On
Jan. 7, I’ll be participating in an hour-long interview on my Cuba book by Donna Seebo, www.delphiinternational.com, who also
interviewed me for my Honduras book. The live program will air on that date at
2 pm EST. After that, it will be available in the archives. Google ‘Donna Seebo’
and the ‘Donna Seebo Show,’ page link will pop up, tap on that and you’ll be
taken directly to the show page itself. The green band on the left is for the
program in progress, while yellow on the right is for archived programs. My
book is a small slice of recent history, of my own history with Cuba, which
predicted change, but not such an abrupt and sweeping change as has just
occurred.
I also have a conference call next
Sunday with a human rights group in the UK about Cuban prisoner releases.
The photos are from our Christmas Day gathering at the home of daughter
Melanie’s friends Pat and Gerald and their 3 sons, as well as Gerald’s mother, shown
with my great-grandson De’Andre. The oldest host-family son, who has autism
(shown with my daughter, granddaughter, and great-grandson by the Christmas
tree), recited for us all the presidents of the United States from beginning to
end, something his mother said he has been able to do since age 5.
Now, with New Year’s Day pending, ¡Feliz Año Nuevo!
With another commercial aircraft
disappearing in southeast Asia in the vicinity of Malaysia and Indonesia, one
has to wonder if the pilots are carrying out suicide missions, taking their
passengers down with them?
Cubans fear possible change to U.S.
immigration law
Across an island where migrating north is an
obsession, the widespread jubilation over last week’s historic U.S-Cuba detente
is soured by fear that warming relations will eventually end the Cuban
Adjustment Act, a unique fast track to legal American residency. ASSOCIATED PRESS, December 26, 2014
I’ll spare you the whole article just mentioned. For
several months now, I’ve been speculating about the ending of America’s wet-foot/dry-foot policy for Cuban
immigrants, a policy that allowed me to bring Armando, my kidney patient, via
Mexico, as he did also with his own son years later. However, as this article
and as Cuban Americans contend, Congress has to act in order to completely
eliminate this special treatment for Cubans.
While many
Cuban American commentators have been critical of the Obama-Raul Castro
accords, Ada Ferrer, Professor of History and Latin American and
Caribbean Studies at New York University, is cautiously optimistic, which is closest
to my own feeling.
Somewhat surprisingly, a commentator from the conservative Cato Institute, Doug
Bandow, also supports the Cuba accords.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/normalizing-ties-cuba-step-closer-the-death-the-castro-11893
Although 53 political prisoners were supposed to be released in the
Obama-Castro deal, the Ladies in White say none have been released so far and
that there are more than 53. As volunteer Caribbean coordinator for Amnesty
International USA, I’ve been trying to make sure that our five Amnesty
prisoners of conscience (POCs) are included for release: the three young Vargas brothers who had tried to
protect their mother from an acto de repudio, afro-Cuban hunger striker Iván
Fernández Depestre, and Emilio
Planas Robert.
(These are the only Amnesty POCs in the Americas.) I posted something about the promised Cuba prisoner
release and our POCs on Facebook and saw that one reader (not Cuban) had
translated it into Spanish and put it on her page, for which I am grateful. All
are mentioned in my Cuba book. If anyone has or knows anyone with a Twitter
account, let’s make their names go viral, so please have them post the
following (143 characters & spaces):
Raul Castro: free now 5
Amnesty Int’l Prisoners of Conscience, 3 young Vargas brothers, Ivan Fernandez,
& Emilio Planas, only POCs in Americas.
The week before the accords announcement saw the release to house arrest of
Sonia Garro, a vocal afro-Cuban member of the Ladies in White, who had
been arrested in March 2012 along with her husband, Ramón Alejandro Muñoz, and
her neighbor, Eugenio Hernández. The three have never gone to trial. Whether they
are included in the 53 is also uncertain. It has not been possible yet to
determine who is on the release list.
