A Cuba discussion: 3 panels, 3 different opinions
By
Alvaro F. Fernandez
I
am always amazed by the passion any Cuba discussion evokes, even from
non-Cubans. I suppose it may be one of the reasons that after 47
years of little or no relationship between the U.S. and the Island we
have yet to figure out how to work out our differences. This emotion
also often translates to a diversity of opinions as to what the
solutions to the problems might be. The fact is that if there are 100
persons in one room discussing the issue of the U.S. and Cuba, there
will surely be 100 different opinions as to how to bring about
change.
This
past Tuesday I was invited to speak during one of three panel
discussions at a conference in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Center
for International Policy. The day’s theme was “Imperatives for a
New Cuba Policy.” My panel dealt with the “Changing Views in the
Cuban-American Community.” Also on the panel were Alfredo Duran, of
the Cuban Committee for Democracy; Joe Garcia, Miami-Dade Democratic
Party chair; and Tony Zamora, of the U.S.-Cuba Legal Forum.
Al’s
Loupe Read Spanish Version
A
Cuba discussion: 3 panels, 3 different opinions
By
Alvaro F. Fernandez
alfernandez@the-beach.net
I
am always amazed by the passion any Cuba discussion evokes, even from
non-Cubans. I suppose it may be one of the reasons that after 47
years of little or no relationship between the U.S. and the Island we
have yet to figure out how to work out our differences. This emotion
also often translates to a diversity of opinions as to what the
solutions to the problems might be. The fact is that if there are 100
persons in one room discussing the issue of the U.S. and Cuba, there
will surely be 100 different opinions as to how to bring about
change.
This
past Tuesday I was invited to speak during one of three panel
discussions at a conference in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Center
for International Policy. The day’s theme was “Imperatives for a
New Cuba Policy.” My panel dealt with the “Changing Views in the
Cuban-American Community.” Also on the panel were Alfredo Duran, of
the Cuban Committee for Democracy; Joe Garcia, Miami-Dade Democratic
Party chair; and Tony Zamora, of the U.S.-Cuba Legal Forum. I was
there representing the Cuban American Commission for Family Rights.
The
most interesting aspect of our panel may have been that, even though
the four of us have differing views on Cuba, we all seemed to agree
on the following: the cruelty of the Cuba family travel restrictions,
added to the state of affairs in this country, may signal the
possibility for political change in Miami.
During
my presentation I mentioned former House Speaker Tip O’Neil’s
assertion that “all politics is local.” I added that in the U.S.,
Cuba politics is local and easily pinpointed. U.S.-Cuba policy, I
said, is made in Miami. I went further, stating that we could give
the policy three names: Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and
Mario Diaz-Balart.
My
premise was a simple one; I’ve mentioned it before. Rid Miami of
one, two or all three of our south Florida congressional
representatives and U.S.-Cuba policy as we know it starts to unravel.
I
also understand this is easier said than done.
But
winning politics is all about timing. And 2008 may just be the right
time. Now all we need are the right candidates and the war chest to
run multi-million dollar congressional races. Again, I don’t easily
fool myself. But… the possibilities are there. They exist.
After
listening to others speak, there were, of course, differing opinions.
I
will start with the stubborn ones… these are those who argue that
it has to be everything or nothing at all. In other words, lift the
embargo and all travel restrictions. Their dread is that we may be
asking for too little if we start by asking for the simple lifting of
the cruel family restrictions which limit family visits to once every
three years. If victorious, they fear, we may not get anything else.
The fact is this attitude has not gotten us anything in 2007 — a
year of great promise. Come to think of it, we’ve lost votes —
even from Democrats.
Might
this be a fear of winning?
Others
are convinced that only a new and “bold” president can solve the
quagmire. Maybe… But we’ve waited for that “bold” — a word
heard numerous times during the conference — president for some time
now. In other words, they said, Hillary may not say it publicly
during the campaign trail, but after she is elected…
Oh
please! Hillary. Bold?
And
then there were those who spoke of the money. There’s a Cuba PAC
handing out campaign contributions. The latest amount distributed was
estimated to be north of $300,000. They’ve targeted rookie
democrats who are being convinced for a few thousand dollars each by
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a democrat and another south Florida member
of congress. On this panel, their argument seemed to be — and there
was agreement among some audience members — that the money trumps
all else in this game.
Doesn’t
speak well of our system, does it? Can you imagine, and I know I’ve
been accused in the past of a sometimes too-active imagination, but
the scene that comes to mind is as follows:
Rep.
Wasserman Schultz walks up to Mr. Newly Elected congressman from
somewhere out west. “Hey Mr. Newly Elected,” she might start. “I
need your vote in favor of the regulations on the Cuba family
visits,” she continues. “Cubans must learn to organize
themselves,” she might say. “They’re going to have to figure
out if they want to visit the mother while she’s sick or after
she’s passed, but they can’t have it both ways. The law is the
law…” she says, a serious look on her face.
“By
the way,” Rep. Wasserman Schultz says flatly, “There’s a couple
of grand for your campaign coffers if you agree to this,” she adds
as she walks away from the stunned Mr. Newly Elected.
I
know, I know. I often get carried away with the drama. But if it’s
the money that rules, then this may not be so far-fetched.
All
in all, it was an interesting day. And like all Cuba discussions,
three different panels and three different opinions.
But
I think I will stick to my theory. In my opinion many Washingtonians
and others in attendance during the conference didn’t seem to grasp
how important the defeat of a Lincoln or a Mario Diaz-Balart or an
Ileana (or all three) would be — for Miami and Washington D.C.
There’s
a saying that states that one person can make a difference. On the
Cuba issue, getting rid of at least one of three persons could make a
world of difference. And Miami would never be the same.
The
fact is there’s really nothing to lose. Unless, of course, you
believe that it’s worth keeping Lincoln, Ileana or Mario.
