Engaging Cuba, 50 Years Later

By Weekly Archive On Jun 3, 2008

Taken
from the Washington Post edition of Friday, May 30^th.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

WASHINGTON
— Probably no event could stand as better proof of a U.S. foreign
policy failure than the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, to
be marked on Jan. 1. Nineteen days later, a new U.S. president — the
11th since Fidel Castro toppled Fulgencio Batista’s regime — will
inherit that policy.

Judging
by the presidential candidates’ statements last week, only Sen.
Barack Obama suggests a change. Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain
promote mostly more of the same: a continuation of the trade embargo
and other restrictions, combined with support for dissident forces
within the island.

In
a speech in Miami last Friday, Obama pledged to immediately lift
President Bush’s 2004 restrictions on family travel and remittances,
adding that "there are no better ambassadors for freedom than
Cuban-Americans." What’s more, he became the first U.S.
presidential candidate in decades to leave open the possibility of
starting a dialogue with the Castro brothers "without
preconditions." Although Obama said such talks would come only
"at a time and place of my choosing," he seems willing to
go well beyond Clinton or McCain in reaching out to Cuba’s rulers.

This
"softer" stance would have meant political suicide in South
Florida not long ago, but things are changing. According to Florida
International University’s 2007 Cuba poll, a majority of
Cuban-American voters still supports a military intervention to
overthrow the Castro government. But at the same time, a majority
also favors undoing Bush’s restrictions (52.1 percent) and
establishing a dialogue with representatives of the Cuban government
(60.1 percent).

That
may seem like a contradiction, but Hugh Gladwin, director of the
Institute for Public Opinion Research, which conducted the poll, says
that "a lot of people are so sick of the current situation that
they want anything that would change it." If change is indeed
the key word, then the Obama campaign has gotten the message.

Frustration
within the Cuban-American community grew particularly strong during
the nearly eight years of tough talk by the Bush administration,
which many Cuban-Americans now feel was purely political pandering.
Bush claims to have dramatically stepped up U.S. efforts to promote
freedom and democracy in Cuba through a bottom-up approach that
supports civil society groups on the island. And in strict terms, he
put more money into his Cuban freedom agenda and even created a new
bureaucracy to run it.

Unfortunately,
very little was accomplished. The Cuban American National Foundation,
one of the most influential anti-Castro groups, found in a March
report that less than 17 percent of the funds earmarked for Cuba
through the U.S. Agency for International Development were used for
direct assistance. "The remaining 83 percent was used to cover
operating expenses of grantee organizations, off-island transition
studies and U.S.-based activities," the foundation said.

You
could level a criticism against Obama’s top-down approach for
thinking that he could talk the Cuban regime into changing. McCain
has in fact slammed Obama for proposing a dialogue, which he said
would send "the worst possible signal to Cuba’s dictators."
That retired President Fidel Castro signaled his support for Obama —
calling him, in a column published Monday, the "most
progressive" of the candidates — doesn’t help matters either.

Republicans
too criticize Obama for what they see as an inherent contradiction:
pushing for engagement while easing, but not lifting, the embargo.
But such criticism ignores a basic tenet of diplomacy. Sanctions can
provide the leverage to negotiate with your enemies. And what’s more,
sanctions used as a tool for continued isolation have clearly had
their chance — and failed. As Anthony Lake, Obama’s senior
international affairs adviser, pointed out in an e-mail, "a
refusal to talk seldom produces results."

The
reality is that Obama’s proposal is not that innovative (Latin
Americans have been trying a similar approach for a long time,
clearly with limited success) and criticisms of his proposal simply
miss the point. The Obama campaign is acknowledging something that
others have either missed or have evaluated differently, and this is
that the Cuban exile community now encompasses more diverse views
and, as a whole, is frustrated with the status quo.

While
Cuban-Americans have solidly supported Republicans in the past —
presidents, governors and representatives in Congress — Obama and
the Democrats are better off offering a real alternative from the
strict hard line of the past. The time is right for it.

If
Obama ends up winning the presidency, January may in fact mark
another momentous occasion: the irreversible erosion of a stubborn
foreign policy approach based on the perceived single-mindedness of
the Cuban-American constituency.

Marcela
Sanchez’s e-mail address is desdewash(at)washpost.com.