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
Whether its declaring Cuba a state sponsor of terror, disenfranchising thousands of voters, or consorting with federally-convicted terrorists, politics in South Florida are full of sharp elbows and illicit activity. So it is little surprise to see this report come out of Hialeah, Florida, home of a large Cuban American population: the dirty tricks brigade are starting up operations in South Florida. From the Miami Herald via Politico.com:
"Three Hialeah voters say they had an unusual visitor at their homes last week: a man who called himself Juan, offering to help them fill out their absentee ballots and deliver them to the elections office. p> "The voters, all supporters of Democratic congressional candidate Raul Martinez, said they gave their ballots to the man after he told them he worked for Martinez. But the Martinez campaign said he doesn't work for them.
"Juan ''told me not to worry, that they normally collected all the ballots and waited until they had a stack big enough to hand-deliver to the elections department,'' said voter Jesus Hernandez, 73. 'He said, `Don't worry. This is not going to pass through the mail to get lost.' ''
"Hernandez said he worries his ballot was stolen or destroyed. He and two other voters told The Miami Herald that the man was dispatched by a woman caller who also said she worked for Martinez. But the phone number cited by the voters traces back to a consultant working for Martinez's rival, Republican congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart." Read the rest here.
Of course, this tale is but a symptom of a problem that affects our foreign policy more broadly. As former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski writes in his book, Second Chance,
Increased congressional dependence on costly and almost permanent campaigning is the root cause of this trend. The high expense of TV campaigns has turned targeted funding support (or opposition) into a crucial instrument for gaining influence. This explains the growing role of Israeli-American, Cuban-American, Armenian-American lobbies and others, all highly effective in mobilizing financial support for their political causes.
The Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. This is not at issue, and is, on the whole, a wise distribution of authority. What is at issue, however, is the extent to which modern Congressional campaigning has become dependent upon contributions from individuals and PACs, distorting elections themselves and subsequently the legislation passed by Congress.
Between principle and practice, the Democratic Party approach to Cuba needs some clarification.
It's platform plank on Cuba begins:
We must turn the page on the arrogance in Washington
presenting the Cuban regime with a clear choice: if it takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the unconditional release of all political prisoners, we will be prepared to take steps to begin normalizing relations.
Contrast that with the BBC's report of the basis for EU-Cuba normalization
A joint declaration, signed by Cuba's foreign minister and the European commissioner for development and humanitarian aid, calls for respect for Cuba's political independence and non-intervention in its internal affairs.
When the UN votes on the unilateral US embargo of Cuba next week for the seventeenth time, it is likely to replicate last year's near unanimity, a number which has grown steadily. Ironically citizens of our only significant supporter, Israel, are big investors in Cuban property development and manage the country's largest citrus plantation.
The larger significance of the vote for our international standing was reflected in the inaugural address of the President of the General Assembly, Rev. Miguel DÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Escoto, on September 16, 2008:
At the United Nations, the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“democracyÃ¢â‚¬Â is becoming increasingly empty, with no real meaning or substance. Take for instance, the 45-year-old United States embargo against Cuba. Even with a majority as overwhelming as 184 votes to 4, this patently unjust and universally repudiated embargo remains firmly in place. If the opinion of more than 95 per cent of the membership of the United Nations can be so casually ignored, of what use is this General Assembly? This is a question that deserves some thought. How can we be content to say that we have democracy simply because we have the Ã¢â‚¬Å“one nation, one voteÃ¢â‚¬Â rule? What good are votes if they can be ignored or have no real consequence?
Update:the on-line letter urging a suspension of restrictions on travel, remittances and aid by all Americans in order to provide hurricane assistance to Cuba has topped 1000 signatures. You can add your name and view the eloquent comments from very diverse sources here.
Putting an end to five years of strained relations, Cuba and the European Union signed a cooperation agreement today in Havana, AFP reports.
The development is yet another foil to the failed U.S. policy of isolation and regime change. The EU, with higher and more consistent human rights standards than the U.S., has recognized that the best course for influencing this island nation of 11 million 90 miles off Key West, is one of engagement.
The announcement also came with a considerable sweetener to this nation devastated by the 2008 hurricane season: 2 million euros in immediate assistance and promises of at least 25 million euros more in 2009.
This will make next week's vote at the U.N. General Assembly, condemning the U.S. policy of embargo and the extraterritorial sanctions embodied in the Helms-Burton Act, even more lonely for the United States. It is quite a prominent dismissal of American interests, something the Europeans do only with considerable deliberation and cause.
