Challenging Obama's Cuba Policy Rationale

PUBLICADO PARA HOY 22 DE ENERO

BY: CAPITOL HILL CUBANS



The following is a comment posted in Penultimos Dias, which provides powerful counter-arguments to the rationale of two supporters of the Obama Administration's recent Cuba policy changes, Phil Peters of Cuba Triangle and Anya Landau of Havana Note.

Needless to say, it also challenges the Obama Administration's rationale.

Here's the entire comment (our translation):

The arguments made by Peters resort the same cliches as always. That is to say:

1. "The increase in contact between Americans and Cubans will expand the flow of information and ideas"

In other words, Cuba is a dictatorship because the Cuban people are ignorant.

In its most crude version, the Cuban people are ignorant about what democracy is and only U.S. visitors can teach them about the subject.

In its more refined version, the problem is that the Cuban people are ignorant as to what "Yankees" are really like and thus fear the foreign enemy. Of course, this overlooks the 400,000 visitors from the US (legal and illegal), family ties across the Florida Straits, radio transmissions, etc... In my humble view, there is more ignorance about the U.S. in Spain than in Cuba.

Does Mr. Peters truly believe that it's the lack of democratic understanding or "Yankee" understanding that is blocking a Cuban transition?

2. "It will increase the income of Cubans in the country's expanding private sector."

Without a doubt. But isn't that the same objective being pursued by Raul?

In its "light" version, the development of the private sector is supposed to lead to democracy, in a manner similar to Vietnam, China or Singapore.

In its most "ideal" version, Raul's final objective is democracy. Therefore, helping Raul will help that process.

I won't bother asking for any empirical evidence on such leaps of faith.

3. "It will expand American institutions' contacts with Cuban counterparts – churches, universities, professional associations, and more."

Overall, these institutions are either organs of the State or are strongly controlled and regulated by the State. Surely Ms. Landau can visit Cuba. We doubt Reporters Without Borders can.

4. "It is only common sense that American influence in Cuba will expand if we open doors rather than build barriers to citizen contact."

And vice-versa. As was mentioned by someone who opposes these measures, prior experiences show the ability of the Cuban dictatorship - and they are experts at this - to lure supporters, distribute propaganda and infiltrate spies.

5. "As a matter of policy, it is a big shift from the Bush approach, which limited citizen contact and emphasized government initiatives, government funding, and government programs that are often riddled with problems (see Sixto, Felipe and Gross, Alan)."

First of all, the U.S. easing its travel policy doesn't mean that Cuba will do so. They will keep controlling who comes in and who goes out, thus the argument that this is simply contact amongst people is an exaggeration.

More accurately, it's contact amongst people approved by the dictatorship with other people approved by the dictatorship.

Secondly, what's not to say that students won't act like students and get into trouble. And not just drunkenness, but "subversive" activities, which can lead to 3 or 4 Gross's behind bars.

In sum, I won't continue for lack of space. I simply conclude that, as of today, I haven't heard any logical or reasonable argument, nor any empirical substance to allow me to draw the same idealist conclusions as Peters or self-interested ones as Ms. Landau.