Two Policies, Two Wrongs
12,000 Flags for 12,000 Patriots
“Don’t ask, Don’t Tell†(DADT) is about to fade into the history books as the policy of the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to gays and lesbiansâ€â€for the most part long-serving, professional, and courageous soldiersâ€â€serving openly in their ranks. It’s about time.
One of the myths about DADT is that Colin Powell, serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the obstacle around which it was forged some 17 years ago (see this morning’s news, 4 February 2010). Actually, the U.S. Congress bears that burden. John McCain and other Republicans who are speaking out now in opposition to doing away with DADT are the latest manifestation of that obstacle. But today that obstacle will be easily overwhelmed.
Not so in 1993. When a beleaguered President Clinton realized that key members of his own party in the Congress, plus Republicans, would stymie his effort to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, he turned to Powell to get him out of the mess he had created. The result, crafted by the Joint Staff in the Pentagon working for Powell, was DADT.
Why would I broach this subject on The Havana Note?
Because like DADT, U.S. Cuba policy is wrong, overdue for change, and ripe for the beginning of that change.
One of the various pieces of legislation now percolating in the Congressâ€â€some for pure travel rights, some for travel plus other rights such as more normal agricultural salesâ€â€will likely wend its way to success this year, but not without obstacles to its passage most of which, but not all, are in the Republican Party.
Looking solely at travel rights for all Americans, there is a clear correlation with DADT. It is a constitutional right of all Americans, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation, to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces if they can meet all required mental and physical standards.
It is a constitutional right of all Americans to be able to travel where they wish. If we can go to Beijing, Hanoi, and Pyongyang, we can go to Havana.
As with DADT, there are obstructionists in the Congress. But as with DADT, they will be overcome.
There is one alarming dissimilarity, however, between DADT and full travel to Cuba: no one in the White House seems to care about the Cuba issue.
This lack of concern exists partly because there is no one in the White House who knows much about Latin America, and partly because there are huge challenges on the President’s agenda that dwarf the Cuba issue and even Latin America writ large.
The former deficiency can be solved by hiring a Latin American expert who knows what he or she is talking about; the second by letting that expert have the lead on policy toward the region. All the President and his national security advisor, Jim Jones, need to do is follow.
The first step will inevitably be toward Cuba, because that outdated and purblind policy is what all of Latin America is waiting for America to set right.
Open the Door, Mr. President, to Latin America
President Lula of Brazil meets with President Obama. Official White House photo.
London's International Institute for the Study of Cuba recently carried this announcement on its web page:
HAVANA, Cuba, June 29: The Cuban Council of State passed on June 26th, 2009, a new Decree-Law number 268 entitled: "Reform of the Labor Regime" which was published by the daily Granma newspaper as an Official Note…. The law allows for workers to have more than one job and for students to work in part-time jobs. It also frees up enterprises in Havana to hire workers from other provinces directly instead of them having to be hired through the state employment agency.
Thus we see Raul Castro proceeding with his agenda to make small changes that will lead to greater decentralization, more empowerment of state/ministerial and provincial authorities, greater productivity and, finally, higher living standards for the Cuban people. All this while the U.S. makes joyful noises about a fresh policy, lifts some travel restrictions and remittance limits on Cuban-Americans, proffers telecommunications flexibility, and reopens immigration talks. But no real substantive changes in U.S. Cuba policy have been made. Even one of the most meaningful actions is being billed as serendipity, i.e., the shutting down of the idiotic billboard on the U.S. Interests Section building in Havana is touted as a result of a technical malfunctioning and not of a sound decision to shut down the stupid thing. How timid we soaring eagles are!
On the same International Institute webpage, there was this as well:
The Conservative Party leadership in the UK is calling on President Obama to lift the half-century old American blockade of Cuba, in an attempt to pressure the Communist regime to change its ways, according to a report published in the Times newspaper today. William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, became the first senior British politician to visit Cuba for many years this week, holding talks with the new foreign minister and other senior figures. He found that far from weakening the hardline Communist tendencies of the Cuban Government, the American blockade was continuing to reinforce them, and was being used as an excuse by ministers for the poor state of the economy and the locking up of dissidents. (my emphasis)
In short, one of our closest allies' conservative party believes that U.S. Cuba policy is counterproductive.