It seems to me it is a good time to apply General Colin Powell's eponymous doctrine to U.S.-Cuba policy. Here is one version of that doctrine, designed to help the nation's leaders determine whether the United States should go to war. Full-scale economic embargo is generally seen as the last step the United States takes before war, and as far as I understand, we do not currently have and have never undertaken any other peacetime embargo of this scope. Even Iran, which many believe today posts one of the greatest threats to American interests, does not suffer the extent of sanctions that Cuba does.
But I digress. Here is the Powell Doctrine:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Recognizing that numbers four and five do not apply to an economic embargo, it seems to me that for all these questions, the answer is a resounding no. There is no vital national security interest threatened, we do not have an attainable objective (though regime change certainly is clear), the costs have not been analyzed and therefore the consequences are harming U.S. interests in the Hemisphere and around the world, the policy is supported only by a minority of voters in Florida and New Jersey, and finally, no one, save for Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands, supports us.
It's time for common sense to once again rule on Cuba policy. The EU's message could not be clearer.
My colleague Dr. Michael Clegg, who is foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, co-authored a great op-ed in the most recent edition of the journal Science. Here's a link to the free summary.
Clegg notes that this year marks the 150th anniversary of the two oldest scientific associations in the Western Hemisphere, the National Academy in the U.S. and the one in Cuba. Clegg traveled to Cuba in September, just before the hurricanes.
Clegg's co-author is his Cuban counterpart, Dr. Sergio Jorge Pastrana, the foreign secretary of the Academia de Ciencias in Cuba. Together, they talk about the many areas where Cuban and American Scientists would benefit from a relaxation in the restrictions on scientific exchange.
Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere, particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation, vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody.
Change is coming to the U.S.-Cuban relationship. The question is only in the pacing of that change. Either way, scientific exchange and the unofficial diplomacy that comes from it will be a critical piece of the infrastructure of success. The National Academy linkages that Dr. Clegg is part of is a good preliminary move, and follows in the spirit of U.S. scientific exchanges with the Soviet Union, China, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. The reason these contacts are especially important is that scientists, with their preference for evidence and reason over ideology and rhetoric, can build the kind of relationships that official diplomacy needs to be successful over the long term.
Now is the time to increase those exchanges and make the institutional linkages durable.
For those of us arguing for a change in U.S. policy towards Cuba based on a realist calculation of American interests, Cuba's announcement that the geology in their territorial waters could contain up to 20 billion barrels of crude oil certainly tips the scales. Whether the estimate is accurate or not, the sooner we change course, the better.
Consider the situation. Last month, Cuba was devastated by three hurricanes that ripped up the island's housing, infrastructure, and destroyed one-third of its crops. It was the worst hurricane season in memory, with more than a quarter of the population displaced at one point. Based on an internal food security assessment that I recently completed, the Cuban people are now surviving on Government rations which may run out in December, well before Cuban agriculture bounces back by February or March. While some ministers of the Cuban government have denied the possibility of a mass famine, others have been steadily preparing for the worst. While I now discount the possibility for an October surprise, it is still more than possible that on January 20, 2009 televisions in Miami will have a split screen: one watching the new U.S. president sworn in while the other chronicles severe hunger in or even mass migration from Cuba.
I believe that the threat of widespread famine is actually driving the release of these geological assessments at this time. Whether true or not, Cuba's only way to avoid a famine event is to increase imports of food, for which Cuba desperately needs foreign credit. The prospects of future oil revenues, I hazard, are being put up as collateral for a country whose other export industries: tobacco, sugar cane (and the rum it produces), citrus, and even nickel have been hard-hit by the storms.
Given the almost limitless demand in the global market for oil and the long time horizons on which oil investment is made, I have little doubt that major consuming countries like China and India would hesitate long to begin negotiations with a quick package of sovereign credit to ensure their nation's ability to access those oil reserves once they are more conclusively "proven."
There are other dynamics at play as well. This large a field, should it be proven, would be among the world's largest non-tar-sands fields. It would end Cuban dependence on Venezuela for both energy and cash, making Cuba politically independent for the first time in its history. In which direction would it go? Without having to please anyone but its customers, and assuming oil prices remain high, how would it invest its pool of sovereign wealth? Would it remain aligned with Chavez? Would it expand its third-world medical provision or would it return to exporting revolution?
