A tale of two lobbies
By
Max J. Castro Read Spanish Version
majcastro@gmail.com
Washington
teems with lobbies. Even bicycle riders have their lobby. Many are
quite benign. Others advocate for the deadliest industries. The gun
lobby and the tobacco lobby come to mind.
In
the foreign policy arena, few lobbies have been as successful or as
tenacious as the hard-line pro-Israel lobby and the intransigent
anti-Castro lobby. The two have been flexing their muscles lately,
with varying success.
If
events of last week are any indication, the power of the hard-core
pro-Israel lobby is undiminished under the new administration. The
Obama administration had tapped Charles W. Freeman to be the head of
the National Intelligence Council. Freeman is a former ambassador to
Saudi Arabia with a long and distinguished record of public service.
His job would have been to coordinate and oversee the work of the
country’s 16 intelligence agencies.
But
Freeman had a fatal flaw: he has been quite vocal in his criticism of
Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, including the occupation.
The
attack from fanatical advocates of Israel, who tolerate only
unconditional support, was instant. As Freeman described events, “the
libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show that there
is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own
from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of
trends and events in the Middle East.”
Freeman
had tried to ride out the storm but finally was forced to desist.
Washington
Post columnist
David S. Broder said that “the Obama administration has just
suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the
president vowed to keep in their place.” According to Broder,
Freeman speaks fluent Mandarin and Arabic and served as assistant
secretary of defense handling NATO expansion.
In
explaining his withdrawal, Freeman cited “the barrage of libelous
distortions of my record [that] would not cease upon my entry into
office.”
Freeman
said that “the aim of this Lobby is control of the policy through
the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the
wisdom of their views.” Mission accomplished.
On
the other hand, the hard-line Cuba lobby, although hardly defeated,
is now on more shaky ground. The omnibus bill signed last week to
ensure the continued operation of the government initially contained
several items softening some aspects of the embargo. But a small
bipartisan group of fervent anti-Castro legislators in both houses
managed to water down the provisions. In the end, however, they were
unable to stop one significant change that will allow Cubans to visit
their extended family on an annual basis rather than only once every
three years.
U.S.
policy in the Middle East and on Cuba will continue to be a disaster
as long as it is subject to a veto by powerful domestic lobbies. The
Obama administration may have enough political wisdom, capital, and
will to withstand the pressure of the anti-Castro lobby and effect
some significant changes in Cuba policy. On the other hand, the
Freeman affair raises grave doubt as to whether the same thing can be
said of the Middle East.
