WorldCity Business Magazine

09 Washington Report - Cuba: 50th anniversary of Castro revolution, then a new U.S. president

by Marcela Sanchez

Probably no event could stand as better proof of a U.S. foreign policy failure than the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, to be marked on Jan. 1. Nineteen days later, a new U.S. president the 11th since Fidel Castro toppled Fulgencio Batistas regime will inherit that policy.

Judging by the presidential candidates recent statements, only Sen. Barack Obama suggests a change. John McCain promotes mostly more of the same: a continuation of the trade embargo and other restrictions, combined with support for dissident forces within the island.

In a speech in Miami in May, Obama pledged to immediately lift President Bushs 2004 restrictions on family travel and remittances, adding that there are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban-Americans. Whats more, he became the first U.S. presidential candidate in decades to leave open the possibility of starting a dialogue with the Castro brothers without preconditions. Although Obama said such talks would come only at a time and place of my choosing, he seems willing to go well beyond McCain in reaching out to Cubas rulers.

This softer stance would have meant political suicide in South Florida not long ago, but things are changing. According to Florida International Universitys 2007 Cuba poll, a majority of Cuban-American voters still supports a military intervention to overthrow the Castro government. But at the same time, a majority also favors undoing Bushs restrictions (52.1 percent) and establishing a dialogue with representatives of the Cuban government (60.1 percent).

That may seem like a contradiction, but Hugh Gladwin, director of the Institute for Public Opinion Research, which conducted the poll, says that a lot of people are so sick of the current situation that they want anything that would change it. If change is indeed the key word, then the Obama campaign has gotten the message.

Frustration within the Cuban-American community grew particularly strong during the nearly eight years of tough talk by the Bush administration, which many Cuban-Americans now feel was purely political pandering. Bush claims to have dramatically stepped up U.S. efforts to promote freedom and democracy in Cuba through a bottom-up approach that supports civil society groups on the island. And in strict terms, he put more money into his Cuban freedom agenda and even created a new bureaucracy to run it.

Unfortunately, little was accomplished. The Cuban American National Foundation, one of the most influential anti-Castro groups, found in a March report that less than 17 percent of the funds earmarked for Cuba through the U.S. Agency for International Development were used for direct assistance. The remaining 83 percent was used to cover operating expenses of grantee organizations, off-island transition studies and U.S.-based activities, the foundation said.
You could level a criticism against Obamas top-down approach for thinking that he could talk the Cuban regime into changing.

McCain has in fact slammed Obama for proposing a dialogue, which he said would send the worst possible signal to Cubas dictators. That retired President Fidel Castro signaled his support for Obama calling him, in a column, the most progressive of the candidates doesnt help matters either.

Republicans also criticize Obama for what they see as an inherent contradiction: pushing for engagement while easing, but not lifting, the embargo. But such criticism ignores a basic tenet of diplomacy. Sanctions can provide the leverage to negotiate with your enemies. And whats more, sanctions used as a tool for continued isolation have clearly had their chance and failed. As Anthony Lake, Obamas senior international affairs adviser, pointed out in an e-mail, a refusal to talk seldom produces results.

The reality is that Obamas proposal is not that innovative (Latin Americans have been trying a similar approach for a long time, clearly with limited success) and criticisms of his proposal simply miss the point. The Obama campaign is acknowledging something that others have either missed or have evaluated differently, and this is that the Cuban exile community now encompasses more diverse views and, as a whole, is frustrated with the status quo.

While Cuban-Americans have solidly supported Republicans in the past presidents, governors and representatives in Congress Obama and the Democrats are better off offering a real alternative from the strict hard line of the past. The time is right for it.

If Obama ends up winning the presidency, January may in fact mark another momentous occasion: the irreversible erosion of a stubborn foreign policy approach based on the perceived single-mindedness of the Cuban-American constituency. WC

Marcela Sanchez is a columnist for the Washington Post. To post a comment on this column or read others by her, google desde Washington.