Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Obama Will Be Rewarded for His Open Talk About Bad U.S. Policy on Cuba

By Ian Williams, Comment Is Free. Posted September 1, 2007.


Telling the truth about Washington's policy towards Cuba can be dangerous -- but it may pay off for Barack Obama next year.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why the End May Be Coming for Coal
Christine MacDonald

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Study Claims Even the Most Sophisticated Readers Can Be Manipulated
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Ian Williams

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The news that Fidel Castro is betting on the Clinton-Obama dream ticket should be taken with a large Mohito. It makes you wonder which TV station denied to ordinary Cubans that he is relying on for his news.

Even so, Barack Obama is doing well by doing good with his pledge to reform the administration's counterproductive Cuba policy. It may annoy the hysterical anti-Castro faction in Miami, but lots of sane Americans, including many Cuban immigrants, will support someone who breaks with the inane and inept foreign policy that has got the US nowhere in Cuba and led it up the Tigris elsewhere.

Anyone who has compared the complexions of the diehard anti-Castro types in Miami to those of their former compatriots in Havana will get an inkling of an unspoken truth. There is no way the overwhelming white Cuban supporters of the Cuban American National Foundation would vote for a black candidate, short of him personally delivering the bearded head of Castro on a platter. And even then they would prefer to tip him and send back to the plantation.

Indeed, one of the secrets of the Castro's success is that Afro-Cubans are very well aware that the exiled would-be rulers in Miami are not exactly equal opportunities types. Their ancestors had maintained slavery until 1886 -- and many aspects of segregation right up to the revolution. They would not be welcomed as liberators.

From Kennedy onwards, one would hardly accuse Democratic administrations of being soft on Castro -- but the Southern strategy of not so subtly coded racism worked to get the former Confederacy voting for the transmuted party of Abraham Lincoln. It is highly likely that like many Anglo whites, the more conservative and anti-Castro Cubans support the Republicans for the same racial reasons more than any perceived Democratic softness towards Castro.

But for Hillary Clinton, this is not necessarily about votes. It was her husband, after all, who declared his support for Robert Torricelli's bill cutting trade with Cuba even further after a fundraiser organized by Cuban wannabee Caudillo Jorge Mas Canosa put $275,000 dollars in his campaign treasury back when he was running against George Bush senior in 1992. Mas Canosa knew what he was doing. Bush, who had hitherto pragmatically opposed it, promptly followed Clinton in supporting the amendment.

It would be unfair to accuse Clinton of strictly mercenary motives -- although one has detected more than a hint of such in the past. She is a believer. Her hard line on Cuba should be no surprise, since her foreign policy is identical in most respects to the neocons, as her comments on Iraq, Israel and much of the rest of the globe will testify.

Even so, one can only hope that she is getting some big cheques and endorsements for her support. The embargo and the travel restrictions make no sense in diplomatic or humanitarian terms. If we are concerned about democracy and human rights there is a serious double standard being observed. Castro does not have a free press, does not allow free unions, and locks up some dissidents. Neither does China. Who was the last Congressperson to call for an embargo of China over executions and enforced abortions?

The embargo punishes ordinary people in Cuba, depriving them of contact with their families in the US, and of the financial and medical support they offered. Quite apart from damage to ordinary Cubans, who are after all are non-voting foreigners till they land in Florida and so do not count, the laws rob American citizens of their freedom to travel and their rights to contact with their family members.

In short, the restrictions are morally unjustified and are tactically inane -since they tend to prove the point of what Castro is saying about Uncle Sam's vindictive hostility.

And as Bill Clinton himself pointed out when he walked into an ambush with progressive TV host Amy Goodman, they give Castro an excuse for economic policies that contrive to produce food shortages on one of the most fertile islands in the Caribbean.

Obama has been attacked for his callow youth. But the role of the little boy exposing the lack of substance to the imperial wardrobe becomes him. He should keep it up. There is a lot more exposure needed.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, cuba

Ian Williams writes on the United Nations for AlterNet. His work has appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus, the Nation and Salon. He is also the author of Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Obama's Cuban Venture
Posted by: homeboi on Sep 1, 2007 12:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Obama has been attacked for his callow youth. But the role of the little boy exposing the lack of substance to the imperial wardrobe becomes him. He should keep it up. There is a lot more exposure needed."

I couldn't agree more with that. Seeing someone come from (practically) outside the current political machine we have today is a breath of fresh air.

Cuba isn't a deal breaker for 2008 and also isn't on the minds of most Americans, which makes this a great topic for Barack Obama to "test the waters" with in how everyone reacts to his political direction. It's also interesting to see how news, blogs, and people in general respond to his "different" way of politics. At first, he was being attacked from all sides for being willing to talk to hostile countries but from what I've seen recently and including this post, it sounds like people might be finally realizing he could be onto something big.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama's Cuban Venture Posted by: Axiom69
we have done what the East Germans did in building the Wall
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 1, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
inhumanely preventing people from contact with those they love.