In October, the United Nations will hold what has become an annual ritual in USA-bashing, a vote in the General Assembly on the U.S. Cuba embargo. Once again, the worldâ€â€minus Israel and some other one or two states that can't escape the compulsion of U.S. powerâ€â€will line up and resoundingly condemn the U.S. policy. Last year's vote, for example, was 185 to 3. That was the 17th vote in 17 years, with an increasingly larger number of countries condemning the policyâ€â€for example, the vote against included 179 countries in 2004; in 2005 there were 182; and in 2007 there were 184. Soon it will likely be unanimous. Even the Israelis are operating in Cuba now, so it is doubtful how much longer we have their vote.
What is driving this idiocy? Actually, several things.
Normally in the past, one would lead off with the Cuban-American lobby who, for over 45 years, have had an iron grip on U.S. Cuba policy, though several presidents have tried to break it. But that's no longer the case. President Obama is the first to win the White House without needing the Cuban-American vote. While Cuban-Americans of the hardcore variety are still a formidable force, they are no longer the central factor in U.S. Cuba policy.
What is then? First and foremostâ€â€after all, the Dems won in 2008â€â€it's Democratic fear of being seen as weak on national security policy, coupled with Republican reluctance to act on a bipartisan basis. The Dems have shown some national security ankle on Iraq, on Iran, on Syria and are holding their breath on North Koreaâ€â€so, the rumors go, why should they show any ankle on such an insignificant issue as Cuba policy? The Dems believe that Republicans, even those with better sense (see the next paragraph), would pounce on them if they did. In short, Republican leaders would accuse the Dems immediately of being soft on national security instead of joining them in changing a bankrupt Cuba policy. Moreover, the Dems would be accused of reversing themselves on one of their perceived pet priorities, human rights.
Second, it is Republican angstâ€â€and outright trepidationâ€â€about being out of step with their "instincts" about their party and their colleagues (we won't call it lack of courageâ€â€yet.) Otherwise, why are people such as Brent Scowcroft, George Shultz, Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, and a few other Republicans who have sound views on foreign policy, reluctant to speak out forcefully about the utter inanity of U.S. Cuba policy? They will pronounce upon it in private but not in public. If there are other reasons, I would love to hear them. And let's reiterate: we can't cite national security; Cuba poses no threat whatsoever to the United States. Nor can we cite human rights because we deal with China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, et al, every dayâ€â€and, besides, groups such as Human Rights Watch have said that engagement with Cuba would be more successful with regard to human rights than the current isolation policy.
Lastly, there's the very realâ€â€and understandableâ€â€reason that since Cuba is so low on the priority list, why waste the political capital, energy, or time? Let's forget for a moment that a country 90 miles off the coast of Florida, thoroughly divorced from contact with the U.S., is a ripe plum to be picked (lest we forget the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962). Let's forget that we need to reverse the Myers Lansky/Fulgencio Batista legacy we left in Cuba, our un-American detritus, if you will, which still fouls our relations with the region. Let's forget these and concentrate on today's and tomorrow's Latin America alone. It's for certain that others are.
Take China, for example, and this recent article on the Council for Hemispheric Affairs' website:
On November 5, 2008, the Chinese government released a policy paper on Latin America and the Caribbean, as it had previously done so for Europe in 2003 and for Africa in 2006. Although it may not come as a huge surprise that Latin America is the most recent region for which China has formally spelled out its foreign policy position, the region has been historically perceived as being under the United States’ sphere of influence. Perhaps the importance of the Chinese policy paper lies in the timing of its release. The release of the paper deliberately coincided with the unfolding of the current financial crisis; this congruence of events has allowed China to expand its influence in this somewhat neglected region without attracting any lasting venom from the U.S. China’s policy paper formally evidences the importance of Latin America and the Caribbean as part of China’s growth plan for its long-term strategic interests. Most of all, this includes access to raw materials as well as a plethora of natural resources, the infiltration of new foreign markets, the reduction of diplomatic support for the Republic of Taiwan, and the strengthening of Beijing political standing on the global stage through strong alliances cemented with the developing world.
The policy paper explicitly states its main objective is to "clarify the goals of China's policy in this region, outline the guiding principles for future cooperation" and "sustain the sound, steady and all-around growth of China's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean." In the economic realm, China expresses an interest in investing in energy, mineral resources, forestry, fishing, and agriculture, areas important to expanding China’s productivity. Additionally, the Chinese government seems to show interest in infrastructure projects not directly related to its economy, albeit essential in the transportation of natural resources, and proposes to fund these projects in order to be perceived as a partner in development.
Furthermore, China expresses its desire to increase military diplomacy and sale of equipment to the region. Although many of the report’s statements are merely rhetoric and general in scope, the paper helps formalize China’s economic, diplomatic and military ties with Latin America, which were first proposed by then President of China Jiang Zemin in 2001.
Recently, I was on a panel at the New America Foundation where one of the members spoke of the U.S. political neglect of Latin America as inevitable because the region was simply unimportant. While I have respect for most of the views of this particular individual, on this he was very much mistaken.
I was just in Sao Paulo, Brazil, where the dynamism is palpable. Blessed for almost eight years now with the best leadership in our hemisphere from President Lula da Silva, Brazil is on the move. That movement can and will occur with or without the United States. Better that it be in cooperation with the United States. Similarly, whether it's immigration, narcotics, planetary warming, energy resources, or global disease, we divorce ourselves from our own hemisphere at our imminent peril. In brief, we had best begin caring about Latin America (even as we ourselves transform in just a few short years into a majority minority country with Hispanic-Americans composing a huge chunk of that majority).
The door to a wiser, more productive foreign and national security policy vis-à-vis Latin America is easy to discern in the foreign policy mists: it is normalization of relations with "that infernal little Cuban Republic" off our southeastern shore.
--Lawrence Wilkerson
The Military Makes Sense—Again
With regard to Latin America, the U.S.military is on the right track and the rest of the government is far behind.
In the current issue of the U.S. Naval Institute’s superb magazine, Proceedings, Commander Pat Paterson, U.S. Navy, writes in an article entitled "Our Waning Influence in the South" that “We urgently need a new foreign policy to reestablish goodwill and trust in Latin America."
Commander Paterson continues:
Decades of foreign-policy hypocrisy and economic double standards have resulted in a pervasive resistance to and suspicion of U.S. involvement in Latin America. The animosity manifests itself in ways that are direct threats to our national security: U.S. diplomats have been expelled, narcotics trafficking has reached record heights, and our military is being ousted from strategically important bases in the region. The United States is losing access and influence in Latin American and Caribbean nations like never before. Unless we act quickly, we may be unable to regain our standing in this vital area.
Those of us at The New America Foundation, and elsewhere that an advocacy for sanity in U.S. foreign policy reigns, have been saying for over a year now that U.S. policy toward Latin America is a failure. What we have not said, very often anyway, is that the only instrument of American power that is truly pursuing any policy at all there is the American armed forces.
Having wars to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unwinnable drug “war†in its third decade, and looking at declining budgets for as far as it can see, the U.S. military's growing weariness at carrying all of America’s diplomatic burden in Latin America is very understandable. Today, as Commander Paterson reveals, those armed forces are tiring of the task and telling the rest of us that if someone doesn't come soon to assist them, we might as well write off Latin America. Some pundits would say, so what? What is Latin America worth anyway?
Such people had best wake up. One of the most skilled leaders in the world at the moment is Brazil's Luiz Ignácio Lula da Silva. In fact, when he and former President George Bush were together, the world could see one of its very best leaders alongside one of its very worstâ€â€a spectacle all but America seemed to grasp for its irony. America, of course, never blinked (demonstrating perhaps even more poignantly our blindness to what's happening in our own backyard). Lula is taking Brazil to new heights upon which it will discover a new stability, a new economic prowess, and followers aplenty.
Not missing many points at all in his very comprehensive appraisal of America's policy failure in the South, Commander Paterson rails at the U.S. embargo on Cuba: "The trade embargo on Cuba has become representative of U.S. economic and diplomatic bullying, the type of foreign-policy tool that has proved counter-productive to our interests."
And in his overall assessment and recommendation, the Commander makes me proud to have been a long-serving member of our military because, like Nixon to China, he brings realism par excellence to U.S. foreign policy formulation when he writes: "For now, U.S. policy [in Latin America] should be humble, not arrogant; modest, not boastful; multilateral, not unilateral; compassionate, not belligerent; honest, not hypocritical. Unlike our past behavior in Latin America, now is the time to speak quietly and put down our big stick."
The very first act in that regard should be normalization of relations with Cuba, 90 miles off our coast. That single act would open the door wide to reshaping U.S. relations with everyone else in our hemisphere, from Toronto to Buenos Aires.
As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once declared, a truly good neighbor is what we should aspire to beâ€â€a neighbor whose lived example of democracy, freedom, respect for human rights, and belief in open markets should be more than enough to convince others of that example's power to make a better world.
-- Lawrence Wilkerson
A Beautiful Night at RFK
Saturday night I sat in RFK Stadium and watched the U.S.-Cuba soccer game. Unlike the tight game in Havana in early September, this one was a runaway with the U.S. team scoring six goals to Cuba's one. But as Clint Dempsey, the only scorer in the Havana game said of that game, it was "a hard-fought, good game."
More than 20,000 fans watched, with a sprinkling of Cuban flags demonstrating there were a few Cuban fans in attendanceâ€â€one group so high up in the "nose-bleed" section that only the constant beat of their drum could be heard. Chants of "USA, USA", however, drowned out what small contributions the Cuban fans were able to make, though they labored on valiantly. The group of about eight directly in front of my wife and me could not even seem to get the Cuban team members on the field to acknowledge that they were holding a Cuban flag overhead, waving it wildly to attract their attention. And by the fourth U.S. goal, it was clear the Cuban team was demoralized, perhaps having started that let-down process when two of their players apparently defected before the game even got underway.
My wife remarked early on when the game seemed to be a bit tighter and the Cubans had just answered the second U.S. goal with one of their own, making the score two to one, "I hope the Cubans win." My wife is a soccer fan but did not realize that the FIFA schedule was at stake and, so, felt only sadness for the Cubans who, she saidâ€â€and perhaps quite correctlyâ€â€probably had not even eaten properly in the last few weeks since hurricanes Gustav and Ike savaged their island ruining much of the food and fruit crops.
When my wife spoke that sentiment, however, what I thought immediately was quite different. What I thought was "better magnanimous in victory than ugly in defeat….". I was considering what I had recently seen in Wisconsin and Minnesota as Sarah Palin and her gang worked up the vitriol and hatred of the Republican "base" in the ongoing presidential campaign. Suppose, I worried, such ugliness were unleashed here, in RFK Stadium, if the U.S. team lost to Cuba?
I quickly put that thought behind me though as I recognized the obvious: this was a U.S. soccer crowd. Most of the people in this stadium could probably think and, even better, think fast, accompanied by fancy footwork and inexhaustible energy. Similarly, I realized that I was looking at almost every ethnic and racial possibility in the world as I glanced around the seats nearbyâ€â€Latino, African, Arab, Indian, Asian, Muslim women with head scarves, and others. This was not a lily-white pocket of Minnesota or Wisconsin, Alabama or Mississippi. This was America.
I also realized that none of the people in the stadium likely cared a whit for the U.S. embargo against the tiny little country whose team members struggled valiantly on the field before them, under the klieg lights of the world's greatest power. Were it in these Americans' collective power, they would eradicate in a nanosecond such a barrier to friendship. Indeed, some of the most belly-deep, stadium-filling cheering had erupted when the two teams had initially taken the field, side by side, each player led out by a small soccer-attired child who walked hand-in-hand with his or her much taller team member.