José Manuel, the rafter librarian refugee who stayed
at my house years ago, as mentioned in my new book (photo above at the beach with his aunt in 2010), had this to say: Pues
es un tema que NO me interesa, y que en realidad no va a tener ningún beneficio
para el cubano común, así que seria una perdida de mi valioso tiempo. Además de
que a mis 50 años de edad, ya no me va a quedar vida para esperar a que Cuba
vuelva a ser un país normal. [This
is a subject that does NOT interest me and that, in reality, won’t have any
benefit for the ordinary Cuban, so it would be a waste of my valuable time.
Furthermore, I’m 50 years old and won’t live long enough to see Cuba become a
normal country.] He said he doesn’t feel Cuban anymore and never plans to return
there again.
However, Armando, the kidney patient in my book (his little family photo with me ended up mysteriously at the end), feels optimistic. Por fin
las relaciones entre nuestros paises van a mejorar. No se hasta que punto, pero
me alegra saber eso. Por lo menos es el principio de nuevas relaciones y
oportunidades. Ojala que todo sea para bien y que disminuyan los muertos en el
mar. En cualquier momento aparece el primer McDonald’s en la Habana. Quizas
ahora con los cambios al fin usted tenga la oportunidad de viajar a Cuba otra
vez un dia. Yo estaria muy contento de que usted pueda viajar a mi pais otra
vez de manera libre y tranquila. [Finally,
relations between our countries are going to improve. I don’t know how much,
but I’m happy about it. At least, it’s the beginning of new relationships and
opportunities. Let’s hope it all turns out well and that deaths by sea will
diminish. Any moment now, we’ll see the first McDonald’s in Havana. Maybe now
with these changes, you will have a chance to finally travel to my country
again someday. I would be very happy if you could travel to my country in a
free and peaceful manner. [Armando is referring to my ejection from
Cuba by State Security in 1997 and, though he hopes I will go back, I’m not
quite ready to try that yet, especially after the revelations in my Cuba book.]
A friend who is a staunch admirer of Fidel Castro, along the
lines of the guy who inspired my Cuba book, had this to say: Congratulations to the President of the
United States, Barack Obama, and Pope Francis, for their fabulous and inspiring
collaboration in bringing at long last to an end the unjust and futile attempts
to isolate and sabotage Cuba for having dared to adopt a socialist model of
social and economic development, thereby isolating and rendering irrelevant the
undue influence lobby of the extremist right-wing Cuban-American National
Foundation (CANF) Miami lobby whose die hard right wing extremist ideologues
are those who benefitted from the bloody dictatorship of Fulgencio Baptista
[sic] until the genuine people’s Revolution cast off the yoke of that decadent
racist authoritarian.
Whew!
Batista, who was of mixed race himself, wasn't particularly known for racism, despite
his many other failings. And is CANF still a force? Since its founder died,
haven't heard much about it. The above commentator, like many pro-Castro
Americans, is caught in a time warp.
Here’s another
comment, again similar to what the guy who actually inspired me to write my
Cuba book might say, indicating, as we all know, that extreme partisan polarization
will probably increase on this issue, just like on many others. He credits Cuba
with the “elimination of human misery” (a big surprise to most Cubans) and says
that Cuba’s achievements have inspired other nations in the Americas “to choose
a populist/socialist development strategy and tactics which assertively is
[sic] not aligned with the dictates of the rightwing extremist neocon
ideologues.” What
about extreme leftwing ideologues?
Feisty and quirky Independent Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont seems
to be governing via press releases, putting forth his very own Cuba policy, relentlessly
criticizing the US government, but never the Cuban leadership. He has
constantly complained about leaks of information about American government
democracy programs—information that he himself may well have leaked. He hasn’t
missed a chance to berate USAID for Cuba democracy efforts, expressing outrage
at their incompetence in trying to provoke “regime
change” in Cuba. (Is regime support
his desired objective?) At least twice in the last few months, he has railed
against defunct “hip-hop” and “Twitter” programs aimed at Cuban youth. He
thinks that by labeling them ineffective and misguided, that makes it so,
though Cubans who were actually involved in them feel otherwise. In my Cuba
book, I mention that he also held up funds designed to promote Cuban democracy.
