWG felt they needed to "win over nearly 40 of the new [2006] members" or recover those Democrats lost in 2005 and 2006. LAWG saw this as a "serious challenge" in the new House, and they also knew other forces would be at play. In 2005, they had found it "unsettling" that Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had "personally engaged in a lobbying crusade to secure formidable opposition to the [Cuba] amendments."

DEMOCRATS WIN SEATS PAC

In April of this year, Kate Ackley of Roll Call wrote about the USCD PAC's new focus on Democrats and its lobbying efforts in the House. Ackley took special notice when she saw that USCD PAC had not only increased its campaign contributions to Democrats by 15%, but had also made significant contributions to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her new PAC, Democrats Win Seats (DWS PAC). According to Ackley, Wasserman Schultz, who fully supports the US embargo (like many other Florida Reps.), has received "a total of $22,000" for her DWS PAC from the USCD PAC.

But, upon closer inspection, the DWS PAC, which makes contributions exclusively to Democrats, doesn't seem to favor candidates by their position on the US embargo. Relying on contributions filed with the Federal Elections Commission for the 2007-2008 cycle, and based on votes for/against July's Rangel amendment, the DWS PAC has so far contributed evenly to both Democratic supporters and opponents of the US embargo. Before the July vote, 33 Democrats received an average contribution of about $1,800 from DWS PAC, of which 55% voted against the Rangel amendment and 45% in support. But, there's a distinction when we compare total House votes to the Rangel amendment, where 29% of Democrats voted in opposition, and a strong 71% voted in favor. Perhaps the DWS PAC is choosing more pro-embargo Democrats.

Using the same method on Democrats that voted for/against the Rangel amendment, Democrats that received USCD PAC contributions before July were far more likely to vote in opposition. From 69 Democrats who received USCD PAC contributions this year, 77% voted against the the Rangel amendment and 23% in support. Furthermore, those Democrats who voted against the Rangel amendment had received far greater average campaign contributions (about $3000) than those who voted in favor (about $1,800) from the USCD PAC.

ANIMOSITY

A month before the Rangel vote, Josephine Hearn for Politico was reporting about "a spat between [Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Rep. Jose Serrano] on the House Appropriations Committee" after a disagreement on a proposal to lift the Cuba travel ban.

"The disagreement arose when Serrano, the subcommittee chairman, who is a longtime proponent of normalizing relations with Cuba, planned to include a provision into the 2008 financial services appropriations bill to lift the ban on travel to Cuba. But Wasserman Schultz opposed Serrano's move and approached other members of the subcommittee without his knowledge to lobby against it, Democratic congressional sources said."

"Serrano and his allies said an unwritten rule existed on the Appropriations Committee directing members to defer to subcommittee chairmen, known as cardinals, and air their objections with the full committee."

Serrano was upset by Wasserman Schultz's actions. But, the possibility of a confrontation from a split committee made Serrano abandon the Cuba travel proposal. According to Hearn "animosity has escalated" between Serrano and Wasserman Schultz.

So, going into '08, it seems like a political battle over Cuba is determined to escalate, especially with the Democratic deadlock. The several months ahead will slowly reveal the fate of the US embargo towards Cuba. But, at the present time, I agree with Robert Muse who sees "permanent estrangement between the U.S. and Cuba" (just like the last ten years in my opinion) as a possible scenario for the future, especially if the US Congress and the Administration continue their hard-line approach to Cuba.

[Part 1]

On the Political Front (Part 1)

The Center for International Policy (CIP), and other co-sponsors, yesterday held a conference on US/Cuba relations. The meeting was titled: "Imperatives for a New Cuba Policy." Among the guests yesterday were well-known opponents of current US policy towards Cuba: Wayne Smith, Joe Garcia, Phil Peters, Alfredo Duran, Robert Muse, and others.

A summary of the event should be released soon, and will be linked and reviewed here, but the CIP today offers us a glimpse. It's not too optimistic it seems. Robert Muse, lawyer specializing on US/Cuba laws and long-time opponent of US policy, puts it bluntly:

"PAC contributions have ensured that Congress is now at stalemate over Cuba policy... Therefore, if relations are ever to be normalized between the United States and Cuba, the lead must come from a future American president. By reverting to the Clinton era policy of relaxation of specific elements of the embargo in response to positive developments in Cuba – for example economic reforms – he or she will have taken the first confidence-building steps toward a normalization of relations with Cuba. If such leadership is demonstrated by a future White House, Congress may be expected to ratify its results. The alternative is permanent estrangement between the U.S. and Cuba, regardless of who governs the latter."

US-CUBA DEMOCRACY PAC

The PAC contributions that Muse speaks of is most likely a reference to the US-Cuba Democracy PAC (USCD PAC), which recently celebrated their defeat of important amendments presented by long-time US embargo opponents in the House. The recent USCD PAC newsletter called it a "historic victory." Founded in 2003 (as a response to relaxed restrictions on agricultural trade with Cuba in 2000), the USCD PAC has progressively grown in wealth and influence on Capitol Hill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the contributions for the USCD PAC since 2004 has steadily risen from $580,245, to $828,204 in 2006. A recent article in The Hill by Ian Swanson, described the further successes of this "relatively small special interest group."

Swanson's article focuses on how freshman Democrats in the House recently voted on an amendment by long-time US embargo opponent Rep. Charles Rangel. The amendment was aimed "to remove certain banking restrictions related to Cuba's payment for agricultural purchases from U.S. producers." It failed with a vote of 182 versus 245. Swanson reports: "Fifty-two of the 66 Democrats who voted against Rangel’s amendment have received one or more contributions from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC since the beginning of the 2007-2008 cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings... [USCD PAC] has given $56,000 to 22 Democratic freshmen this year, and 17 of those freshmen voted against Rangel’s amendment."

While those numbers average to approximately $2,500 for every Democratic freshman, there are exceptions in general contributions. Swanson points to Rep. James Clyburn from South Carolina who received $10,000 from USCD PAC and voted against the Rangel amendment, but "who has previously voted to lift the Cuban trade embargo" at other times. Back in 2001, Clyburn seemed to be very optimistic about relaxed agricultural trade with Cuba publicly stating:

"South Carolina should take this time to prepare for what I hope will finally be the opening of a new market for our State's farmers and pharmaceutical companies. This State is ideally situated for trading with Cuba, because products produced here are within a day's travel to the island that is just 90 miles off the coast of Florida."

Records from the 2006 election cycle show that USCD PAC rarely gives $10,000 contributions to House Reps; only two received $10,000, one received $9,000, and four received $8,000 from a total of 166 candidate contributions.

Swanson quotes Rep. Charles Rangel saying he "was blindsided." But, one should not blame USCD PAC alone for the defeat. There are Democrats inside who have "been very active this year on Cuba-related issues."

[Part 2]

Coast to Coast Support for Obama Today (Updated)

As Barack Obama prepares to make his appearance today at the Miami-Dade County Auditorium, two editorials from the Sun-Sentinel and the LA Times are published in support of his recently publicized Cuba policy. Both editorials are posted on the Cuba Journal Blog, in full.

Also, a protest opposed to Obama's Cuba policy is planned for 2pm, organized by Vigilia Mambisa.
--------------
[Updated - Aug. 27, 2007]

So, I drove by on Saturday, around 2:30 pm, to see how the Vigilia Mambisa protest was going. And, I was honestly surprised by what I saw: Ron Paul supporters!

The demonstration by Ron Paul supporters definitely took me by surprise, especially by the fact that they were as much present as the Vigilia Mambisa protesters (both across the street from the Miami-Dade County Auditorium). According to Beth Reinhard and AP's Brendan Farrington, there must've been from 25 to 35 members of Vigilia Mambisa.

Since there was hardly any coverage of the Ron Paul demonstration, according to their own reports there were possibly around 50 demonstrators for Ron Paul. By my estimate (from ONCE driving by) there were as many Ron Paul demonstrators as Vigilia Mambisa.

While I do not support the political positions of Ron Paul, I do want to commend the activism displayed by his supporters on Saturday, and their admirable commitment to the democratic political process. According to their MeetUp.com page, Ron Paul supporters have been organizing meetings throughout Miami, even at the well-known Versailles Restaurant this past Aug. 6 where they seem to have had a decent turn out.

What is also interesting is the fact that the Ron Paul demonstrators this past Saturday got very little notice by the local media, despite their equal presence next to Vigilia Mambisa. Reinhard from the Herald never mentions them in her report or blog, CBS4 news does not mention them, and neither does NBC6 or Local10 news.

On the other hand, the Spanish local news (Univision and Telemundo) did mention the Ron Paul demonstration, but both gave more coverage to Vigilia Mambisa. One Ron Paul supporter has already posted the coverage of the local Spanish networks on YouTube, you can see for yourself how fair the TV coverage was.

In my opinion, the Ron Paul supporters deserved a lot more attention by the local news, especially since they took the effort to organize themselves and demonstrate out in the hot Miami afternoon, just like Vigilia Mambisa.

Ron Paul supporters are scheduling another demonstration for September 3 at a Miami-Dade Democratic Party picnic, and another meeting at the Versailles Restaurant on September 10. Since Ron Paul also believes that the US Embargo on Cuba should be lifted, and that we should have talks with official enemies, will Vigilia Mambisa protest Ron Paul?

[CBS4 News has the unedited video of Barack Obama's speech this past Saturday.]