If a political reason is not parallel with a logical one though it reflects back on the citizens of that country (the majority). We all belong to some minority or another…a particular church, footballclub, ethnicity etc etc, if any smallgroup has so much power, we dont therest scream? apathy? ignorance?
we dont therest scream? apathy? ignorance?
[/QUOTE]
grrr…it should read why dont the rest scream? (bloody proof reading)
No, it does not. This is basic human behavior. When you’re asking people to change their behavior, with rare exception they need to know how it will benefit them.
Apathy, in this case. Almost nobody is inspired to stand up for Castro, for a variety of reasons.
In so far as we’ve been unable to “break” Castro or his government for more than 40 years, I’d say the debate is well settled.
Well, that’s not really true. The Cuban millitary supported a lot of Communist guerilla groups in the 80s, from UNITA in Angola to the FPL in El Salvador.
I think you’re wrong here. The Cuban-Americans who are fanatics about the embargo are voting Republican, regardless of who the candidate is. I think Al Gore made a major mistake by waffling on the Elian Gonazlez case which may have cost him some crucial Florida votes.
Still, since it isn’t something that tends to come up in Presidential campaigns except for stops in Miami.
There is this continuing perception that Castro is the bad guy and that by extending him recognition we legitimize him. That policy was established a long time ago after he used US support in overthrowing Batista and then sided with the Soviet Union when he took over.
At this point it has become a matter of principle. If the government extends recognition now it will be essentially admitting that Castro won, if you want to think in terms of winners and losers. There’s also the fear that history will repeat itself and companies will put tons of money into the country only to have the government nationalize everything like they did in the 1960s.
When Castro is gone I think we’ll put some feelers out on Raul, but all the same there’s still the element of mistrust, and that will take a very long time to get over.
Exactly right. The Cubans, unlike other Hispanics, are Republican all the way. It’s been typical Dem foolishness that they truckle to a voting block that wouldn’t give them the time of day. I suspect that some Democratic ops have started to understand that, so prolly all that’s keeping us from normalizing trade with Cuba is a Dem victory in the White House and/or Congress.
It wouldn’t because the US wouldn’t get anything out of changing our stance on this…either politically or economically. All the benifits would go to Cuba for letting up on them.
I agree with you…Castro is no longer a threat, certainly not now that the Soviet gravy train has stopped flowing to Cuba. I agree that the US certainly COULD remove its trade embargo…but I don’t see any compelling reason the US WOULD remove that embargo. Maybe after Castro’s death a new administation will consider it.
Well, thats true enough…Castro is still in power. However, we have done a pretty good job of containing him, which was the other side of the embargo coin. I think sanctions and embargo’s do a poor job of breaking dictators…and only do an adaquate job of containing them…mostly because they are difficult to maintain when you are starting to talk about decades instead of just years. Cuba’s embargo was easier to maintain than, say, the embargo/sanctions placed on Iraq, because the US has no compelling economic reasons to lift the embargo, and can afford to kick back and wait until Castro finally dies.
-XT
The big problem is Castro. Castro has ruled Cuba ever since the revolution. He seriously annoyed a lot of people in the US, what with the nuclear missiles and the nationalization and such. The US will never normalize relations with Cuba as long as Castro is in power, it would be too humiliating.
Yes, I know that countries often swallow their pride and accept reality. But the United States is wealthy and powerful, and normal relations with Cuba aren’t that important in the grand scheme of things. How much is our national pride worth? To accept a blow to our national pride we’d have to think we were getting something in return. Normal relations with Cuba would be nice, but aren’t exactly a huge incentive. And so we go on with our current policy.
And of course, there’s been a perception that Castro can’t last forever, and all we have to do is wait for Castro to die or be overthrown and then we can normalize relations with no loss of face. Sort of like how the Iranians waited until Reagan took the oath of office before the released the hostages. Castro is now an old man in poor health. He’s going to die “soon”, it’s just that no one realized exactly how long the old buzzard would hang on. Continuing the current policy for a few more years seems like a small price to pay to avoid giving Castro the satisfaction of “defeating” the US. A year or two after Castro dies we’ll have fully normal relations with Cuba, not before.
I’d disagree on China, which has been Communist-in-name-only for quite a while now; they’re using their state-run ‘unions’ to co-opt real unions, oppress the workers, and be Wal-Mart’s best friend. For Communism, China’s a big entry in the loss column.
I’ll give you the other three. I think an argument could be made that ideology is meaningless with respect to NK’s totalitarianism, but I don’t have the energy to make it.
Isn’t Laos still communist, too?
Nominally, but when 80% of the employment base is in subsistence agriculture it may as well not count.