Trade is very secondary to that and an abstract concept for most voters. Obama should pitch the human side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The hypocrisy of China's 'favorite nation' status to our policy with Cuba
Posted by: Evora on Sep 1, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally someone has pointed out the double-standards this country exhibits depending on what they feel will serve them at the time.

Obama IS a breath of fresh air. His supposed inexperience (which in and of itself is total bs--as if his 10 years of legislative experience didn't count, but, oh...being First Lady does?) is actually a lack of Washington-insider blinders and political artifice. While many fault his debating skills, what you have seen is a remarkable ability to rise above the fray and see the broader challenge, and even correctly re-phrase a narrow question to it's more encompassing one and offer insightful, comprehensive solutions. That may not fit in well with the 30-second time frame that is geared more for sound bite, applause enducing sloganeering, but nonetheless says more about the man's intelligence and comprehension of the complexities of the world we live in.

There is a lot of naked power leading the world and Obama is indeed pointing it out to a sleepwalking electorate. He does not pander to any group, but will point out truths many will not want to hear. Fortunately, many come away saying..you know, he's right! That makes perfect sense.

When did we ever tell family members they were forbidden to visit their relatives anywhere else in the world? Are these the famous 'family values' the rest of the American political establishment fosters?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anti-Castro Cubans could care less about a free Cuba
Posted by: Universe.in.Flux on Sep 1, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Virulent anti-Castro Cuban exiles don't want normalization with Cuba because it would rob them of the possibility of returning to Cuba on their terms, which has always been about sweeping back into the country as capitalists bent on reestablishing their once dominant economic status. They're nothing but a bunch of Batistas waiting in the wings, ready to get rich off the blood, sweat, tears, and broken backs of the dark-skinned lower classes, who, believe me, would see few of the benefits of the free-market trade that would follow.

I don't think anyone denies that Cuba, in the long run, would be better off as a democracy. It's obvious from our experience with China, however, that the best way to do that would be to drop the embargo and engage with them, culturally at first, economically later, and then let the inexorable march toward self-governance develop naturally, as an extension and an expression of the will of the people.

These expatriate Cuban nuts in Miami aren't interested in Cuba's freedom. Their interested in making money. It just so happens that it's easier to make money in a capitalist democracy than in a socialist autocracy. If Castro decided to let foreign investors start up private companies in Cuba tomorrow, their disingenuous, anti-communist bellowing would dry up in two seconds flat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bottom Line?
Posted by: paschn on Sep 1, 2007 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Castro had balls enough to vomit out the Evil Empire, ( insert United States ), because he, along with the majority of Cubans, refused to allow their country to be used any longer as this foul nation's toilet. Batiste was a "knee walking" swine very similar to our OWN "knee walking" swine. The mob, U.S. corporate vultures and our fine "leaders" wallowed in moral filth there and made the Cubans live in it. Remember, another fine US organization, the C.I.A., ( Corporate Interference Agency, tried several times to get the Cubans riled enough to expel Fidel both before and after their failed assassination attempts but couldn't muster enough support from the common folk. This was about the time Kennedy kicked most of his joint chiefs out for their cute little Northwoods plan to murder and destroy our own and blame it on evil Mr. Castro. I think the only thing I detest more than our rapacious, disgusting government / corporations are the mindless fawning U.S. Sheeple.
A nation of sheep, led by a cartel of whores, controlled by Israel / big business. Welcome, to the REAL Evil Empire.
But try to get these drones to absorb the truth and do something about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bottom Line? Posted by: dmaciewski
Misreading the news
Posted by: Macu on Sep 1, 2007 1:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The news that Fidel Castro is betting on the Clinton-Obama dream ticket is a lot of bull.

The item below mentions Fidel Castro's latest column, which discusses American politics. Here's a direct quote from the column:

Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for President and Obama for Vice President. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding "a democratic government in Cuba". They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon.

I don't pretend to understand the metaphor of the final sentence, but I certainly understand the first one. Fidel says that "talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket." But now here's CNN's (mis)interpretation:

Add another name to the list of political observers who think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unbeatable: Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

In an editorial in Cuba's communist party newspaper, Granma, the ailing dictator said the pairing of the two White House hopefuls seemed "invincible."


Balderdash. He said no such thing. He said "talk" (i.e., conventional wisdom) is that the ticket is "seemingly invincible." He didn't say the ticket was invincible. Reuters makes the same mistake, asserting that Fidel "is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election." Nonsense.
Is it really that hard to read the English language?

Update: I didn't think it possible, but it just got worse. Wolf Blitzer, pitching his upcoming show, says we'll hear "who Fidel Castro will be casting his vote for" and who he "prefers for President." Of course we'll hear no such thing.