Yet, despite his scathing criticism of USAID, he was prominently on the
delegation that brought Alan Gross back from Cuba, although Gross had gone to
Cuba precisely for USAID. Is he a hypocrite or was his constant berating of
efforts to support democracy activists in Cuba perhaps just a smokescreen to
gain the trust of the Castro regime? That might be giving him too much credit.
Somehow, I am on Leahy’s e-mail
notification list, getting an electronic holiday card from him and his wife, smiling
together outside in picturesque snowy Vermont. Since then, I’ve gotten two donation
requests from him, asking for support already for his 2016 run—only in your
dreams, Senator Leahy! One message says: Wow, what a way to end the year. Just over a week ago, I was flying down to Havana, Cuba in
the middle of the night to pick up Alan Gross while President Obama was
preparing to announce policies that would transform US-Cuba relations.
Meanwhile, it has been revealed (if
true) that he facilitated the artificial insemination of the wife of one of the
imprisoned Cuban Five, who is now pregnant. (And he apparently has been
eager to reveal his role.) That seems over the top, getting far too cozy with
the Castro regime. In fact, there were reportedly 2 such attempts, as the first
did not work. Semen is exempt from the embargo? The husband is Gerardo
Hernandez, the convicted spy given two life terms for being most directly
associated with advising the Cuba air force of the trajectory of a Brothers-to-the-Rescue
plane that was then shot down, killing four men aboard. (Although the trial
venue of Miami has been criticized, no Cuban Americans were on the jury.) Would
Leahy advocate artificial insemination for either US female prisoners or the
wives of male prisoners here? Would he have so eagerly transported sperm from
an imprisoned supporter of Duvalier or Pinochet as a humanitarian gesture? What
about for G’tmo prisoners? Is reproduction a human right, even for those
incarcerated? What about all the folks in Cuban prisons now? Cuba has a very
low birthrate, far below replacement, so maybe Leahy needs to help out
prisoners there too.
Before
sanctimoniously accusing the US of using hip-hop artists in a plot to
destabilize a foreign government through subversive songs, people need to
understand the reality of trying to survive as an independent artist in Cuba, according
to Cuban independent filmmaker and event producer Diddier Santos. “Who
would you rather get money from? The Cuban government who will only give you
money if you follow the party line or another government who will give you
creative freedom to do what you want to do?” asked Santos, mentioning that he
has gotten money from the government of Holland.
Most people, once they take a stand, cling
to it stubbornly and, if challenged, strengthen their opinion all the more in
its defense. The NY Times’ Ernesto Londoño
agreed
to listen politely to Cuban dissidents, but declined to engage in conversation
with them or to have his photo taken with them, though he had no such
compunctions in his meetings with Castro regime leaders. Londoño’s relentless NYTimes editorials criticizing US Cuba
policy have turned off me and some other readers, though perhaps others have
been attracted by them. Of course, editorials are supposed to take a stand,
which Londoño’s Cuba editorials certainly have done. Maybe the Times’ editorials were setting the stage and paving the way for
Obama’s overtures towards Cuba? Meanwhile, the Times has targeted Dick Cheney’s role in authorizing torture, as it
should, something condemned around the world, but has remained silent about the
much longer lasting, continuing, and more extensive torture carried out by the
Castro government, which the leadership there says is nobody’s business but their
own as a sovereign nation, just as abuse within a family is often defended and
protected. Already, after the announcement of the accords, democracy activists
have been arrested. Where is the outcry? The Castro brothers truly are Teflon
dictators. Yet, Marx and Engels must be turning over in their graves, seeing
what communism has become the world over, including in Cuba.
