During
Memorial Day weekend and beyond, I had a Peruvian visitor who accompanied me to
the annual capitol concert, as shown. The capitol building is obviously undergoing
renovation. As is usual during these occasions, General Colin Powell paid tribute to members of the military and Gloria Estefan, among others, sang for
the gathered crowd. My visitor said he had always envisioned attending a
colorful musical event at the US capitol, so it gave him a sense of déjà vu to
actually be there. On another evening, we ate at a Cuban restaurant in the
neighborhood and on the last morning, his uncle came to drive him to his own
home in Blacksburg, Va. His uncle worked under my father at the Va. Tech Architectural
Department and is still a professor there. He bought the last house my parents
lived in Blacksburg, a pioneering solar house designed by my father and built in
1980, which the professor and his wife bought after my mother’s death in 2006. In
the photo, the professor is wearing a guayabera
that had once belonged to my Dad.
Here
is an e-mail message just received from my would-have-been visitor from Yemen, the guy who failed to show up
last March: “About the situation in Yemen, unfortunately, we are suffering from
all aspects, from inside and from outside. We are passing off slowly. [?] Pray
for us.”
There
is a new type of cell-phone ride service now competing with Uber called Split that allows multiple pickups along the same route. In Honduras,
regular taxis always pick up passengers hailing them even when they have other
passengers. It makes sense to share rides.
Quality
of Citizenship Jamaica
Angeline Jackson
Executive
Director
Quality of Citizenship Jamaica
1-876-317-2227
My 2014 book
about my Cuba experiences includes life with Alex (photo with our dog), and incidents of independent
gay libraries and exhibits being disrupted by Cuban authorities. I met at
Amnesty’s DC office with HIV+ gay rights activist
Ignacio Estrada, married to a transgender woman, Wendy Iriepa, also HIV+, who
had once worked for Mariela Castro. According
to Estrada, Mariela had basically co-opted the gay agenda to keep it within party
control. Apparently, he and Wendy decided to stay in Miami rather than return
to Cuba.
Despite
President Obama taking Cuba off the
list of state sponsors of terrorism and also meeting other Cuban demands, as
might have been expected, US-Cuba negotiations on opening embassies are moving at
a glacial pace. The Cuban political elite is strongly resisting allowing American
diplomats to extend their travel and possible influence beyond Havana. Reciprocity
would mean that Cuban diplomats could expand their own travels around the US to
bring a message of how their country is being mistreated and misrepresented,
but that might not find a very receptive or large audience here, whereas the US
Embassy in message in Cuba would probably find an eager audience hungry for
information. After all, information is tightly controlled in Cuba and the Cuban
government has never received a genuine vote by the people (though there are
rubberstamp mandatory votes for preselected candidates.) There is a stubborn and
relentless effort being made by the Cuban leadership to protect its control, status,
and benefits—frankly, its dictatorship—from a dissatisfied Cuban population while
trying to extract maximum economic benefits from the United States. But the US
negotiators should continue to push respectfully and not give in. This deal
means more to the Cuban side than to the US. By the same token,
I'm not sure how much effort the US side is willing to put into the human
rights fight.
Cuban
optimism about the accords with the US, both within the government and among
ordinary people, is based almost exclusively on anticipation of extracting more
money from American tourists. If Cuban American visitors to the country are
counted, then already Cuba gets more visitors from the US than from any other
nation, though the Cuban government prefers non-family visitors, as family
visitors are allowed to stay with relatives, while others are required to stay in
government controlled accommodations. There seem to be few, if any, plans to generate
other productive enterprises on the island. Actually making or inventing things
desired by Cubans or people elsewhere beyond cigars and rums seems not to be part
of the current regime mindset—it’s all about catering to and getting money from
American visitors. And that’s the same push that US travel agencies are making.
A
realistic prediction by those critical of President Obama’s diplomatic opening
to the Cuban regime is that it will cement a Chinese or Viet Nam-style system
of more economic benefits coupled with continued political repression. A dramatic
change like the Soviet implosion, Prague Spring, or Berlin Wall crash seems not
to be in the cards for Cuba, but the question is, would that have happened in
Cuba otherwise? Many Cuba watchers have said that as soon as the Castro brothers
were gone, it would have been likely, but now may never happen because this new
system is benefiting and strengthening the political elite, which will become even
more entrenched. It’s always difficult (and ultimately useless) to say what
might have been if another road had been taken. Any course of action is a
gamble with an uncertain outcome. And Cuba currently is a long way from even the
economic freedoms allowed in China and Viet Nam. And, at least in Viet Nam, American diplomats and elected representatives are
allowed to visit political prisoners. If that could happen in Cuba, it
would be a definite improvement.
So,
even if the Cuban government further relaxes its economic stranglehold on
citizens, a political opening is not necessarily likely to follow. Certainly that
has not happened in China and Viet Nam, which still have executions for
property crimes, political arrests, unfair trials, confiscation of passports, censorship
of internet and media, prohibitions on association, and restrictions on
religion, all decades after re-establishing diplomatic relations with the US
and, at least in China, the restrictions now are getting tighter. Those in
power won’t relinquish it gracefully or automatically, so while I will never
become a Republican, there is merit in some Republican criticisms of the Cuba
deal. At best, Cuba may get an economic opening accompanied
by one-party rule and restrictions on expression, association, and access
to information, with continuing political arrests and actos de repudio.