Yet an outcome that, because of the embargo, excludes U.S. and, indeed, Western investment, is still second best for Cuba. Cuba's tourist industry is still and will remain a major source of national income. Allowing Chinese and/or Indian oil exploration and development companies to drill comes with a significantly increased risk of spoiling Cuba's beaches and territorial waters. As the pollution reports ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics showed, China has put industrial output well ahead of the environment and human health. While certainly not 100 percent safe, the much more advanced drilling technology, and the deep-water drilling technology necessary for the Cuban fields, is largely controlled by Western firms who are restricted by Helms-Burton.
It is also bad for the United States. For a whole host of reasons, the United States needs to turn the page with Latin America and Cuba is the first step. Brazil is a rising power, Venezuela is a rising problem, and lasting solutions to our immigration problem will only come from sustainable development in the region, creating a market to which the U.S. will want access.
Fifty years of embargo have not worked as a tool for changing Cuba's regime or politics. Twenty billion barrels of oil conclusively ends the right wing fantasy that has kept the sanctions in place. Financially and therefore politically independent, American influence over Cuba will come from proximity, exchange, trade, and respect. It is best that we shift policy gears so that these more legitimate ties that bind have a chance at forestalling a further turn away from a productive rapprochement between our two countries.
Whatever way you slice it, the utility of the U.S. embargo to Cuba, already in negative territory, just lurched further into the red. Now the question is how to help Cuba become more like Norway and less like Venezuela. For that, our embargo is precisely the wrong policy.
Now the pathway is clear. The U.S. needs to lift the embargo one way or another, to help Cuba get through the hunger coming this winter. Let Cuba spend its oily credits right here in the U.S. of A. We then need to make a decisive policy shift after a new President takes office. If the oil estimate is a bluff, the Cuban people can judge their government's ability to manage the country with massive foreign debts and without the ready-made excuse of the embargo. If the oil really is there, the U.S. needs to encourage Havana to become a tropical Oslo, not a second Caracas.
Not the first reason given, but worth noting from a paper that is extremely sensitive to Cuban American opinion:
"Closer to home, Sen. McCain strongly supports Bush administration policies on Cuba. Sen. Obama also supports the embargo, but would be more likely to dissolve recently imposed restraints on travel and remittances to Cuba."
However, the Herald backed hard line anti-travel Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart. His Democratic challenger, Joe Garcia also favors travel for Cuban-Americans. The Herald did endorse Raul Martinez over Lincoln Diaz-Balard*, noting only that both advocated a "free Cuba", although Raul supports family travel while Lincoln does not. Like Obama, both Garcia and Martinez are so far silent about the human right of the rest of us to freedom of travel.
Related question: Senator Bob Menendez and Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz made a quick pivot after the primaries to support and speak for Obama. Are they also embracing his commitment to unrestricted Cuban American travel and remittances, and unconditional negotiations with Cuba's leaders?
I noticed an intriguing quote in a Herald article by Beth Reinhard
''This was one of the best receptions I got,'' Menendez said in a telephone interview from Washington. ``The economic message that Obama is delivering is falling on receptive ears among those who in the past were driven more by ideological issues, like Cuba.''
Does characterizing Cuba as an "ideological issue" suggest that Menendez is moving away from his past hard line position?
* A previous version of this post mistakenly said that the Herald had endorsed Lincoln Diaz-Balart.
Sen. John McCain with Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Roberto Martin Perez
It's a bit of political Karma, really. Wednesday night in the last of the 2008 presidential debates, Senator John McCain spent an awful lot of time attacking Senator Barack Obama for his ties to Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground Organization, a radical group that split off from Students for a Democratic Society in the late 1960s and early 1970s executed a riot and bombing campaign across the country. Obama served on a bi-partisan school reform board with Ayers ten years ago. Here's the exchange.
Now, in the heat of the final days of the election, it seems that the media are giving Senator McCain's own connections to convicted domestic terrorists, in this case Cuban-American terrorists, some equal time.
Yesterday, writing in Slate, Anne Louise Bardach, wrote this piece: "The GOP's Bill Ayers? The McCain campaign has its own questionable connections to bombers and assassins."
I'm proud to say that the Havana Note and our friends at the Cuban Triangle, were on this story when it broke out of Miami.
The jist is this, Senator Joe Lieberman, the head of the hard-right Cuban Liberty Council Roberto Martin Perez, and Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, all active advisers and surrogates of the McCain Campaign, are arguing that a number of Federally-convicted domestic terrorists, with long lists of bombings, assassinations, and lawlessness, should have their sentences commuted or their convictions pardoned.
