Respect for national sovereignty
By
Francisco G. Aruca Read Spanish Version
On
Sunday, April 12, I received a document sent by its authors to a
number of addressees under the title "President
Barack Obama has done his part."
I
do not wish to make a full analysis of the document, written by
Lorenzo Cañizares and Rolando Castañeda. There are parts I share
and others I don’t — or share less. I respect the authors, as I do
many of those who received the article and whom I know. But it is
worthwhile to clarify points that I consider to be too important not
to answer.
The
specific issue regarding the "new" Cuban American National
Foundation (CANF) deserves discussion. My criticism is based on a
full reading of the document produced by the CANF, not in the
interpretation of it made by much of the established press. Among
other things, the CANF posits:
1.
That the Obama administration must not eliminate the embargo
unilaterally "without any significant evidence of irrevocable
change" on the part of the Cuban government. Personally, I
consider it as Plattist(*) and meddlesome the defense of a U.S.
policy of a unilateral blockade against Cuba as a way to carry change
into our motherland. Changes in Cuba are the responsibility of the
Cubans, not of foreign governments. To ally oneself to foreign
governments, particularly to the U.S. government because of historic
relations, to promote political plans in Cuba is nothing new in our
history and always constitutes a violation of national sovereignty.
Cuban national sovereignty is not, and cannot be negotiable, lest it
denies itself.
2.
"The Cuban people, supported by U.S. policy, must be empowered
to speak out, organize, and peacefully enact democratic change."
This is a reconfirmation of the previous point. I also believe that
anyone with knowledge of the Cuban reality and our history should
worry because, among other things, if the process of change is a
product of the support of U.S. policy, sooner or later it will cease
to be peaceful — with all the disastrous consequences that that
entails.
3.
Among the four recommendations the CANF makes to the Obama
administration, I wish to emphasize the following:
(a)
It must increase its support for the development of civil society in
Cuba.
Here
they end up lobbying, as they have done publicly in the Miami media,
for the direct and efficient remittance of funds to finance and help
the dissident or opposition movement. In other words, the same
objectives as Bush’s but with greater efficiency. This meddling by
the U.S. turns any Cuban oppositionist who receives the funds into a
salaried agent of the U.S. government. Again, this is a confirmation
of the point made above about sovereignty. For a long time now, the
U.S. governments, and particularly Bush’s, have backed the
development of a "civil society" in Cuba.
(b)
To increase and improve communications in and with Cuba, so as to
defend the freedom of information.
Specifically,
to expand and improve Radio and TV Martí. These are products of the
CANF’s era that the Cañizares-Castañeda article describes as the
era of the old "recalcitrant and intransigent leaders"
during the time of the CANF’s alliance with Reagan. No one should be
surprised that the Foundation ended up becoming a ministry in the
service of the extremists sectors of exiledom in Miami. This point,
like others in the document, shows the desire to regain the level of
influence the CANF enjoyed under Jorge Mas Canosa more than the wish
to become a new institution with a new focus.
4.
The CANF defends the freedom of family travel to Cuba and the
elimination of limits to the remittances of family aid, not for their
humanitarian value or because they should be our right as Cubans but
because they would facilitate the delivery of federal funds to
"oppositionists" and "dissidents" in Cuba,
individuals as well as groups. That’s efficient Bushism. Funds from a
foreign government. Reliance on the power groups that are well known
in Miami. Plattism. Nothing new here, either. Nothing respectable.
5.
Finally, although there are many other relevant points, I wish to
close by pointing out that all the recommendations the CANF makes in
its document are justified by saying that they would achieve two
objectives envisioned by "a new policy toward Cuba." Two
objectives that the Foundation describes as "inseparable"
and "intertwined": (a) to promote the interests of the
United States in the region (i.e., Latin America) and (b) to empower
the Cuban people in their struggle for democracy and prosperity. In
other words, the CANF invites Plattism and U.S. meddling, lest the
United States see its interests in Latin America affected.
I
think that not even a slightly progressive American who reflects the
times in which we live would defend this kind of U.S. policy toward
Cuba. Nevertheless, from the beginnings of Cuban exiledom in Miami,
that has been the way to justify an alliance with U.S. governments
and to beg for their assistance.
My
comments seek to stimulate a dialogue between us, so as to develop,
in the most transparent manner possible, a position among the Cubans
who live in the United States that will genuinely contribute to the
changes that approach. In the creation of that dialogue and that
position, it will be indispensable to state clear principles that
must not be negotiable. The CANF’s document allows us to begin a
discussion or a dialogue about what I consider the most important
topic, precisely because we are Cubans in the United States: respect
for national sovereignty.
(*)
The word Plattist derives from the Platt Amendment, introduced by
Rep. Orville Platt and passed by the U.S. Congress in 1901. That
amendment was attached to the Cuban Constitution as a condition for
the U.S. to grant an apparent but nonexistent independence to our
homeland. The Platt Amendment, which remained in effect until the
1930s, granted the United States, among other indignities, the right
to intervene at will in Cuba and awarded it territory for military
bases (Guantánamo). Therefore, in practice, the country became a
colony that had to behave according to Washington’s dictates.
Francisco
G. Aruca, a political analyst and radio commentator, directs the
Radio Progreso Alternativa program and participates every Monday,
Wednesday and Friday in the prime-time program "The evening
moves," with Edmundo García.
To
access the complete CANF document, click here:
http://canf1.org/artman/publish/home_page/A_New_Course_for_U_S_-Cuba_policy_Advancing_People_Driven_Change.shtml
