Exile/Emigration

From Havana

By Manuel Alberto Ramy

Apropos my article “Everything and the kitchen sink” (Sept. 10), a reader posed to me several questions about the possibility that “a dialogue be established between persons in Miami and representatives of the Cuban government.” She would like to know my opinion about the nature of “the topics to be discussed […] between the exiles in South Florida and representatives of the Cuban government.”

According to very reliable sources, there are plans for a dialogue between authorities on the island and Cuban émigrés but the date has not be set, and neither has the number of guests. I don’t know what the agenda will be. But note that I write “émigrés,” not “exiles.” That distinction is necessary not only from a conceptual point of view but also because the categories imply different motivations and attitudes.

To appreciate the changes in the composition of Cubans living in Florida, as well as the difference in interests and attitudes regarding policy toward Cuba shown by the so-called exile community, all you need to do is read the surveys done by Florida International University or the pollster Bendixen & Associates. Every migratory wave reveals more clearly its nature as such. Again, look at the more than 14 surveys done by Bendixen.

Very briefly, an exile is anyone who had to leave his homeland because of serious political reasons. The person’s radical differences with the government of the country in question define him and guide his attitudes and priorities.

Every émigré, regardless of his country of origin, seeks better opportunities and/or a better quality of life for himself and his family. His priority is economic. For that reason, the rich countries are the receptors — not the generators — of migrants, although they are greatly responsible for the migration because of the situation of dependence in which they place the more backward countries.

A mandatory clarification: every emigration proclaims the failure of the economic policies of both the source country and the worldwide economic system that generates the migratory movements. The Internet can provide a lot of figures on this subject. Globalization is no tale. It is a crude and harsh reality whose operative matrix can be reduced to a few transnational corporations with subsidiaries throughout the planet that pay tribute to the home offices.

Therefore, to ascribe a political nature to the emigration from Cuba, due to the global state of the economy and the errors in domestic policies is to partialize the phenomenon. Were you to generalize this categorization, you’d have to describe as “exiles” the millions of Mexican, Ecuadorean, Guatemalan, Honduran, Salvadoran, Dominican and other émigrés who constantly arrive in the developed countries — even though their political systems are praised by the United States and used as examples in comparison with Cuba’s.

One of the objectives of the law known as “dry-foot-wet-foot” is to give the Cuban émigré the status of political refugee, to record and process him as an exile. I know hundreds of true exiles, living in the U.S., who opposed the Cuban government, fought in the cities or the mountains and went to prison in Cuba. But is that the case of the 1.5 million Cubans living in the U.S.? If so, they wouldn’t have left; they would have wiped out three governments.

The University of Havana has conducted serious studies about the motivations for emigration, which reveal priorities such as housing, living conditions, the outlook for personal development, etc. Few are the reasons directly related to politics given by most émigrés. Fewer still are the reasons that describe politics as a priority, as I am told by some of the people who created and evaluated the surveys, which contain questions for checking and double-checking the responses.

For his part, the exile attempts, hopes and makes an effort to overthrow the government he opposes. In the case of Cuba, an exile does not visit the island. Instead, he promotes and aids any policy — like the blockade — that strangles his opponent and tries to change the interests of the émigrés.

Governor Bill Richardson and his suggestions

During a press conference at the end of his recent visit to Cuba, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico submitted a package of suggestions for the Cuban and U.S. governments. Among them, he proposed to “begin” a dialogue with Cuban-American politicians that would run parallel to the official dialogue between Havana and Washington.

I asked him if it was true that he had met with exiles before coming to Cuba and “if [he] put exiles and émigrés in the same bag, as Cuban-Americans.” His exact response: “Yes, I did contact some friends of mine, Cuban-Americans, who are in politics. It was not an organized event. It was a breakfast, simply a chat among friends, so it was not an official affair. I have many Cuban-American friends in Florida and New Jersey. When I go to Miami, I see them. OK, then; thank you,” and he left.

An incomplete but suggestive response. And it allows me to say that, yes, it is a political dialogue about political topics, conducted by friends “who are in politics.” Richardson either identifies exile with emigration — mixing interests, motivations and attitudes — or appreciates that those politicians represent the totality of the Cuban-American community. Those points could be subject for other articles.

Richardson did not meet personally with Fidel or Raúl Castro. He was welcomed by the president of the National Assembly, Ricardo Alarcón, one of the principal formulators of policy toward the United States. And Richardson received a personal message from Fidel Castro, which he — quite properly — did not divulge.

However, you don’t have to be a mind-reader to figure out that Havana will not engage in dialogue with Cuban-Americans “who are in politics,” in order to discuss domestic political problems.

How about the émigrés?

My answer to the kind reader is Yes. I do believe that a dialogue will be established with émigrés. And I wish and believe necessary that both the participation of the émigrés and the topics on the agenda will be as broad as possible. Will they be? I believe that the émigrés know what they need and will express those needs.

Emigration from Cuba is an important topic for the whole of Cuban society, so it has to be seen not only from the point of view of the émigré but also from this side. On the average, almost every family living in Cuba has an émigré. This outlook — with its full emotional charge — must be taken into consideration and addressed.

In sum, emigration is a Cuban theme that requires a deep, broad and serene treatment that will lead to a sensible and realistic migratory policy, particularly to a mutually beneficial relationship. But no one should expect us to renounce our principles when dealing with people who claim to be Cubans when they really speak on behalf of foreign interests.

Manuel Alberto Ramy is Havana bureau chief for Radio Progreso Alternativa and editor of Progreso Semanal, the English-language version of Progreso Weekly.