Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton left office under a cloud but with permanent respect for their vision and courage in opening relations with adversaries China and Vietnam--not to mention with enduring appreciation from the affected nations.
AP's long time correspondent in Havana, Anita Snow, reminds us of Barack Obama's promise and potential to do more.
Obama said during the campaign that immediately after taking office on Jan. 20, he will lift all restrictions on family travel and cash remittances to Cuba Ã‚Â not just roll them back to previous rules that were tightened by the Bush administration.
A poll in Miami-Dade County confirms that neither politics nor policy should inhibit Obama from going further than his oft-pledged humanitarian step of family travel. The survey (detailed results here) undertaken for the Brookings Institution and the Cuba Study Group reveals Cuban Americans favor
* Ending the embargo 55%
* Normalizing relations 65%
* Ending restrictions on Cuban American travel 66%
* Ending restriction on travel for every American 67%
These numbers are virtually identical to Zogby's finding in October that 68% of all Americans favor unrestricted travel. Unlike previous polls, Cuban Americans did not give greater support to allowing their own visits
What more does Team Obama need? On January 21 the new president can send a bold signal that will be heard enthusiastically by 185 UN members, including every Latin American and Caribbean nation, two thirds of all Americans, 84% of his own supporters and by a Congress looking for leadership.
All it takes is an executive order to provide general licenses for twelve categories of non-tourist travel. Putting off the decision will send a different and less palatable signal.
Enabling non-tourist travel will encourage Congress to finish the job by removing remaining restrictions and open the way for the promised meeting between Barack Obama and Raul Castro. One can imagine Vice President Biden, UN Ambassador Rice and Commerce Secretary Richardson laying the bilateral groundwork.
[Note: nearly 600 persons have signed the on-line letter to the President-elect, often appending moving personal comments. We don't know how many Obama supporters have shared their vision on Cuba policy at his transition web site.]
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's recent visit to Venezuela and Cuba received some attention from the press, but little from the Bush administration and none from the Obama transition.
That is as it should be. With the announcement that the U.S. economy is definitely in recession, the backdrop of two wars and a provocative attack in India, the lame-duck Bush administration needs to focus its limited ability to shape events and focus on the top priorities.
For the transition team, President-elect Obama has consistently said the transition will focus on people then policy. But even after yesterday's national security team roll out in Chicago, it will be still quite some time before policy positions take real form. Indeed, with the sometimes-honored pledge to respect the one-president-at-a-time rule, we may not hear much policy until the Inaugural address.
But they are planning. And it is becoming clearer that Russia and Cuba offer two separate but increasingly intertwined opportunities for the Obama administration to really define itself.
In both cases, Washington's policy has been out of step with the rest of the international community and our hands are not as tied as they are in the cases of Iran or Iraq. That's a great situation in which the new team can make a clear and bold statement to the world that there is a new leader on the Potomac.
Russia's gambit is the Kremlin's version of the Cheney doctrine: a focus on using energy as geopolitical leverage, the re-establishment of a sphere of client states, and provocative but incremental moves to confirm their seriousness and intimidate neighbors. The rationale is simple: Moscow has little it can rely on as an attractive force, will be hammered by a shift to a global green economy and with Obama coming into office, time is running out to use the leverage they have.
Think of it as the Exxon-Mobil of the international community. Russia's entire economy is based on the the price of hydrocarbons and its leadership has decided that it is politically easier to dig in than to adapt. In addition, Russia's population is aging and shrinking, and by choosing to return to autocracy, its ability to innovate is inherently limited.
Cuba, as I've written before, is surviving on what I've called a "Yugoslav" strategy. Like Tito's successful playing off of East and West during the Cold War, Cuba is profiting from its strategic position in the Caribbean and its potential to be a thorn in the side of Washington. This time, however, the patrons are China, Venezuela, and Russia.
My colleague at New America, Steve Clemons, likes to tell a story of being in Beijing recently and asking what some of the leading minds at the leading foreign policy think tank were working on. Their reply: figuring out how to keep the U.S. distracted with little wars in the Middle East. Beijing and Moscow also realize that Cuba offers a similar kind of diplomatic obstacle, but one tailored to the Western Hemisphere.