So, friends everywhere in the fight to change U.S.-Cuba policy, it is America to whom we should appealâ€â€to all the people across this great land, some 270 million I'm convinced (all but the "base" of the Republican Party and a few connected Democrats, all of whose numbers shrink further every day), who truly believe in freedom and democracy, who do not use such ideas to hide their tyrannies behind, and who are ultimately going to sound the death knell of "the stupidest policy on earth."
-Lawrence Wilkerson
The Tide Is Turning
From the Naples (Florida) Daily News, as reported on NapleNews.Com:
"Now that Fidel Castro is no longer officially in power in Cuba, 60 percent of likely voters believe the U.S. should revise its policies toward Cuba  even more believe all U.S. citizens should be allowed to travel to Cuba (68 percent) and that U.S. companies should be allowed to trade with Cuba (62 percent). In a Zogby Interactive survey conducted in July 2007, slightly more than half (56 percent) of Americans said the U.S. should remove travel restrictions and end the embargo on trade to Cuba."
American citizens are wising up. Too bad their government is so far behind them. Soon, however, like the French ruler looking out the window at the people moving away, Washington is going to have to say: "Wait, wait, I'm coming! Don’t leave me behind." That isn't exactly leadership, but it will have to do.
-Lawrence Wilkerson
It's National Security, Stupid
A Russian TU-160 "Blackjack" strategic bomber in Venezuela.
Let's chalk up the losses of late in Latin America:
We're being tossed out of Venezuela.
We're being tossed out of Bolivia.
We're despised in Argentina.
Nicaragua looks favorably on Russia's move into Georgia.
Honduras and Guatemala hold their noses when they deal with us.
We're barely tolerated in Mexico and puzzled over in Brazil, the real looming giant of Sudamérica. In fact, the best leader in the Western Hemisphere, Luiz Ignácio Lula da Silva, just ignores us most of the time because to him, I'm sure, we are indecipherably stupid.
The Chinese are going to drill for oil within 60 miles of the coast of Florida; Russia just landed Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers in Venezuela and contemplates building a space launch facility in Cuba; and an international consortium, led by Dubai Ports World, is studying plans to build one of the largest container processing facilities in the Western Hemisphere in Mariel, Cuba. Its throughput capacity will rival or surpass Los Angeles.
The U.S. record in Latin America is just short of an abysmal failure. (And one suspects that if the Cheney/Bush administration actually had a policyâ€â€other than neglect and drugsâ€â€the record would be worse.)
In January 2009, what should the new president do about this failure in our own backyard?
The very first action should be to lift the embargo on Cuba and treat that nation just as we do other nations with repressive to partly-repressive regimes that are showing signs of accommodating the needs of the 21st Centuryâ€â€countries from China and Vietnam to Albania and Georgia.
Establishing more or less normal relations with Cubaâ€â€after more than a century and a half of paternalistic-imperialistic behavior toward Havanaâ€â€would be such a stunning signal to the rest of Latin America, that all manner of positive changes throughout the hemisphere might be possible in its shadow.
Once Latin American leaders, from Chavez to Lula, see that the U.S. is serious about Cuba, they will have to get serious about the U.S. Chavez, for example, will have a major plank of his anti-Americanism jerked right out from under him. Lula will have to consider that we mayâ€â€may, I sayâ€â€have just regained our composure and our senses.
And in Cuba, there will be a cautious and growing recognition that the future may be a lot brighter than had been thought, particularly now that three hurricanes have ravaged that island nation and it needs a lifting of the embargo, not a hand-out, to recover its footing.
Moreover, unlike almost any other foreign policy challenge now confronting the U.S.â€â€Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or the Israeli-Palestinian situation, for examplesâ€â€an opening to Cuba will cost the economically-struggling U.S. not a single dollar. Not a single dollar.
The rewards of such an opening, however, are huge: a completely new outlook from our entire hemisphere, from Toronto to Buenos Aires; a sensible policy with an island nation 90 miles from Florida and with many blood-ties to the U.S.; and an opening through which, hopefully, can pour new, positive and productive bilateral and regional relations with nations in our own backyard.
Only a fool would resist.
-Lawrence Wilkerson
What's Wrong With Us?