“Hoe and plow workers unite!”
In the past I’ve wondered why we can become so friendly with Vietnam but still have a beef with Cuba.
Yes, this is also the main reason why also most of those Cubans in Florida are so pissed off. I bet a lot of them were from pretty well-to-do families that benefited from those U.S. firms in one way or another. Vietnam never did anything like this, and once the U.S. pulled out, they didn’t keep up the kind of rhetoric that Castro does (and North Korea).
That being said, the only reason why we can’t take up Castro on his offer of the doctors is historical pride, as far as I can see. Cuban doctors are generally very well trained (at least the ones I’ve seen). What I don’t understand is where all the medicine is coming from, (unless it’s domestically produced in Cuba). Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S., and Cuba has developed a vaccine for hepatitis C (the U.S. has not).
The major repression in Cuba is no freedom of the press/media, and no freedom of assembly/internal movement (and the punishment of those who speak out). It’s possible that the government (maybe even Castro) would go for a more mixed economy if they could be sure it wouldn’t threaten their independence. (Cubans are very proud of their independence; they don’t want to become an economic puppet.) China seems to me to be a lot more repressive, though I’ve never been there, I admit. The thing that most Cubans complain about is the economy, and that could improve if there weren’t an embargo. Many farmers in the U.S. want to do business with Cuba. If U.S. firms would forgive the nationalization of 45 years ago, and enter into 50/50 investment with the Cuban government (as Canada has done with the nickel plant in Oriente), the economic situation could improve, I would imagine.
This could be. But keep in mind, there’s a huge Vietnamese population in Orange County, CA (most of whom are citizens who can vote), and that hasn’t stopped rapprochement with Vietnam. Of course, California isn’t a swing state. (But the Republicans sure are trying to change that.) Also, it depends on who takes the action. McNamara went to Cuba a few years ago to relive the Cuban Missle Crisis in a friendly encounter with his Cuban counterparts of that time–including Castro, I think–but he’s not seeking any kind of elected office.
So what about Vietnam? Are we getting much in return from Vietnam now, to be so friendly?
I’m afraid this is correct. But we could afford to cut off trade with Vietnam (not China, of course).
So if Hillary is the the next president. . .
I wouldn’t call that a matter of principle.
I don’t think the U.S. recognizes the Cuban expropriation of American property, do they? There’s a lot of Cuban ex-pats who are expecting to one day go home and take back what’s theirs, I believe. That’s a real problem. For the U.S. to normalize relations with Cuba would essentially forfeit all of that, wouldn’t it?
I could be totally off base on this, does anyone know different?
The political problem is obvious - Florida has become perhaps the most important swing state, so those votes are absolutely critical to being elected President. The comparison with dairy subsidies in New Hampshire and corn subsidies in Iowa is a good one - small groups in control of a swing state have tremendous clout.
Personally, I think it’s time to drop the embargo. The best way to move the government of Cuba in a more moderate direction is with trade and good old capitalism.
The Cuban-American community in Florida is a huge, wealthy, organised, politically active community that plays a key role in electoral politics. At the heart of the movement was a large number of affluent, conservative Cubans who were mightily pissed off at losing their property in Cuba and they took care to sustain their political influence. Their resentment has waned little over the last 40 years and they strike back hard whenever anyone suggests normalising relations with Cuba.
None of these things are true about the Vietnamese-American community. In fact, so far as I know, most Vietnamese-Americans are in favour of normalisation of relations with Vietnam.
The comparison to Vietnam is interesting. The big difference in my opinion is that Ho Chi Minh died in 1969 so today the leaders of Vietnam are different people. If Castro had died in 1969 we’d have normalized relations with Cuba as soon as the Berlin wall came down. Castro has been dictator of Cuba for 40 years, and isn’t planning on going anywhere. But he was born in 1926 which makes him 79 years old. We’ve been waiting for Castro to die for a long time, waiting a few more years isn’t going to hurt. And again, almost all Vietnamese immigrants favor normal relations with Vietnam, Vietnamese immigrants aren’t concentrated in one state, and Vietnamese immigrants aren’t organized politically. The opposite is true for Cuban exiles. But of course, the Cuban exiles are dying off as well.
But no progress on normal relations can occur as long as Castro is still dictator of Cuba. Since Castro will never retire that means we have to wait until he dies.
They’re living in a dream. At some point the expats have got to accept that they can’t go home again. The Cuba they remember no longer exists, and never will exist again, even if the existing system is overthrown. A democratic/capitalist Cuba would have absolutely no interest in restoring properties confiscated by Castro, and the U.S. would be in no position to demand it.