That is, to the extent that the U.S.-Cuba relationship sits in its Cold War deep freeze, the U.S. relationship with Latin America will get atrophy further and provide more opportunities for trade and patronage deals for entrepreneurial powers, like Caracas, Beijing, and Moscow. As long as these nations keep Havana afloat in the global credit markets, providing it critical economic inputs and especially food, the U.S. strategy of isolation and regime change will continue to fail and there will be no chance to transform our relationship with the Western Hemisphere.
Ironically, both strategies, those of Cuba and Russia, are dependent upon the U.S. acting against our own interest. We need to build a new, sustainable relationship across the Western Hemisphere and we need to reduce our consumption of and vulnerability resulting from, oil.
President-elect Obama now has the chance to negate both gambits, by changing our strategy towards Cuba and by aggressively pursuing a decisive strategy to end not only America's, but the world's addiction to oil. The question in my mind is not whether Mr. Obama will do something on either of these issues. The question is whether he will go far enough to make a strategic difference.
Who will the Obama team ask to take the lead on forging a new relationship with Cuba? Both the 111th Congress and the team around the President-elect are facing a unique opportunity to end one of the last vestiges of the Cold War and get an easy victory under their belts early in the administration. The question will be who takes the lead.
Gates and Jones, coming from a military background will be the most likely and influential supporters of such an initiative. The broad feeling at the Pentagon is that Cuba is a) not a national security threat to the United States, unless it becomes a failed state, and b) represents an important opportunity to secure our long-term interests in the Western Hemisphere.
That said, neither the National Security Council nor the Defense Department will be taking point on the process of re-engaging Cuba. That will be left to the State Department at the end of the day. So the question of whether Secretary-designate Clinton will see Cuba as one of the "strategic opportunities" that she and President-elect Obama have identified is of major consequence.
But while the Department of State has to take the lead on diplomacy, the Secretary's hands will be tied when it comes to actually changing policy by the Helms-Burton Act, one of the few instances in American history in which the Congress has successfully curtailed the Constitution's separation of powers and constrained the President in the setting of foreign policy.
And that sets up a delicate dance between Congress and the Obama administration. Each branch of the incoming government will have to signal to the other just how far it wants to go on Cuba policy. Senator Kerry, the incoming Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, will have an enormous say in the matter, as will his counterpart in the House of Representatives, Representative Howard Berman. Both are broadly supportive.
The necessity of that delicate policy dance between the two branches argues for one particular champion of a transformed Cuba policy, Vice President-elect Joe Biden. As president of the Senate, Mr. Biden will have an office in the Capitol from which the kind of close coordination and confidence-building will be essential to make sure that both Congress and the Executive move their pieces on the chess board at the right time.
Vice-President Elect Biden has to carve out a niche for himself as the first post-Cheney vice president. His speaking part today in Chicago at the unveiling of the national security team signals that role will be in foreign affairs. While he will certainly be advising the president-elect on many issues, Cuba will be one that his office is particularly well suited for.
And, ironically, outgoing Vice President Cheney happens to agree with the need to change Cuba policy. Two trusted sources tell me that the architect of the "unitary executive" thinks the embargo and especially Helms-Burton legislation is, to paraphrase, the "stupidest @#$%& policy" ever.
The Brookings Institution is as mainstream and prestigious as you get on the Democratic leaning side of Washington think tanks.
Its President is Strobe Talbott, a leading foreign policy adviser in the Clinton Administration and a long time friend of our former President and of our prospective Secretary of State.
Talbott served on Brookings' Partnership for the Americas Commission. On Monday he hosted a C-Span broadcast public presentation of its remarkable report entitled "Rethinking U.S.Ã¢â‚¬â€œLatin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World".
Their first recommendation on Cuba "that should be implemented immediately by the US government":
* Lift all restrictions on travel to Cuba by Americans.
Many of the proposals made in its Cuba section are not new to experts in bilateral relations, but their source is. The Commission, half from the US and half from Latin America and the Caribbean, eschews the usual judgmental rhetoric and focuses on addressing problems with a Hemisphere impact. The co-chairs are Ernesto Zedillo, Former President of Mexico and
Thomas R. Pickering, Former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
If the Obama Administration and Congress want a blueprint for how to proceed with Cuba, this is it.
Go here for the full text, Cuba section pp 28-30
A streaming video of the presentation can be seen on the C-Span archives and will be available on the Brookings website.