What is especially disturbing to me is that Sen. Lieberman has carried the commutation request for Eduardo Arocena, the leader of Omega 7, a group that set off a string of bombings in the New York City metro area that triggered the creation of the nation's first-ever joint counter-terrorism task force. Yet Sen. Lieberman is the current chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, responsible for domestic counterterrorism. Oh, and many of his constituents work and play in the places Arocena bombed, like Lincoln Center, JFK Airport, and Madison Square Garden.
Senator McCain is said to be thinking about Sen. Lieberman for a cabinet position, should he win the election. Lincoln Diaz-Balart is his senior adviser for Latin America. Roberto Martin Perez has narrated McCain campaign ads.
Senator Obama has denounced the acts of Bill Ayers unequivocally. It was the right thing to do. Now it is time for McCain, Lieberman, Diaz-Balart and Martin Perez all to denounce their terrorists. If McCain's advisers cannot, they should be fired by the Campaign, and, should Senator McCain become president, be excluded from his administration.
There should be no place in the U.S. government for supporters of terrorism. Both campaigns should be able to agree on that.
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 attendanceÃ¢â‚¬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 saidÃ¢â‚¬â€and perhaps quite correctlyÃ¢â‚¬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 defeatÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.". 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 nearbyÃ¢â‚¬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 appealÃ¢â‚¬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."
One of the confusing aspects of Cuba to those who only observe it from a distance is that its people are both impoverished (in consumer goods) and wealthy (in health and education), a developing country (in the agriculture sector, housing) and a donor of humanitarian aid (doctors).
In some ways the most shocking aspect of the last hurricane was that seven people died, so well organized is Cuba's alarm and evacuation system. Similarly, while the documented destruction left by four tropical storms is extensive, recovery efforts are reported to be moving ahead with assistance coming from many countries other than the US.
Accordingly, it is hard to judge what the effect of the storms will be. I share these observations from a personal letter I recently received from Havana. --John McAuliff
There is no doubt that a worsening of economic and social conditions in Cuba will provoke an increase in legal and illegal immigration, mainly to the US. It can get out of hand, but not easily.
In previous situations, Boca de Camarioca in the 60Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s, Mariel in the 80Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s and the last one in the mid 90Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s, always the Cuban authorities had, in some justified way, allowed it to go on until the US authorities were forced to some kind of agreement. But it was always first provoked by rigid US policies that did not take in consideration the consequences of such policies.
I think that the Cuban Government and Party have the means and political tools to avoid such a situation today, but it is obviously a possibility.
As you have been probably able to watch, the destruction in Pinar del RÃƒÂo, HolguÃƒÂn and Las Tunas, but not only in these provinces, has been enormous and it has hit private houses in the worst way. Just as much, it also hit agricultural production and electrical energy infrastructure.
There is already a certain scarcity of sweet potatoes (bonitato), malanga (I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know the name in English), bananas and plantain, fresh pork and goat meat and others basic food in the Ã¢â‚¬Å“agromercadosÃ¢â‚¬Â and it will get worse. There is also a problem in the CUC ("dollar") stores to get cooking oil (you can only get soya oil), tomatoe paste, canned fish and meat, frozen chicken, cheese and fresh meat.
The only solution is a rapid recuperation of agricultural production. The private agricultural sector is the main producer, but can not do it by itself, It is needed that the state farms under their various forms of organization increase production, something they have been unable to do in 50 years, without huge investment in machinery, fertilizers, insecticides and other inputs that are no longer available.
As the destruction is shown by TV, people get surprised to see how poor the houses were before the hurricanes, and slowly everybody is starting to realize that it will take decades to bring housing to, even, the previous poor situation.
An immediate political result of the destruction is the solidarity and unity of purpose that brings among the people. This is probably true in every country. In Cuba it is even more so, as the Government and Party had created a solid organization that includes more and more people to people solidarity, to confront hurricanes and heavy rains. Also because of the quick and effective response to start reconstruction, that includes, even, cultural groups with well known artists performing in the more severely affected areas. Of course the limited resources are the main problem.
But, is difficult to predict how the mood will change as the reality of an even poorer country, with even more economic and social problems, takes hold slowly of people's minds.
So, yes it is almost certain that there will be an increase of emigration. Whether it will be massive and illegal, depends of many factors. Of course the impact of a limited in time lift of the embargo, or the increase in remittances and traveling, will help to avoid that this problem gets out of hand.
As has happened in the past, I doubt the US Administration will take in consideration the consequences of their fanatic anti-evolution policies. Even without massive emigration, it is always safer for you not to provoke problems to your neighbor that can affect you in the long run.