Future stains

By Alejandro Armengol

From El Nuevo Herald

Beyond the misuse and lack of control over the billion dollars that the United States has budgeted for years to advance freedom in Cuba, strengthen civil society and promote respect for human rights on the island, there are several aspects worth of attention in what, so far, has been nothing but a big waste of money.

First, we must point out the ignorance and arrogance behind that effort – apparently democratic and always generous – which so far has led only to the printing of thousands of copies of various texts designed to expound the importance of human rights.

What at first may have been an educational effort has become the perfect excuse to justify printing costs, purchases in bookstores and high distribution costs.

The basis for such a colossal squandering is, at best, gross paternalism, not to say a display of racism: those living on the island have not demanded greater freedoms because they don’t know them, have never read that they exist, and, above all, are natives who need to be civilized.

The path of learning – according to this strategy – would open the gates to greater public awareness, resulting in an increase in protests and a greater demand for the respect of human rights. The strategy’s creators not only ignore the essential characteristics of the repressive nature of the regime in Havana but also overestimate the role of propaganda.

During the George W. Bush administration, the illusion of achieving democratic progress in Cuba reached the wasteful point of creating an office with a budget of $59 million, despite a total lack of awareness of what goes on in Cuba. In charge was Caleb McCarry, a man who performed a task that, because of its smoothness, must have caused him stress. McCarry must have been bored a lot. Possibly, he’s still bored.

McCarry’s task and that of his office were “to hasten the end of Fidel Castro’s tyranny.” However, he could never exhibit a single small achievement. But nobody seemed to care then, neither Congress nor the taxpayers. Now, everybody is calling daily for a reduction in federal spending, but no one recalls the contribution made by that office to the national deficit.

Barack Obama’s government has shown a more sensible face in what could be the formulation of a policy towards the Cuban regime, but an almost total reluctance to take the steps necessary to establish a more rational treatment.

So far, the detention of subcontractor Alan Gross has become the main obstacle to progress in the dialogue between the two nations. In this sense, the Havana government should close the episode. A transparent trial and Gross’ repatriation are indispensable in this regard.

At the same time, Washington must – unilaterally and without demanding anything in return – amend a number of mistakes made by the previous administrations when dealing with Havana.
We must move far beyond the repeal of the sanctions on family travel and remittances, and the timid expansion of personal contacts and money orders.

Above all, the Obama administration must put an end to its policy of regime change, which combines unilateralism on the international arena with a selective use of the oppositionists who live in the country. That policy’s evaluation of the Cuban situation rejects pragmatism in favor of an ideological judgment of the factors and actors who supposedly have the ability to influence the process in order to impose a model for transition.

Similarly, it should eliminate the release of funds for propaganda purposes to organizations outside the island that claim to support the dissidents – like Radio-TV Marti, whose work should be limited to verified information and news analysis on various topics, from politics to culture.

This means an end to “barricade journalism” and political campaigning in favor of certain figures, from legislators to alleged leaders of the exile community. This, of course, would imply reviewing the goals and models that led to the creation of both stations.

It is essential to assume a respectful policy toward Cuba, one that accepts reality while condemning the human rights violations that occur on the island. In other words, we should not limit international politics toward a neighboring country to the field of human rights and the complaints of exiles in Miami.

It is imperative that Washington and Havana talk to create mechanisms that would allow a joint effort in case of an oil spill that affects both countries. And must that necessary coordination be limited by the inflammatory statements of the Cuban-American Congressmen, the just demands of the Damas de Blanco, or the bleatings from Miami radio?

When setting its policy toward Cuba, the current administration should set the priorities that best suit this country. Otherwise, it is likely that in future we shall not see a new march by exiles in Miami, but stains of crude oil on our shores.