Overview:and recommendations below:
"The last section addresses U.S. relations with Cuba. Though this issue is of a smaller order of magnitude than the other four areas, it is addressed here because Cuba has long been a subject of intense interest in U.S. foreign policy and a stumbling block for U.S. relations with other countries in the hemisphere.
The report puts forward these recommendations for the next U.S. administration and Congress:
* Lift all restrictions on travel to Cuba by Americans.
* Repeal all aspects of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“communications embargoÃ¢â‚¬Â (radio, TV, Internet) and readjust regulations governing trade in low-technology communications equipment.
* Remove caps and targeting restrictions on remittances.
* Take Cuba off the State DepartmentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s State Sponsors of Terrorism List.
* Promote knowledge exchange and reconciliation by permitting federal funding of cultural, academic, and sports exchanges.
* Provide assistance to the Cuban people in recovering from natural and human-made disasters.
* Encourage enhanced official contact and cooperation between U.S. and Cuban diplomats and governments.
* End opposition to the reengagement of the international community with Cuba in regional and global economic and political organizations.
* Work with the members of the European Union and other countries to create a multilateral fund for civil society that will train potential entrepreneurs in management and innovation."
What should we make of Jim HoaglandÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s semi-complimentary report that Secretary of State Rice proposed,
Ã¢â‚¬Å“moving toward a better diplomatic relationship with Cuba by upgrading the existing U.S. interests section in HavanaÃ¢â‚¬Â?
It is not a bad thing that Secretary Rice tries to initiate a different approach to Cuba. It's more useful than former Secretaries of State seeing the light after they leave office (e.g. George Schultz and Madeline Albright now call for an end to the embargo).
However, upgrading the Interests Section won't matter much unless it abandons non-diplomatic intervention in support of regime change advocates.
More useful would be a change in Bush Administration policy re private initiatives to help Cuba recover from three hurricanes. All Americans should be given a general license to visit and donate funds to assist relatives and friends. US NGOs should be free to send humanitarian and reconstruction aid without time consuming and cumbersome Treasury and Commerce Department licenses.
The same step could be taken by the incoming administration. Obama already called for a hurricane related suspension of limits to Cuban American visits, remittances and aid packages, although that will be superseded if he keeps his pledge to completely end their restrictions. As with travel, it ill befits a post-racial administration to deny the same right to all Americans and to private aid agencies because of ethnicity or national origin.
Should Hillary Clinton become Secretary of State, she brings baggage on Cuba. Clinton's campaign strategy was to align closely with Bush travel restrictions and to place unacceptable preconditions on negotiations. During Bill ClintonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s administration, her Cuban-American sister in law was an active and influential opponent of reform in US policy toward Cuba.
Hopefully Clinton (and Obama) will pay attention to former Secretary of State AlbrightÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s advice in her book Memo to the President Elect.
"We need a policy towards Cuba that is free from the political wrangling of the previous half century. The embargo may have served a purpose originally, but it has outlived its usefulness. It currently has no international support and little function except to provide a convenient justification for Havana's repressive policies. The United States has no license to dictate Cuba's future, and heavy handed attempts to do so will only sabotage those inside Cuba who are working for democracy and human rights. Our approach should be one of friendship towards the island's people and support for increased contacts between our two countries at every level. Cubans do not need us to point out that Castroism is an insufficient answer to the demands of the global economy. In the post-Fidel era, they will inevitably have to adjust. Let us encourage them to do so through increased political openness, but let us also deprive Castro's successors of the excuse of yanqui bullying." p 176
Readers who wish to encourage the President-elect to meet his rendezvous with history on Cuba can do so on the Obama transition site change.gov. Presumably someone will notice articulate personal comments by his campaign supporters and a total will be kept of what issues are roiling the grass roots.
Another way to express your opinion is by joining an on-line letter and by sharing this link with friends and colleagues. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamacuba/
(picture, no doubt a photo shop montage, borrowed from www.nerve.com)
Visits to Cuba by ChinaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s President (seen here in 2004), RussiaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Prime Minister and BrazilÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s President illustrate that the Obama Administration delays at its peril setting a bold new course on Cuba. Even the Bush Administration in its final months may be having second thoughts.
Reuters reports that during a two day stopover,
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed to put off some of Cuba's debt payments and gave the island $80 million for hospital modernization and other projectsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦China is Cuba's second largest trading partner after Venezuela at $2.3 billion in 2007.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Next up in Havana is Russia's Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev who is reported by Reuters to have both economic and strategic goals, in part to counter the Bush AdministrationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s adventurist policies in countries that were part of or dominated by the former Soviet Union.
Closer to home,
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Brazil will offer Cuba financial aid for industry, energy and infrastructure projects during a December visit by communist President Raul Castro Ã¢â‚¬Â¦We'll discuss the production of buses, building roads, as well as oil investments," Marco Aurelio Garcia, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's foreign policy adviser, told Reuters.
Obama might ponder the implications of a remark made during the recent visit to Cuba by Lula, our non-Chavez role model, about his invitation to Raul
"to participate in the first meeting of Latin American and Caribbean nations, without interference from any other power."
The struggle to influence the direction of the Obama administration on Cuba is underway.
A good article by Carol Williams in today's LA Times quotes Jake Colvin, Al Fox and myself about prospects for change by the new administration.
I developed the same ideas at greater length in an op ed in Sunday's Sun Sentinel
The contrary effort to influence Obama was expressed in Myriam Marquez' column in Sunday's Miami Herald. She boasts of CANF's influence and distorts Obama's position on family travel. She also echoes the CANF critique of US democracy funding, that it is not deployed effectively enough for purposes of subversion.
"With Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, the Cuban American National Foundation is sitting pretty after wandering the political wilderness for eight years....With Obama's win CANF is positioned to have immense influence on Cuba policy. What to expect? An aggressive policy to get more money to the opposition in Cuba....The U.S. embargo toward Cuba will rightly stay. The 2004 Bush restrictions on travel and remittances will go. Returning to the pre-2004 rules would mean Cuban Americans could travel once a year to see family instead of once every three years, and remittances could go up to $3,000 a year -- instead of the current $1,200 -- and open to all family members."
In fact, every Obama campaign statement about Cuba and the Democratic Party platform position clearly pledge "unlimited family visits and remittances" , not only return to the pre-2004 formula.
As far as I know, Obama has not spoken to the controversy over "democracy" funding, other than the skepticism expressed by his votes against TV Marti in 2005.
Yet Marquez assumes he will follow CANF's line that,
"the rules need to change so that money and equipment can reach the opposition -- just as it did during the Cold War for the Polish Solidarity movement."
She seems oblivious to both Cuban and Eastern European history. Poland and other communist regimes on the periphery of the Soviet Union were externally imposed and sustained. The Solidarity model is totally irrelevant to Cuba which is why many people who took advantage of the opening offered by Mikhail Gorbachev believe the US embargo and travel restrictions are counterproductive--and vote against them in the UN every year.
Vietnam and China are better analogies to Cuba. Whether admired or disliked, their revolutions were internally created and managed and have evolved on their own terms to market economies and greater personal freedom. (The US expresses criticism of their human rights records and political systems but does not presume to intervene in domestic debates.)
Sending direct aid to opposition personalities in Cuba hopelessly compromises their nationalist credentials and makes them vulnerable to prosecution as agents of a hostile foreign power, not unlike the attitude the US took to members of the US Communist Party in the 1950s. Buying into CANF's semi-soft regime change thesis also makes no sense if the new administration wants to develop the trust and mutual respect that are essential for successful negotiations.
CANF and others in Miami presume they should be part of any negotiations between Washington and Havana, but that is pure poison to serious talks. It would be like Bill Clinton inviting Nguyen Van Thieu and Nguyen Cao Ky to be part of the US-Vietnam normalization discussions. (Much after the fact Ky made his peace with Hanoi and has been back to Vietnam several times, to the great dismay of Vietnamese American extremists who still dominate community politics here.)
The full range of Cuban American opinion should be listened to by the new administration: the unconditional engagement voices, the soft intervention groups, and even the no-dialog forces. However, none of them should be given weight beyond their numbers in the whole US population and in the spectrum of public opinion which favors ending all travel restrictions by 2 to 1.
--John McAuliff www.ffrd.org
Preliminary election returns suggest President-elect Obama has a greater range of maneuver on Cuba than anticipated.
How much of his substantial statewide margin of victory in Florida (see below) can be attributed to support from Cuban Americans who crossed over from McCain because they shared only his cautious position on family travel? All three Democratic contenders lost who advocated a partial reform of travel similar to Obama's, suggesting that was not as decisive an issue in the exile community as many hoped.
Does that mean that Obama might have done as well in Florida if he had advocated all travel, or even an end to the embargo? Do exit polls and analysis of the Presidential vote in Miami-Dade Congressional districts offer more insight?
Certainly Obama will owe nothing to the three hard line Cuban American Republicans returning to Washington. However, they and the Democracy PAC money will still play a strong role in the House and on key committees. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and other Florida politicians with state wide ambitions will remain leery of offending the organized Cuban American constituency.
A common sense US policy on Cuba even more clearly means removing it from special interest nationality politics, as the Executive Branch is better able to do than Congress, especially when the next Presidential election is four years away. We would still lack diplomatic relations and maintain unilateral embargoes against China, Vietnam and Cambodia if change had depended on the approval of their exile communities in the US.
Sequential actions by the White House and Congress can reinforce each other and create an atmosphere for fundamental common sense change in US-Cuba relations. The crucial first step is for the incoming Administration to follow the window opening logic of its campaign commitment to unrestricted Cuban American travel.
It must reject discrimination in the right to travel based on ethnicity or national origin and enable the broadest non-tourist travel possible under existing legal authority, as favored by two-thirds of Americans.
Obama / Biden 4,073,207, 50.9%
McCain / Palin 3,872,553, 48.4%
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 137,817, 57.7%
Annette Taddeo 100,929, 42.3%
Lincoln Diaz-Balart 132,861, 57.8%
Raul L. Martinez 97,184, 42.2%
Mario Diaz-Balar 127,059, 52.8%
Joe Garcia 113,495, 47.2%
Florida Department of State
Division of Elections
2008 General Election
UNOFFICIAL ELECTION NIGHT RETURNS
(may not include absentee or provisional ballots)
Page Generated: 11/5/2008 1:55 AM
Richard Walden and I go back a long way. We worked together to send the first air shipment of private US aid to Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge were routed by the Vietnamese--Thanksgiving 1979.
He had recently founded a rambunctious humanitarian medical aid group called Operation California, and I was director of the Indochina Peace Education Program at the Quaker led American Friends Service Committee.
Fast forward thirty years, and we are both still at it, but now for Cuba, Richard with his renamed Operation USA, and me with the Fund for Reconciliation and Development.
A common thread over three decades is the obscurantism of the Federal bureaucracy, and in particular the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Treasury Department, and its counterpart in the Commerce Department, which use every trick in their book to do the bidding of their political masters. (Richard notes that the key people in the State Department who initially blocked his licensing for Vietnam and Cambodia were Dick Holbrooke and John Negroponte, at the time Assistant and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Asia.)
In his speech at the General Assembly on Wednesday, the US representative made a big deal of our willingness to help Cuba recover from hurricane damage during his fruitless effort to avoid another humiliating defeat. The reality is more accurately reflected in the account from Richard that follows.
His story drives home the point that if an Obama Administration wants to open a new more rational relationship with Cuba, an essential bureaucratic task is to reform OFAC. A simple first step is to direct it and the Commerce Department to immediately issue a general license for hurricane related help through personal contributions by any American to Cuban family members and friends and for assistance from any recognized US non-governmental organization.
At the end Richard refers to an upcoming fund raiser for hurricane relief featuring Jackson Browne in Santa Monica on November 29th
JacksonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s latest album includes the theme song for the Cuba travel movement, as performed for Colbert Nation:
A personal report on how hard it is to help, thanks to the embargoÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m just back from Cuba and drove thru Pinar Del Rio, one of the hardest hit provinces from the recent hurricanes.
The need for material Ã¢â‚¬Å“solidarityÃ¢â‚¬Â is serious and, as usual, US Government agencies are obstructing rather than facilitating aid.
Operation USA has a Treasury license for travel/monitoring to Cuba to survey distribution of Commerce-licensed humanitarian aid, up to $1.4 million to Havana pediatric hospitals. Hurricane aid requires at least two new licenses. We are sending water purification tablets purchased in Ireland from a major supplier to the UN and NGOs globally. We were promised a quick turnaround by OFAC over a month agoÃ¢â‚¬Â¦BUT things have slowed down.
First, we were asked if the water purification tablets have any US supplied component. It turns out the chlorine sold to the Irish company comes from a US chemical company, and that takes us from the realm of just spending cash overseas (via OFAC authority) to trying to estimate what percentage of the final product is US related. OFAC asked us to get a Commerce license for the re-export of the 40% of each tablet which appears to be US supplied to the manufacturer. They actually insisted we get the company to state exactly what percent and what dollar value of each pill is US made. [No company would ever break down for you the percent which is their profit, packaging, raw materials, etc.]
Then Commerce gleefully informed us they can no longer accept paper or faxed license applications as of October. Applications must be electronically filled out and sent BUT each company must have a unique identifying corporate number assigned by Commerce as well as a PIN number for each staff person applying for a license. This goes to a different part of CommerceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s huge bureaucracy and they took three weeks to give us an identifying number and PINS for our staff.
Now, we have the electronic license application in front of us but it requires street addresses for every recipient in Cuba. As we are buying two million tablets which will be distributed in 50 to100 tablet amounts, this is silly. Even getting exact street addresses for six Cuban hospitals in Pinar Del Rio is difficult as Latin American addresses are often squishy.
The Commerce guys also just informed us that they have to send the completed application to the State Dept for reviewÃ¢â‚¬Â¦a one month process.
As we are holding a major Cuba fund raiser in late November in Los Angeles, we may have significant new money to spend for or in Cuba. The US government agencies require specific project budgets for each project even if we are not sending cash to Cuba.
And on and on.
President and CEO
When I find myself nodding in agreement with about 75% of what Jorge Mas Santos, the Chairman of the Cuban American National Foundation, is saying in a critique of George W. Bush's wrong-headed US-Cuba policy, I know the world is changing and sense that South Florida politics may be undergoing a sea change.
I don't agree with Mas' views on regime change in Cuba, but this essay blasts John McCain for status quo-ism and embraces Obama's "flexibility" in thinking through how to turn away from failed policies.
And Sarah Stephens, Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, has an outstanding piece out today on the human costs of the anachronistic, failed, but painful embargo which most of the world strongly criticizes.
Here is a piece of her Huffington Post essay:
UN Members are now digesting a report compiled by the Secretary-General that measures the impact of our sanctions in chilling detail.
The embargo hurts Cuba's health care system. Last year, it forced Cuban children with heart conditions to wait for needed operations because a US-based firm, Boston Scientific, has refused - as it must, under U.S. law - to sell needed devices to Cuba's William Soler Pediatric Hospital. It prevented the purchase of spare parts for diagnostic equipment used in cancer detection, and delayed the delivery of 3 million syringes for vaccinations against communicable diseases. It forced Cuban medical authorities to buy antiretroviral drugs from secondary suppliers in grey markets, at significantly higher prices - straining an already thin public health budget.
The embargo also takes food off the table in Cuban homes, by blocking the government's access to imported seeds, fertilizers, and spare parts for farm machinery, and by imposing exotic payment rules that add tens of millions of dollars to its bill for importing food from overseas.
In other words, the sanctions we aim at Cuba's government actually hit and hurt the health and diet of the Cuban people instead.
But the embargo is more than a bilateral matter between Cuba's government and ours. US law reaches companies and countries across the globe in an effort to bend their policy to our will, rallying the rest of the world to Cuba's side
Brazil calls our policy a violation of international law. Mexico condemns the embargo as an abandonment of diplomacy. Colombia, our closest ally in the region, says of the US embargo "this kind of action should stop." The European Union, now negotiating directly with Cuba on human rights, objects to the extra-territorial reach of our sanctions. China calls on us to negotiate our differences directly with Cuba. Russia - without a trace of irony - refers to the embargo as "a remnant of the cold war."
It is no wonder that last year's sanctions vote went against America 184-4. Only Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands stood with us. Every one of our European allies, Canada, Japan and Australia, and nearly all of Latin America (save El Salvador, which was absent) deserted us. It will happen again this year. Already, close to one-hundred fifty countries filed statements with the Secretary General for this year's debate that bear witness to our isolation.
The funny thing about Israel voting with us on the embargo is that Israeli interests are managing citrus groves in Cuba.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note