The Wall
St. Journal, true to its orientation, is less enthusiastic about the Cuba
deal. Conservative columnist Mary
Anastasia O’Grady asks “Who Benefits
if the Embargo Is Lifted? The Castros already welcome foreign trade and
investment. Fat lot of good it’s done for Cubans.” (12-22-14) and Nestor Carbonell follows up with “Mine Is Mine, Yours
Is Negotiable” (12-26-14).
A the same time, while
criticizing and making fun of the North Korean regime appears totally
acceptable, including releasing a comedy showing the assassination of its
leader, films about the Castro regime are in variably romantic, inspiring, and
laudatory. Not that the two countries, while allies, are completely comparable.
Cuba is not as barbaric as North Korea, especially since Fidel retired, but it
does have a dreadful history of firing squads, long prison sentences, and work
camps for undesirables which should not be forgotten and simply swept under the
rug. Cuba has long benefited from a double-standard applied to its dictatorial
leadership. Just because the Castro brothers mouth platitudes about equality
doesn’t make them so.
People have been asking me if I am either
thrilled or appalled, depending on their own position. I am neither, though
surprised, yes, as I’d expected something before the end of the year, but
nothing quite so sweeping.
I’ve tried to make a list of pros and
cons regarding the Cuba accords. On balance, I do favor them, though remain
less enthusiastic than many more wholehearted supporters. I don’t know if Obama
and the pope had any further way to press the Cuban government to recognize
human rights. They were up against a deadline, not only that Alan Gross was
despondent and possibly suicidal, but facing the impending arrival of a totally
Republican Congress.
I make the assumption that democracy is
a superior form of government and that most people in Cuba and elsewhere would
like to have the maximum freedom to decide on the rules and rulers governing
them—also that the majority decides in the case of disagreements. In Cuba, the
Castro regime self-righteously proclaims something like: “While we may do
business with the United States and gladly accept any financial support, we are
going to protect our Revolution and our benevolent socialist system,” actually meaning
“our dictatorship.” Some Cubans may be comfortable with that, especially those
who benefit by being in the inner circle, but that is not the majority. Why not
put it to a vote?
Here below is my own list of pros and
cons regarding the Cuba-US accords.
Pro
1.
The
status quo was not acceptable and was going nowhere. More than 50 years of a
lack of formal relations have not resulted in much improvement in either human
rights or economic development in Cuba. Most Cubans seemed stuck, not been achieving
or producing anything useful for a long time. Something was needed to jar loose
the situation and promote some forward movement. Efforts have been made by
previous American presidents (during Fidel Castro’s time) to regularize
relations, but agreement was never reached. Now, at long last, after decades, it
finally has been.
2.
There
was a need to reset the Cuba-US relationship on a non-violent, non-adversarial
basis. US and world opinion increasingly favor the peaceful negotiated
resolution of international disputes. Each side must begin building trust with the
leadership of the other side. The agreement was a compromise—each side gave up
something and gained something. Disagreements and negotiations can now occur
more directly. Interests Section personnel will no longer be geographically and
otherwise restricted when they become regular embassy employees.
3.
Arresting
Cubans for being agents of the “empire” can no longer occur or will diminish.
4.
Cuba
is no longer a major threat to the US or the world. This accord acknowledges
that.
5.
Significant
change in Cuba is unlikely during the lifetime of the Castro brothers, who are
still living. Realistically, substantial change will probably not come to Cuba
until after the Castro brothers’ deaths and they have been hanging on. So,
let’s make things a bit easier for most people now and at least start the
economic transition.
6.
The
US does business with many other undemocratic regimes.
7.
Cuba
is close geographically to the US and there are many families with members in
both countries.
8.
A
reset of the US-Cuba relationship offers more economic opportunities on both
sides.
9.
Cultural
and sports exchanges should increase.
10.
Most ordinary Cubans now seem excited and
hopeful for the first time in years, many expecting the US to rescue them.