The Parable of the Good Samaritan by Delacroix
Here is what Sarah Stephens, Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, said recently with regard to the hurricanes that have recently ravaged Cuba:
In recent days, three hurricanes -- Hanna, Gustav, and Ike -- have laid waste to the island. Thanks to ferocious winds and rain, Cuba lost 700,000 tons of food products in ten days. One quarter-million homes and structures were damaged or destroyed. Water, telephone, and electrical services are disrupted. Care International predicts that tens of thousands of Cubans will be left homeless and that Cuba is facing the real possibility of food shortages in the days to come. Thanks to Cuba's remarkable civil defense, only seven lives have been lost, but my Cuban friends tell us in simple terms, this is a crisis, a catastrophe.
Other governments have responded decisively. Russia, which cut off financial aid to the island after the Cold War, has started making good on its promise to deliver 200 tons of supplies. Spain is sending 15 tons of aid by air. Venezuela, China, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and the EU are all pitching in.
But where is the United States? We're busy baiting the Cuban government under the guise of hurricane relief.
I didn't believe that it could get any worse, but the Bush Administration has descended to a new low in Latin America.
Pushing a Latin American policy whose only highlights are occasional trips to South and Central America by hospital ships, billions of taxpayer dollars to an utterly failed drug policy in the Andean Region, and millions of dollars to corrupt and ineffective Cuban-American organizations in Florida, all wrapped up in an overall policy blanket of almost total neglect, the Cheney/Bush team may depart the White House with the worst record of failure in our own hemisphere of any since Nixon, Kissinger, and the Central Intelligence Agency created an absolute disaster in Chile almost 40 years ago.
But to cap it off with an extended middle finger to Havana after the Cuban people have suffered so dramatically, is truly sucking at the dregs of failure.
We need to lift immediately all aspects of our bankrupt policy's restrictions on money, travel, aid, and comfortâ€â€and leave that condition intact for at least 90 daysâ€â€and to ensure that whatever the Cuban people need, they get it. Period. That is the only decent thing to do.
Some time ago, we used to be a decent people by and large. Why can’t we reach down and find some of that decency again?
--Lawrence Wilkerson
An Urgent Need For Change
In 1972, President Richard Nixon, in responding to the toast of Premier Chou En-Lai at the now-famous banquet that highlighted the beginning of a new U.S. policy toward China, made these remarks:
So, let us, in these next five days, start a long march together, not in
lockstep, but on different roads leading to the same goal, the goal of
building a world structure of peace and justice in which all may stand
together with equal dignity and in which each nation, large or small,
has a right to determine its own form of government, free of outside
interference or domination. (my emphasis)
On 26 June 2008, Senator Chuck Hagel, in a speech at the Brookings Institution, said:
This American presidential election presents unparalleled opportunities for
our country and our two candidates. They must not squander the
magnitude of this moment. The next president and his team will have a
unique opportunity to capture domestic and international support unlike
any time since September 11, 2001. I believe that America and the
world will follow an honest, competent and accountable American
president. To seize this moment, the next president will not have the
luxury of extra time to prepare to govern. The candidates must begin
that work now as they earn the trust of the people over the next four
months.(my emphasis)
One of the "unparalleled opportunities" that confronts America is a new policy with respect to Cuba, that island nation of 11 million souls just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. But unlike Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan/Pakistan, China, Russia, India, global warming, the need for a rational energy policy, infrastructure refurbishment, tax reform and a host of other international and domestic issues, reshaping Cuba policy is not at the top, or even near the top, of either presidential candidate's agenda. But it should be.
Our own hemisphere is changing as rapidly as the power changes that are rocking the United States from Beijing to Baghdad, from New Delhi to Dubai. In Brazil, one of the best leaders in the world, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, charts an increasingly positive course for a nation almost as large as the U.S., while in Argentinaâ€â€once the world's tenth most wealthy countryâ€â€the potential is there to recapture economic success. In Mexico, historic changes are underway that in a decade or two may propel that country into the economic limelight as well and, if not, send millions more immigrants into the United States. Wherever one looks in Latin America, change is underway. But the U.S. is either not involved or only marginally. Worse, in the one country where its aid money speaks volumesâ€â€Colombiaâ€â€the U.S. focus on narcotics looks to South Americans more like pure self-interest than anything else. This neglect and single-issue policy must cease.