Second update: Just to show it can be done, AP gets it exactly right, with a headline, "Castro essay criticizes U.S. presidential hopefuls" and a lead that starts, "A new essay signed by ailing leader Fidel Castro accused U.S. presidential candidates of 'submission' to his exiled foes in Florida and offered a favorable assessment of only one of the 10 presidents he has known: Jimmy Carter." No absurd talk of Fidel "tipping" certain candidates or claiming they're "invincible."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misreading the news Posted by: Lauren
Great article.Hillary is a Neocon in a donkey's clothes.
Posted by: humanity101 on Sep 1, 2007 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very good point Sir! What exactly are the differences in foreign policies between Hillary and the Neocons, especially on Iraeil, Iran and Iraq? I would rather vote for a dumbass Republican (they don't believe in Evolution. Oh yeah, the nake used to walk on its tail.) than the chicken hawk Hillary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Embargo--Bad economics, bad policy
Posted by: Mokurai on Sep 1, 2007 4:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am entirely unclear on the idea that a trade embargo is ever good for the US to impose. I am a firm believer in free trade (not the current nonsense, Free for the corporations but not for people). It makes no sense to me that people under embargo would supposedly learn the virtues of democracy thereby, or that they would have their friendship with us strengthened.

Furthermore, an embargo on trade and travel makes the population dependent on the leadership for sustenance and information, allowing them, if they choose, to lie with impunity. As they do in Burma, North Korea, Sudan, and elsewhere, and as Saddam Hussein did. (Of course Saddam lied to his people when he was a US ally as well as when he suddenly "had always been our enemy".)

I believe that the first US embargo was the US joining in the French embargo of Haiti, after the successful slave rebellion their fought off the French army and navy at a cost of half the population. Naturally, with slave owners President George Washington and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson in charge, no thought could be given to the glorious casting off of the chains of imperial tyranny. This was a slave rebellion!

The embargo and its aftermath destroyed the Haitian economy and ecology, to the extent that neither has recovered in the nearly two centuries since. Compare the Dominican Republic, which shares the same island.

So, Go, Obama!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cuba is not an enemy of the U S, the U S is an enemy of Cuba.
Posted by: marrieah on Sep 2, 2007 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have come to wonder why is it that everytime someone in Washington declares another country or another country's leader a foe of this country, that person or country becomes my foe.

I'm all for patrotism, but why must I be a sheep. It seems we like to point the finger at Castro and Cuba for human rights violations that many states in this country abhere to themselves, but we call it justice because it was so-called decided by a 'jury of our peers' even as it was maniplilated by the politicians in our states that have such cruel laws on the books, and then we as citizens are told the laws were passed by the respresentatives we sent to to represent our interest and if we don't like the jobs our reps are doing we can vote them out of office at the next election but the laws that we passed will stay on the books even if they are cruel....and you know what, in the end nobody have to have responsibilty for anything.

Regardless of how Castro or (Saddam for that matter) runs or ran their country, they are doing a much better job than we doing the same thing.

We in this country use ploys and mixed language to get the populace to condemn or rally behind whatever our leaders feel is in THEIR best interest.

Castro has outlived many of our president, and even though he is the ruler of a small communist country, his country nor their people are no threat to us. Same as Iraq was no threat to us.

When will we ever learn to live and let live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keith Obermann was part of media misinterpretation of Castro "endorsement"
Posted by: John McAuliff on Sep 4, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A letter to Keith Obermann on the parade of bad journalism he joined about the purported endorsement of a Clinton-Obama ticket by Fidel Castro. No response to date.

Dear Mr. Obermann,

Your Worlds Worst segment on Fidel Castro was an easy diss and uncharacteristically reflective of conventional attitudes in the mass media. Now you might want to reflect upon how easily you (and others) were taken in by a completely phony story.

CNN's Raw Politics segment Tuesday night reported that Fidel Castro had endorsed a Clinton-Obama ticket.

Your language was derivative:

"[The Worlds Worst] runner-up is Fidel Castro writing an editorial in the official Communist Party newspaper about whom the Democrats should nominate as President and Vice-President next year. An apparently unbeatable ticket, he writes will be Hillary as President and Obama as his running mate."

Totally false! In an interesting essay on his relations with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson, Castro wrote the following:


Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for President and Obama for Vice President. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding "a democratic government in Cuba". They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon.

Hardly an endorsement or advice about whom the democrats "should" nominate! Simply an observation about what others are saying in a political game he is disdainful of, i.e. American candidates seeking to gain from telling Cuba how it should be governed.

Full text is attached and can be found in Prensa Latina at

http://www.plenglish.com/
article.asp?ID=%7B068E4DB9-F220-42AC-818D-C4BF1DB5952A
%7D%29&language=EN

It will take you about five minutes to read and actually has a fascinating account of Clinton promising through the President of Mexico to lift the embargo.

One wonders whether this is just sloppy or yellow journalism, or deliberately intended to damage Clinton and Obama (who have taken diametrically opposed positions on the right of Cuban Americans to visit their families and send remittances).

Where can the misinterpretation be traced back to? Drudge Report or something similar?

Most importantly, why would you join the herd?

John McAuliff

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement