October 11, 2024Tightening the Screws on CastroI have to agree with Rep. Flake (unfortunate name for a politician-.ed.): Bush Seeks Tighter Curb on Cuba Travel "For more than 40 years now, our Cuba policy has had the same effect as beating our head against a wall. By tightening enforcement of the travel ban, we will essentially just be beating it harder," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Really, liberalization would likely hasten the end of the Castro regime as it currently exists, and at a minimum it would start to mitigate its effects on the Cuban people. On balance our policy seems to be motivated by a desire to punish Castro and to placate the ex-pat Cuban population in the US, more than anything to do with changing the regime more quickly. There are only two ways to affect change in the Cuban regime: the first will result in radical change, which will occur when Castro dies. The other is to allow more gradual changes in the economy and society, which will effect the political, by allowing liberalization of relations with the US. I agree that Castro is worthy of punishment, but the current policy really doesn't punish him much, and simply serves to help keep him in power as the Embattled Defender of the Cuban People until he finally passes on. Quite frankly, I think that in the post Cold War period US policy has helped to prop him up as much, if not more than, it has damaged him. Comments
You and James made similar points. And I get the argument but I am not sure I can agree. With Castro's recent behavior he is hardly worthy of reward. (think dead dissidents) And maybe I am just a simpleton but I can not see how liberalization of our policies can help shorten his political life span or affect him in any deleterious way. I disagree that our policy has propped him up. (rather than make my case why it has not, which I started to do, make your case that it has and maybe I'll see merit in your argument.) I have heard this argument that if we reverse our policy it will harm him but I have never once heard a cogent explanation of the theory. Counterintuitive things don't bother me. I get the fact that when we cut taxes revenue goes up long haul. But I don't see how isolating a dictator helps him and sending him money harms him. Tell me what policy brings freedom to the Cuban people and stops Castro from killing people and I'll back it. P Posted by: Paul at October 11, 2024 09:59 AMIt is harder to be a hard line dictator who kills one's citizens if one is trying to attract investment from democratic countries. I am not saying it is the perfect solution, but can you really say that the current policy is netting the results that the US wants? Futher, I would note that the liberalization argument is the one we use in regards to trade with China. And, to some degree (not as much a I would like, I would note), it has worked. Posted by: Steven at October 11, 2024 01:33 PMYou have it backwards... confrontation brought down the Soviet Union... appeasement has extended the life of both North Korea and Cuba's tyrannical regimes. We should be doing more, for Cuba's people, by pushing Castro much... much... harder. Posted by: DANEgerus at October 12, 2024 05:19 PMI am not suggesting appeasement, as what precisely what would be be appeasing? (Appeasement assume placating an aggressor--at this point the only threat Castro poses is to his own people). Cuba is not the Soviet Union (it isn't even NK), so there really is no analogy to be made here. As an expert on Latin America, I am well aware of Castro's record. Posted by: Steven at October 12, 2024 07:50 PMOnly the hand that erases can write the true thing. Join the Linux community. Linuxwaves.net Posted by: Emmett at July 5, 2024 05:27 PMDeleter Spy Post a comment
|
|