Moreover, in some countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia, the U.S. is increasingly seen as unimportant or, worse, antagonistic to the wishes of the majority of the people and supportive still of wealthy elites and rapacious corporations. This damaging image needs to be erased as well.
The best way to begin reshaping our Latin America policy is an opening to that little island off the coast of Florida, Cuba.
Such an opening would signal immediately to the entire region that the U.S. has regained its collective senses, has rethought its foreign policy and, most importantly, will act accordingly. Such an opening would also begin to dispel the apprehension, now shared around the world, that neither global interests nor even national interests drive U.S. foreign policy anymore. Instead, that policy is driven exclusively by U.S. domestic interestsâ€â€and usually and most dangerously by narrow and extremist domestic interests pandered to increasingly by politicians of both political parties desperate to please their respective bases.
Such a rational foreign policy opening to Cuba would be welcomed by all of our friends and allies in the world, not least of which is our very best friend, ally and trade partner in the hemisphere, Canada.
Whoever is president in January 2009 should make a commitment to review U.S.-Cuba policy in the first 100 days. A review of that policy based strictly on national interests cannot help but lead to a lifting of the embargo on Cuba and, thus, a whole new policy for Latin America.
- Lawrence Wilkerson
An Urgent Need For Change
In 1972, President Richard Nixon, in responding to the toast of Premier Chou En-Lai at the now-famous banquet that highlighted the beginning of a new U.S. policy toward China, made these remarks:
So, let us, in these next five days, start a long march together, not in
lockstep, but on different roads leading to the same goal, the goal of
building a world structure of peace and justice in which all may stand
together with equal dignity and in which each nation, large or small,
has a right to determine its own form of government, free of outside
interference or domination. (my emphasis)
On 26 June 2008, Senator Chuck Hagel, in a speech at the Brookings Institution, said:
This American presidential election presents unparalleled opportunities for
our country and our two candidates. They must not squander the
magnitude of this moment. The next president and his team will have a
unique opportunity to capture domestic and international support unlike
any time since September 11, 2001. I believe that America and the
world will follow an honest, competent and accountable American
president. To seize this moment, the next president will not have the
luxury of extra time to prepare to govern. The candidates must begin
that work now as they earn the trust of the people over the next four
months.(my emphasis)
One of the "unparalleled opportunities" that confronts America is a new policy with respect to Cuba, that island nation of 11 million souls just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. But unlike Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan/Pakistan, China, Russia, India, global warming, the need for a rational energy policy, infrastructure refurbishment, tax reform and a host of other international and domestic issues, reshaping Cuba policy is not at the top, or even near the top, of either presidential candidate's agenda. But it should be.
Our own hemisphere is changing as rapidly as the power changes that are rocking the United States from Beijing to Baghdad, from New Delhi to Dubai. In Brazil, one of the best leaders in the world, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, charts an increasingly positive course for a nation almost as large as the U.S., while in Argentinaâ€â€once the world's tenth most wealthy countryâ€â€the potential is there to recapture economic success. In Mexico, historic changes are underway that in a decade or two may propel that country into the economic limelight as well and, if not, send millions more immigrants into the United States. Wherever one looks in Latin America, change is underway. But the U.S. is either not involved or only marginally. Worse, in the one country where its aid money speaks volumesâ€â€Colombiaâ€â€the U.S. focus on narcotics looks to South Americans more like pure self-interest than anything else. This neglect and single-issue policy must cease.
Moreover, in some countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia, the U.S. is increasingly seen as unimportant or, worse, antagonistic to the wishes of the majority of the people and supportive still of wealthy elites and rapacious corporations. This damaging image needs to be erased as well.
The best way to begin reshaping our Latin America policy is an opening to that little island off the coast of Florida, Cuba.
