The Bush administration is instituting measures further restricting how frequently Cuban-Americans can visit family back in Cuba. Until now, they could visit home once every year, but starting Wednesday, they will only be allowed to return once every three years. On top of that, there are tighter restriction on what kinds of money or gifts they can send to their relatives still in Cuba.
As one would expect, these measure are strongly supported by Cuban-American politicians. It is unsurprising that Bush would want to make such a dramatic gesture towards an important voting bloc in an election year. What is interesting, however, is that support for the new restrictions is much weaker among more recent immigrants.
Was the administration “on strong moral ground” in taking these steps? Is the pain caused to the families justified by whatever additional political instability these regulations will cause in Cuba? In my view, the answer is “no.” Cuba is obviously not a national security threat of any significance at this time. Therefore, our meddling in its affairs can only be justified on humanitarian grounds. But if Castro is truly subjecting his subjects to such misery, how are we helping things by further depriving Cuban families of what comfort they might get from their American relatives? It seems clear that the Cuban population is not going to rise up and overthrow Castro because of this; his regime will continue at least till his death. Thus these measure just inflict additional pointless suffering.
I am also disturbed by new limitations on cultural exchange:
How is the cause of democracy in Cuba helped by preventing the exchange of culture and ideas these programs encouraged? But from the article it seems the only ideas Bush wants Cubans getting from Americans is propaganda beamed down from an airplane.
I’m confused. Why would the Cuban community in Florida “strongly support” this measure? I find it very surprising that Bush would do something that restricts the activities of a large voting block in Florida. Cuban-Americans are anti-Castro, but they have a strong desire to support their families in Cuba, and maintain relations through visits and packages. I should think this action would cost him votes.
When people travel to Cuba it means pumping dollars into the Cuban economy. Aid groups also bring other things of value like new computers.
The richest, most powerful Cuban families in South Florida - there’s nobody left in Cuba for them; everyone came to America long ago. These are the hard-liners who would rather see Cuba starve because it reinforces their spiteful worldview.
Bush’s entire Florida strategy turns on the Cuban-American community ties that the Bush family has nurtured since the early 1960s. So much so that the GOP is running a nice-guy empty suit for Senate just because he’s Cuban. The thinking is that Cubans will turn out to vote for a Cuban and while they are there they will check every candidate with an ® next to his name.
Read the OP again: “Cuban-American politicians” strongly support this measure. Because as mentioned above, the big donors in the Cuban-American community – and the voters who more assertively and consistently show up to the polls, even if they don’t have the money – tend to be the hard-liners.
We should drop the embargo on Cuba entirely. If we want Communism in Cuba to fall, shouldn’t we want to fall the way it fell in relatively prosperous Eastern Europe, not the way it fell in the desperately impoverished Soviet Union? Which region is better off now, in the post-Communist period? Anything we can do now to make Cuba more prosperous is more beneficial in the long run than starving it, even if it does allow the Communists to hold on to power for a while longer. Besides, open trade and communication with America is more likely to erode the Communist world-view – as the proximity to Western Europe hastened the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Let the Cubans get a taste of economic prosperity and intellectual freedom, and they’ll want more, and more. Keep up the embargo, and it just hardens their stubborn nationalistic resolve to retain their present system just because it’s theirs.
I am most bothered by the restrictions on cultural exchange Bush has implemented. These exchanges are important not only because they directly expose Cubans to democratically minded Americans, but also because they allow mainstream Americans to understand first hand what life is like for average Cubans, especially with respect to the consequences of American foreign policy. But Bush would seem to prefer that everything Cubans and Americans learn about each other come from state-generated propaganda. From an article at the Providence Journal:
Is anyone else thinking that if George W Bush has to worry about the Cuban-American turnout in a state in which his brother is governor, that the Republicans are quite worried about this election?
After the fiasco of the last election (during which Jeb Bush was governor), neither Democrats nor Republicans are going to think that Florida is a lock. So it is not news that Bush is trying to woo such a reliable voting bloc as the conservative Cuban immigrants.
To hijack my own thread somewhat, does anyone know why recent immigrants seem to be less eager to do whatever it takes to cause Castro even minor discomfort? Is it just because they still have connections to Cuba, or are the circumstances under which people are now coming to Cuba less likely to making them bitter? That is, do the newer immigrants just consider themselves as people seeking greater economic prosperity rather than as refugees fleeing an oppressive regime?
Maybe. The later refugees may have less of a sense that thay have “something personal” with Fidel: to them he may just be a lousy old tyrant who runs a lousy old regime and smacks down anyone who dare say jack about it, but that’s all they’ve known, it’s kinda impersonal. To them any improvement is a net gain. While to the old-timers he’s the one who “took away” a whole chunk of their lives and Cuba-as-they-knew-it – not just the loss of properties and businesses (though far too many of the CANF old-timers hold on to the idea of landing in Cuba to demand that whoever is now living or doing business in their former property get out AND pay 40 years’ back rent plus interest plus punitive damages) but the disruption of their normal lives and the upending of an entire society and way of life that, for the region in the 1950s, was not quite so bad (Batista was just a run-of-the-mill corrupt strongman, not a beast like Trujillo). To them, it’s unconscionable that Castro be given any respite whatever, no matter what.
BTW, internally, Castro’s government is of late swinging away from limited “openness” gestures and back to hardline central control/planning. So both sides are digging in their heels.
Addendum to my first paragraph: Another special source of rage at Castro by the old-timers is the sense of betrayal. Many of them, at the beginning, if not supporters of the Revolution at the very least did not rally to support Batista either, thinking it was a good thing that he got kicked out. Some of them, though, WERE supporters of the Revolution. That Fidel, Raul and Che devised the way to take it over and use it to install their own dictatorial rule, and at that a hardline leninist one complete with bloody purges, show trials, public executions, and prison camps (where revolution commanders like Huber Mattos ended up) makes any relief upon the regime intolerable to them.