11.
A promise by the Cuban government to allow
more internet access (though still restricted) will permit a greater flow of
information (one of the main objectives of USAID programs there). (However, it
also offers more opportunities for cyber-warfare against US targets.)
12.
Alan Gross and another American prisoner have
been freed. Gross had been despondent and threatening suicide. Americans may
not be arrested so quickly again.
13.
Cuba has promised to release 53 political
prisoners.
14.
The Obama administration wanted to stem the
flow of refugees and prevent a refugee crisis. (Wet-foot/dry-foot is under
fire, but may not be able to be eliminated without Congressional approval, so
probably will remain at least for the next 2 years.)
15.
World and Latin American public opinion,
particularly among leadership sectors, has long favored engagement between the
US and Cuba (or, at least, has strongly criticized the previous US position).
The US image has suffered because of enmity with Cuba. The agreement has been
hailed around the world.
16.
American public opinion, including among Cuban
Americans, has also largely favored greater engagement.
17.
Nations unfriendly to the US such as
Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea were caught off-guard (and are probably none
too happy).
18.
Most Americans don’t really care that much
about the Cuba issue or else believe the US has been at fault. Most people here
and around the world are unaware of the Cuban government’s systematic human
rights abuses. They have bought the Cuban government’s narrative that the US is
aggressing against poor little Cuba. (This could also be a “con” argument.)
19.
With so many even hotter trouble spots around
the world, why remain focused on Cuba?
20.
Obama wanted rapprochement with Cuba to be
part of his legacy (and it is also part of the legacy of Pope Francis’s legacy
as well as of Raul Castro).
21.
Making peace with the US was a big concession
by the Cuban leadership, removing its main reason for oppressing dissidents.
Anti-US rhetoric and actions may be reduced (but peaceful opponents are still
being arrested).
22.
The majority of Cuban and American people have
no enmity toward each other.
23.
The US and Cuba will both be able to attend
the Summit of the Americas without conflict next April.
24.
Fewer political arrests and “actos de repudio”
may occur. The Cuban leadership may become less harsh, feeling more secure in
power and wanting to favorably impress American visitors and investors.
25.
The Cuban leadership may become slightly more
amenable to diplomatic persuasion for human rights (provided they don’t feel
threatened in their own positions). The naming of ambassadors will allow the
two nations to work out differences and agreements more directly.
26.
Perhaps, as in China, Peace Corps volunteers
will be able to go to Cuba.
27.
The US does not have clean hands either in
terms of civil and human rights.
28.
It’s a done deal anyway, so get over it. Too
late now for “would’ve,” could’ve,” “should’ve.” Cuba is no longer an important
nation, except among ideologues on both sides. We live in an imperfect world
where compromises are necessary. Let it go.
Con
1. The embargo in reduced form is still
in place and the Cuba issue has created an even deeper and more bitter partisan
political divide in the US. Political polarization in the US on Cuba will
increase—it’s already happening. Some Republican lawmakers are vowing to block
the naming of an ambassador to Cuba.
2. Obama has acknowledged human rights
abuses and the lack of democracy in Cuba, but nothing in the agreement
addresses that crucial problem; democracy will not automatically and magically
occur. The US will no longer have any obvious leverage for human rights
advocacy. Already, since announcement of the agreement, peaceful demonstrators
have been beaten and arrested by authorities. However, rather than being
accused of being CIA agents, they are apparently now being accused of being
agents of right-wing Miami Cubans.
3. While many Cubans may be content to
remain at home if there are more opportunities there, some are making plans to
reach US soil before that door closes.
4. American support for democracy
efforts may totally cease. “Regime change” has become a dirty word.
5. Cuban spies may more easily enter
the US.
6. Viet Nam and China still arrest political
opponents despite economic and trade ties with the US; China still executes
more people—sometimes even for property crimes--than the rest of the world
combined. Cuban democracy activists have said they don’t want “Putinism”—now
they are headed in that direction.