Such an opening would signal immediately to the entire region that the U.S. has regained its collective senses, has rethought its foreign policy and, most importantly, will act accordingly. Such an opening would also begin to dispel the apprehension, now shared around the world, that neither global interests nor even national interests drive U.S. foreign policy anymore. Instead, that policy is driven exclusively by U.S. domestic interestsâ€â€and usually and most dangerously by narrow and extremist domestic interests pandered to increasingly by politicians of both political parties desperate to please their respective bases.
Such a rational foreign policy opening to Cuba would be welcomed by all of our friends and allies in the world, not least of which is our very best friend, ally and trade partner in the hemisphere, Canada.
Whoever is president in January 2009 should make a commitment to review U.S.-Cuba policy in the first 100 days. A review of that policy based strictly on national interests cannot help but lead to a lifting of the embargo on Cuba and, thus, a whole new policy for Latin America.
- Lawrence Wilkerson
An Urgent Need For Change
In 1972, President Richard Nixon, in responding to the toast of Premier Chou En-Lai at the now-famous banquet that highlighted the beginning of a new U.S. policy toward China, made these remarks:
So, let us, in these next five days, start a long march together, not in
lockstep, but on different roads leading to the same goal, the goal of
building a world structure of peace and justice in which all may stand
together with equal dignity and in which each nation, large or small,
has a right to determine its own form of government, free of outside
interference or domination. (my emphasis)
On 26 June 2008, Senator Chuck Hagel, in a speech at the Brookings Institution, said:
This American presidential election presents unparalleled opportunities for
our country and our two candidates. They must not squander the
magnitude of this moment. The next president and his team will have a
unique opportunity to capture domestic and international support unlike
any time since September 11, 2001. I believe that America and the
world will follow an honest, competent and accountable American
president. To seize this moment, the next president will not have the
luxury of extra time to prepare to govern. The candidates must begin
that work now as they earn the trust of the people over the next four
months. (my emphasis)
One of the "unparalleled opportunities" that confronts America is a new policy with respect to Cuba, that island nation of 11 million souls just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. But unlike Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan/Pakistan, China, Russia, India, global warming, the need for a rational energy policy, infrastructure refurbishment, tax reform and a host of other international and domestic issues, reshaping Cuba policy is not at the top, or even near the top, of either presidential candidate's agenda. But it should be.
Our own hemisphere is changing as rapidly as the power changes that are rocking the United States from Beijing to Baghdad, from New Delhi to Dubai. In Brazil, one of the best leaders in the world, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, charts an increasingly positive course for a nation almost as large as the U.S., while in Argentinaâ€â€once the world's tenth most wealthy countryâ€â€the potential is there to recapture economic success. In Mexico, historic changes are underway that in a decade or two may propel that country into the economic limelight as well and, if not, send millions more immigrants into the United States. Wherever one looks in Latin America, change is underway. But the U.S. is either not involved or only marginally. Worse, in the one country where its aid money speaks volumesâ€â€Colombiaâ€â€the U.S. focus on narcotics looks to South Americans more like pure self-interest than anything else. This neglect and single-issue policy must cease.
Moreover, in some countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia, the U.S. is increasingly seen as unimportant or, worse, antagonistic to the wishes of the majority of the people and supportive still of wealthy elites and rapacious corporations. This damaging image needs to be erased as well.
The best way to begin reshaping our Latin America policy is an opening to that little island off the coast of Florida, Cuba.
Such an opening would signal immediately to the entire region that the U.S. has regained its collective senses, has rethought its foreign policy and, most importantly, will act accordingly. Such an opening would also begin to dispel the apprehension, now shared around the world, that neither global interests nor even national interests drive U.S. foreign policy anymore. Instead, that policy is driven exclusively by U.S. domestic interestsâ€â€and usually and most dangerously by narrow and extremist domestic interests pandered to increasingly by politicians of both political parties desperate to please their respective bases.
Such a rational foreign policy opening to Cuba would be welcomed by all of our friends and allies in the world, not least of which is our very best friend, ally and trade partner in the hemisphere, Canada.
Whoever is president in January 2009 should make a commitment to review U.S.-Cuba policy in the first 100 days. A review of that policy based strictly on national interests cannot help but lead to a lifting of the embargo on Cuba and, thus, a whole new policy for Latin America.
- Lawrence Wilkerson