As
indicated before, the deal benefitted the US and President Obama in PR terms
because it blunted criticism from Latin America and around the world and also
got hostage Alan Gross freed. Most Americans have approved the thaw
unconditionally because of their simplistic understanding, as is usual with
most foreign policy issues. Cubans are benefitting now in economic terms with
increased US tourism and because they are infused, as least for a while, with
new hope for change. Since we live in an imperfect world, maybe that’s all that
can be realistically expected, at least while the Castro brothers are still
living. Of course, they can always put their successors in power (Raúl has a son
who is a military general) and there is, according to my information from
Cubans reportedly in the know, a split between hardliners with blood on their
hands dedicated to protecting themselves from accusations of human rights
abuses and more moderate, reformist forces. No wonder that negotiations on
reestablishing the embassies have become so slow and difficult!
From USA Today:
Mauricio Claver-Carone, executive director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which opposed Obama's decision to re-establish diplomatic ties with Cuba, pointed to three possible sticking points in the negotiations that could delay a deal:
•Diplomatic travel. Diplomats from both countries already work and live in each other's capitals, where they conduct basic consular services such as processing visas. But the diplomats are restricted from traveling. Cuban officials generally cannot travel outside the Washington Beltway, a freeway that circles Washington, D.C., and parts of northern Virginia. American officials are mostly restricted to the boundaries of Havana. Both sides want the restrictions lifted.
•Package inspections. The U.S. side wants to end the Cuban practice of inspecting or intercepting diplomatic packages sent to American officials in Cuba.
•Police presence. The Americans want the Cubans to remove the dozens of government police officers who surround the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, a security cordon that they say dissuades many Cubans from trying to enter the building.
Claver-Carone said no other U.S. embassy operates under such conditions, so accepting a deal that maintains any of them would be a disappointment. "If (the Obama administration) accepts those things in order just to raise the flag, then it's pretty clear that this is all about a photo (opportunity) and not about the pursuit of a cohesive, constructive policy," he said.
Mauricio Claver-Carone, executive director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which opposed Obama's decision to re-establish diplomatic ties with Cuba, pointed to three possible sticking points in the negotiations that could delay a deal:
•Diplomatic travel. Diplomats from both countries already work and live in each other's capitals, where they conduct basic consular services such as processing visas. But the diplomats are restricted from traveling. Cuban officials generally cannot travel outside the Washington Beltway, a freeway that circles Washington, D.C., and parts of northern Virginia. American officials are mostly restricted to the boundaries of Havana. Both sides want the restrictions lifted.
•Package inspections. The U.S. side wants to end the Cuban practice of inspecting or intercepting diplomatic packages sent to American officials in Cuba.
•Police presence. The Americans want the Cubans to remove the dozens of government police officers who surround the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, a security cordon that they say dissuades many Cubans from trying to enter the building.
Claver-Carone said no other U.S. embassy operates under such conditions, so accepting a deal that maintains any of them would be a disappointment. "If (the Obama administration) accepts those things in order just to raise the flag, then it's pretty clear that this is all about a photo (opportunity) and not about the pursuit of a cohesive, constructive policy," he said.
---------------------------------------------
(Reuters, May 20, 2015)
“[Assistant Secretary of State Roberta] Jacobson told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee a U.S. embassy would not reopen in Havana unless American diplomats
could travel outside the capital and Cubans were allowed access to the mission
without being harassed by security police. State Department officials often
point to China and Vietnam as possible models. In China, travel restrictions
vary around the country, but in general U.S. diplomats must get permission from
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Vietnam imposes restrictions on travel in some
provinces, although U.S. embassy officials do not need approval for personal
travel.”
I recently
received this sobering commentary from a veteran Cuba watcher: Architects of the new U.S.-Cuba policy rationalize that unconditionally ending
economic sanctions will strengthen Cuba’s self-employed sector and, thus,
foster a civil society more independent of the government. Eventually, they
explain, this more autonomous civil society will function as agents of change
pressuring the regime for democratic governance. This is an ethnocentric proposition anchored on economic determinism that overweighs economic variables and fails to understand the Cuban regime. For example, in a totalitarian system, those in self-employed activities remain bound to the government for the very existence of their businesses. Self-employment in a totalitarian setting does not confer independence from the government. On the contrary, it makes the newly minted entrepreneurs more beholden to the government in myriad bureaucratic ways as few are willing to risk their livelihood antagonizing their all-powerful patrons.
History instructs us as to the outcome we can expect. During the student protest in Tiananmen Square, China’s business community did not come out in support of the students. More recently we also witnessed a similar situation in Hong Kong. Sadly, these business communities were not willing to jeopardize their positions and support the students promoting democratic change. What makes administration officials think that a Cuban business community bound to an all-powerful State for their very existence would act differently?
----------------------------
Here
is some speculation on why Pope Francis
embraced Raúl Castro:
Whatever
the meaning or intent of Francis’s outreach to Raul Castro, here’s a laudatory
article about him—he certainly has shaken up the image of the papacy: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/opinion/pope-francis-and-the-art-of-joy.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
The
multiple shooting deaths between biker gangs in Waco, Texas, shows again that a state’s lax gun laws are a danger
to life, not a protection, as the NRA and gun advocates allege. Unfortunately, human beings are prone to rage,
impulses, mistakes, and accidents and are not always rational when carrying
lethal firearms. Gunshots can kill instantaneously, not allowing the victim any
defense or escape, as often happens when a curious toddler gets ahold of a gun
and pulls the trigger.
Regarding FIFA, I predict that Sepp
Blatter will play the US bully vs. the developing world card in defending
himself and his position.
No comments:
Post a Comment