7. Cubans will become more compliant
and resigned, will not rebel, will never learn about or experience democracy.
If even the mighty USA has capitulated to the regime, who can help them now to
achieve free expression and association?
8. With Venezuela on the ropes, the
Cuban regime was about to go down with it—now the US has come to the rescue
just when the regime was on its last legs (though we’ve heard that before).
9. Trade with the US will not be a panacea
for Cubans, any more that trade with the rest of the world has been.
10.
Cuba has declared categorically that fugitives
from American justice will not be returned. Whether Cubans held in American
prisons will be returned is uncertain; up until now, Cuba has largely refused
to accept them.
11.
The Cuban government has promised to release
53 political prisoners, but, so far, apparently none have been released and
independent human rights groups on the island say that is only half the actual
number. Furthermore, there have been new arrests of peaceful demonstrators
12.
Cuba has the only Amnesty International
prisoners of conscience in the Americas. People will probably continue to be
thwarted and arrested for peaceful association and expression. There will be no
freedom allowed for non-communist elections.
13.
The 3 “Cuban Five” prisoners released to Cuba
have blood on their hands, especially Gerardo
Hernandez, who allegedly was most directly involved in the deaths of 4
Brothers-to-the-Rescue volunteers. (Although their trial was considered biased
by many commentators, no Cuban Americans were on the Five’s jury. Vermont
Senator Patrick Leahy, a vocal critic of USAID programs in Cuba, even
reportedly facilitated a successful artificial insemination of Hernandez’s wife
in Cuba.)
14.
Corruption and the power of the military,
already extensive, will increase in Cuba.
15.
The devil is in the details, still to be
worked out. In China and Viet Nam, visitors can pay service providers
directly—will this happen in Cuba? Will visitors be able to travel freely? Will
individuals not affiliated with a government-approved tour be able to travel in
Cuba and just hang out with ordinary people? So far, it looks like only
prearranged tours, authorized and staffed by the Cuban government, meaning by
its loyalists, will be permitted. With luck, freer commerce, as in China and
Viet Nam, will be permitted, but that is not allowed yet. Can workers for
foreign investors be paid directly, rather than through the government? Will
medical personnel sent abroad be able to keep more of the payment for their
services? Canadian entrepreneurs have been arrested and their assets have been
seized. If economic controls are not relaxed, it may be too hard for outsiders
to do business in Cuba. (A Canadian businessman was given 15 years for giving
direct bonuses to his employees and his business seized on that pretext.)
16.
The US has a strict policy of not paying
ransom for captives, but paid quite a lot for Gross. It also is paying Gross
$3.2 million in compensation. Grabbing Gross turned out to be a crucial
investment for the Cuban regime.
17.
A majority of UN members voted to review human
rights abuses in North Korea, but not in Cuba. There will apparently be no
review or recognition of the long history of human rights violations in Cuba,
no truth and reconciliation commission. Cuban human rights violators will enjoy
impunity in a whitewashing of past and recent history.
18.
Tourism and trade with the whole world besides
the US has not resulted in Cuban authorities recognizing human and civil
rights. Cuba remains a one-party communist state.
19.
Other Caribbean tourist destinations may
attract fewer visitors. Eventually, Cuba will become, after a surge of initial
interest, just one more US tourist destination among many, losing its unique
character.
20.
Dissidents, former political prisoners, and
the families of the 4 Brothers-to-the-Rescue volunteers killed by the Cuban air
force feel shocked, abandoned, isolated, and betrayed.
21.
Ordinary Cubans may expect too much of this
agreement and become discouraged and disappointed when their expectations do
not materialize quickly enough.
22.
Likewise, they may never get into the habit of
thinking for themselves; it takes time for a people to transition from a
totalitarian system, but now that process may not even begin.
In terms of sheer number of items listed, the
pros have it by a modest margin.
__________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment