by Lawrence Wilkerson And Patrick Doherty
September 18, 2008
If you live in Galveston, Texas, Hurricane Ike will be remembered for its destruction. But history may remember the ninth named storm of the 2008 season for swinging the 2008 presidential campaign.
That's because Ike devastated a little island off Florida named Cuba. In fact, Cuba sustained damage from four hurricanes: Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike. Gustav hit the Western end of Cuba as a Category 4 storm. Ike entered the east of Cuba as a strong Category 3 then shredded the full length of the island for three days. There were reports of walls of water 50 feet high hitting the north shore.
In a country of more than 11 million people, 2.7 million evacuated their homes when Ike came through. Today, 444,000 homes in Cuba are damaged, meaning up to 2.2 million Cubans are living dangerously or wondering when it will be safe to go home.
Food supplies on the island are nearly exhausted. The crops and livestock for domestic consumption and cash crops like tobacco and sugar cane, necessary for the hard currency to import food _ are devastated. The island's electrical grid is severely damaged and in some places non-existent. Communication towers are down across the country. Roads are blocked with rubble from collapsed buildings, trees, or just washed away. Schools, hospitals, and clinics have suffered extensive damage or are non-functioning.
And it will only get worse. With at least $5 billion of damage done to a nation where the average monthly salary is $17, the economy will not be able to support the Cuban population for quite some time. Even the Cuban military is on short-rations with perhaps a week left. With food shelves empty, hoarding and black market price gouging will quickly squeeze all families, displaced or not, with little to no income and no subsistence agriculture to fall back on. As the vast majority of Cubans become malnourished and post-disaster diseases increase in prevalence, the political situation is likely to become much more volatile within Cuba.
All this could occur within the next six weeks. Faced with a displaced, hungry and frustrated population, Havana could do what it has done in the past: allow a mass migration to head north. In 1980, responding to unrest triggered by economic downturn, Havana launched the Mariel boatlift that brought 125,000 Cuban immigrants over a five-month period to South Florida. In 1994, facing another economic catastrophe, the Castro government allowed at least 35,000 Cubans to leave the island _ an episode that cost the U.S. Treasury more than $500 million.
The U.S. government is now offering Cuba a $1.5 million package of temporary shelter for 10,000 families and household items for 8,000 with an additional $3.5 million conditional on the survey of a U.S. disaster assessment team.(1) In contrast, Haiti, which was hit by three storms, has already received $19 million in aid from the U.S. government. Even Burma, which has a military dictatorship more repressive than Cuba's and was ravaged by Cyclone Fargis, received $50 million in aid.
Indeed, an increase in funding for traditional humanitarian items is not what Cuba needs or wants from the United States. Their government believes that there would be no prospect of a crisis if the U.S. economic embargo were not blocking them from purchasing the needed supplies on the open market. It can get food from other countries in the region. Rather, Cuba's infrastructure needs repair. They need electrical components like poles, cable, and transformers. They need heavy-duty construction equipment and materials. The only market that can respond fast enough is the United States.
Without those supplies, the boats could very well sail before November. Americans with family in Cuba will be furious with the Bush administration for placing politics over saving lives. Cuban refugees who make it onto U.S. soil will benefit from the wet-foot/dry-foot policy that other Latino immigrants _ a key demographic this cycle _ view with considerable hostility. South Florida is already reeling from the domestic economic recession and a new load of low-skilled immigrants will put downward pressures on wages and exclusion will risk increased levels of criminal activity. At a minimum, CNN will be showing pictures of thousands of malnourished and water-logged Cubans being picked up on the high seas and then sent to the notorious U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo, only to be repatriated to a growing catastrophe.
It is now time to lift the embargo, let Cuba buy what it needs and move on. The U.S. policy of isolation to bring about regime change has failed to achieve its goals for fifty years. Fidel has grown old and retired. Cuba is no longer sponsoring revolution overseas but exporting doctors and nurses instead. And by giving Havana a ready-made excuse for economic failure, the embargo has the perverse effect of supporting the Castro regime rather than weakening it.
The Bush administration is between a rock and a hard place. If it continues with business as usual, Havana may very well decide the outcome of the U.S. elections. If it moves to end the embargo and Cuba purchases the supplies it needs to rebuild, it will have prevented the disaster that it foresaw but Cuba will cease to be an electoral goldmine for the GOP.
America needs to put politics aside. It is time to do the right thing. Protect the lives of innocent Cubans, protect our electoral process, end a 50-year-old failed policy, and be good Samaritans after all.
ABOUT THE WRITERS
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Patrick Doherty participated in the humanitarian operation in Kosovo and the Balkans. They are chairman and director, respectively, of the U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative at the New America Foundation, 1630 Connecticut Avenue NW, 7th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20009; Web site: www.newamerica.net.
This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
(c) 2008, New America Foundation
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
As Congress comes to grips with the magnitude and political implications of the devastation across Cuba from Hurricanes Fay, Gustav and Ike--it is vitally important to make sure that Washington understands something Cuba is not.
Cuba is not a state sponsor of terrorism and hasn't been at least since the Clinton Administration conducted a formal review of the list in the late 1990s.
Unfortunately--according to Richard Clarke, who was the U.S. Government's coordinator for counterterrorism in both the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations--domestic politics intervened and kept Cuba on the list.
Last month, I conducted a fascinating interview with Richard Clarke at his office in Virginia. Clarke will be remembered as the man who repeatedly warned President Bush and his boss, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, that al-Qaeda was about to strike. His most recent book, Your Government Failed You, talks about how our national security community is broken and what can be done to fix it.
Domestic Politics, Not National Security
For Clarke, current U.S. policy toward Cuba is "a demonstrable failure." As a national security practitioner, Clarke believes policy needs to be made based on a cool-headed assessment of the situation, a transparent calculation of our interests, and it must consider the fullest range of our policy options. This policy calculation has not happened for Cuba, and he thinks it must.
Clarke is clear, of course, that Cuba was a real security threat to the United States. In the 1960s the Soviets were stationing missiles, bombers and troops on this island only 90 miles from the Southern tip of Florida. In the 1970s and 1980s, Cuba was exporting soldiers, arms and communist revolution. But after the return of Cuba's troops and the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba stopped being the same kind of threat to U.S. interests. "They are a national security problem," he told me, "but nowhere near what they were."
Yet our policy did not change to reflect the new calculation. Here, I ask him why:
Clarke is in good company. Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents Ford and Bush-41 told my colleague Steve Clemons essentially the same thing. Said Scowcroft,
"My answer on Cuba is Cuba is not a foreign policy question. Cuba is a domestic issue. In foreign policy, the embargo makes no sense. It doesn't do anything. It's quite clear we can not starve Cuba to death. We learned that when the Soviet stopped subsidizing Cuba and they didn't collapse. It's a domestic issue."
In 1994, in his last book, Richard Nixon assessed America's Cuba policy, our interests and our options argued that America's relationship with Cuba needed a change. Serving on the NSC during the at the same time in the 1990s, Clarke watched as the U.S. opened up relations with 20+ former Soviet satellites, but not Cuba. We built economic, political, and cultural ties across the board and for the most part, Clarke believes, it was successful. But Cuba was always isolated. That, he told me, was a mistake.
State Sponsors of Terrorism List
Supporters of the embargo often cite Cuba's listing on the State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism List as evidence that Cuba remains a threat. In my interview, Clarke talked extensively about that list. It was always supposed to be a tool of policy, which meant nations had to have a way to get off the list, by doing the right thing. But in Cuba's case, that was not going to happen. In the late 1990s, Clarke oversaw a review of all the nations on that list and determined that Cuba should not be on it.
Here's the clip:
Pro-embargo supporters will continue to argue that the fact that Cuba remains on the State Sponsors of Terror List is evidence that the United States should maintain a hard line with Cuba, even after the devastation wrought by this year's hurricane season.
Now Cuba's presence on that list has been discredited as the bi-partisan result of domestic politics. It's not about Cuba, it's about Florida's 27 electoral votes.
The following is a transcript of the two videos above.
Doherty: ...Cuba [policy] has suffered for many years, from a bipartisan consensus that Cuba policy will be generated in the political sphereÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
Clarke: Yup, I think CubaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a really good example because whether itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a democrat, Bill Clinton in the white house or George Bush in the white house Ã¢â‚¬â€œ one or two Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Cuba was a third rail issue, which meant you couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t touch it. It was electric.
It wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really a national security issue, it was a political issue and specifically it was a Florida issue. How could we, whether it was bill Clinton or George Bush, how could we win Florida in the next presidential election; how could we pick up those two, three, or four congressional districts that are dominated by Cuban Americans. And every aspect of what should be a national security issue decided analytically on the merits of whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s in the U.S. national interest, was run through the filter of politics
Clarke: Then you look at Cuba and the reason in the 1990Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s, in the late 1990Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s, why we didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t take Cuba off the list was not because they were sponsoring terrorism.
Doherty: Why was it?
Clarke: It was because U.S. domestic political reasons. Factually, objectively, they are no longer sponsoring terrorism. So should they be taken off the list? Perhaps. In the context Ã¢â‚¬â€œ as with Libya, as with North Korea Ã¢â‚¬â€œ in the context of a bilateral negotiation, that is larger than just the issue of terrorism.
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 comfortÃ¢â‚¬â€and leave that condition intact for at least 90 daysÃ¢â‚¬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 canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t we reach down and find some of that decency again?
The landing of hurricanes Ike and Gustav on Cuban shores -- already reaping damage Fidel Castro has compared to that brought upon Hiroshima -- may bring the issue of the Cuban embargo back into electoral politics. Or it might simply glance off.
These disasters provide an incredible opportunity for both candidates to send a signal to a hemisphere thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s been largely neglected in years past. Feelings of abandonment are sure to heighten as nations attempt to rebuild, especially without so much as a mention on the presidential trail.
Barack Obama offered...
a written statement, joining Ã¢â‚¬Å“with leaders in the Cuban American community in calling on President Bush to immediately suspend restrictions on family remittances, visits and humanitarian care packages from Cuban Americans for a minimum of 90 days,Ã¢â‚¬Â but has failed to actually speak about the tragedy in Haiti, Cuba or elsewhere in the region.
McCain has previously held that restrictions should not be lifted until the U.S. can be Ã¢â‚¬Å“confident that the transition to a free and open democracy is being made,Ã¢â‚¬Â and doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t appear to have taken a position since Gutav and IkeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Caribbean devastation.
The Cuban government declined $100,000 the U.S. had offered to deliver through existing charitiesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ channels, stating Ã¢â‚¬Å“Cuba affirms that in reality the only correct, ethical (action) ... would be the total and definitive elimination of the harsh and cruel economic, commercial and financial blockade applied over nearly a half century against our nation.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Condoleezza Rice, in turn, stated: Ã¢â‚¬Å“I don't think in the context that we see now that the lifting of the embargo would be wise,Ã¢â‚¬Â referencing the transfer of power from Fidel to Raul.
Nonetheless, past hurricanes have brought about change in Cuba policy. In 2002, after Hurricane Michelle swept the Island, Cuba reached out to American grain suppliers after having Ã¢â‚¬Å“turned up its noseÃ¢â‚¬Â when such trade was initially legalized in 2000. In years since, the two have built a quiet and cumbersome relationship, the U.S. now standing a the island's primary food supplier, commerce in 2007 topping $437 million despite steep the steep obstacles of the embargo.
This is a potentially powerful time for engagement, and the power to demand that engagement resides squarely two men. Representative Howard Berman of California, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has also asked that Bush suspend restrictions on gifts, remittances, and travel to Cuba for ninety days.
This is what Hurricane Ike looks like in Baracoa, Eastern Cuba. This pic was sent in by my friend and Havana Note co-editor Gail Reed, who is Director of MEDICC.
For those interested in helping out victims in need in Cuba -- who took a direct hit from Hurricane Gustav a few days before Ike hit -- check out this informative letter from Sarah Stephens at the Center for Democracy in the Americas.
In her informative, compelling letter, Stephens points to seven places that can help get aid to Cubans in need:
Natural disasters and humanitarian relief are always good opportunities to change the game on political situations that make no sense -- like the embargo or even the Cuban resistance to the terms of offered American government aid.
But even this disaster is a missed opportunity for the governments involved which makes it even more important for others who care to help.
-- Steve Clemons
Tony Jimenez, a former Bush administration official, launched a new 527 media group this week, attacking two South Florida Republicans for Ã¢â‚¬Å“confused prioritiesÃ¢â‚¬Â that focus on CastroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Cuba rather than on jobs, wages, pain at the pump, the housing crisis and energy independence.
The newly-launched organization, One South Florida, focuses its message mainly on these misplaced priorities, which has been a theme of the campaigns of Democratic candidates Joe Garcia (See "One Trick Pony") and Raul Martinez, and asserts (correctly) that efforts to tighten restrictions on Cuba havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t achieved anything:
While our cost of living soared and wages for the poor plunged, our representatives in Washington expired all of their political capital supporting Bush's counter-productive Cuba sanctions. Instead of bringing badly needed funding and economic development programs to our region, they obsess on restricting the right of Cuban-Americans to visit and send money to their relatives on the island. What's worse: their efforts have failed to have any impact on human rights violations in Cuba.
This jives with polling data released by the Foundation for Normalization of U.S.-Cuba Relations in June. Approximately three-quarters of respondents (77 and 74 percent respectively in FL-21 and FL-25) indicated that they would support a candidate whose top priority will be improving health care, lowering housing costs, and improving our schools. Less than 20 percent of respondents would support a candidate whose top priority will be changing the political system of Cuba or who makes that a co-equal priority alongside domestic issues.
Are high gas prices and falling home values more important than sticking it to CastroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Cuba? These guys think so.
Much has been made of Raul CastroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s interpretation of socialism. Earlier this summer before the national assembly, Castro stated: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Socialism means social justice and equality; but equality of rights, of opportunities -- not of income.Ã¢â‚¬Â The steps that the Ã¢â‚¬Å“practical Castro,Ã¢â‚¬Â as heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s been called, has taken alongside these statements, while symbolic, have yet to move the nation in any tangible way. And theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re unlikely to. Nimble openings of the past may not draw the same headlines, but they may offer a better avenue forwardÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.
Cuba has made much more serious openings in the past, specifically in the post- Soviet period when the islandÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s economy nearly ground to a stand still. In 2005, though, Fidel -- bolsterered by support from Venezuela and China -- recanted on liberalizations. He shut down a broad swath of small, private enterprise that had developed, eliminating 2,000 of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“shackÃ¢â‚¬Â operations that had sprung up selling pizzas, sodas, sandwiches, milkshakes, and other sweets.
That was just the tip of the iceberg. The Economist reported that 240,000 licensed entrepreneurs and small business owners were whittled down to below 140,000. Along with the opening in the early nineties came legality of possession and use of U.S. currency -- a practice that fueled the flow of remittances from expatriate Cubans, but, along with other openings, was brought to a halt in the early years of the new millennium.
But the reforms that have garnered the boldest headlines since the transition, those allowing the ownership personal computers and cell phones, are symbolic -- Cubans live on an average salary of $17 per month can hardly afford a cell phone, let alone the $700 necessary to buy a computer.
ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s likely that the most meaningful of RaulÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s are not about consumer goods but about property and small business. His willingness to increase limits on land that private farms can own by 200% (99 acres up from 33), might help to offset an estimated $1 billion increase in imported food costs the nation will face this year alone. The legalization of private taxis is another good move.
Allowing other existing private enterprise, in the form of hair salons, cafes, and restaurants, to move out of peopleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s homes and into other locations -- even if property remains owned state, rather than privately owned -- could allow for modest, controlled expansion for already permitted industry.
Ultimately, Cubans are responsible for their own country. Since support for the ideals of the Revolution runs deep, a revolution that has delivered results in terms of universal, quality health care and literacy and that ended the corrupt rule of Battista and his friends in the American mafia, mining, and sugar worlds, the way forward must also be in line with those ideals.
That may mean a nation of small, modern, efficient farms, mom-and-pop shopkeepers, of 99-year leases (like in London) on property and a measured relationship with Chinese, American, and other sources of foreign direct investment. Clearly, however, something has to change.
I finally got a moment to look at the Democrats' platform on Latin America. In general it's pretty sparse, and on Cuba it only echoes the main bullet points of Obama's speech before the Cuban American National Foundation:
Recommit to an Alliance of the Americas
We recognize that the security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to the future of the Americas. We believe that in the 21st century, the U.S. must treat Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean as full partners, just as our neighbors to the south should reject the bombast of authoritarian bullies. An alliance of the Americas will only succeed if it is founded on the bedrock of mutual respect and works to advance democracy, opportunity and security from the bottom-up. We must turn the page on the arrogance in Washington and the anti-Americanism across the region that stands in the way of progress. We must work with close partners like Mexico, Brazil and Colombia on issues like ending the drug trade, fighting poverty and inequality, and immigration. And we must build ties to the people of Cuba and help advance their liberty by allowing unlimited family visits and remittances to the island, while 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.
Cuba, despite the U.S. embargo, has proven a formidable summer Olympic contender. The nation placed eleventh in the medal count at the 2004 Olympics, an impressive showing for a nation of roughly 11 million -- below 70th in the world in terms of population. In 2000, Cuba was eighth in medals earned, in 1996, ninth.
Since the end of the Cold War America has lost touch with the political competitiveness of the games. With the United States' global power unchallenged, we find ourselves often dwelling on the Ã¢â‚¬Å“good willÃ¢â‚¬Â of the games, or on individual athletes whose stories have inspired us. WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve lost touch with the national pride that a victory can inspire. For many nations, a single medal can be as powerful as the 1980 "miracle on ice," or Mary Lou RettonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s 1984 all around title.
For Havana, the summer games are seen as a time to demonstrate the success of the revolution. TheyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re an equalizer of sorts -- an opportunity to earn global respect on a level playing field.
But the lead up to the games has had the opposite effect. Multiple defections have underscored one of the many disadvantages of maintaining an authoritarian state with an impoverished economy. Talented people, given the option, will often choose to leave.
And they certainly are. The defection of four major boxers and the sidelining of a fifth who tried to flee but failed, have left the team with inexperienced fighters. This is not isolated. The disappearance of three members of CubaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s AAA Junior baseball team in Edmonton this week, has set a decisive tone for HavanaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s participants in Beijing.
This is a change from just a few years ago. A recent Miami Herald article recalls Felix Savon, who won three gold medals before retiring after the 2000 games, telling Don King -- who had offered Savon a multi-million dollar contract to defect and box professional in the states: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Why would I box for a million dollars when I can fight for 10 million Cuban people?''
Revolutionary fervor, it seems, must be earned. The poor economic performance of the past decade, combined with Raul's lowering of expectations in his July 26, 2008 speech at Moncada Barracks, is not enough to secure even the loyalty of Cubans who have received the best the government can offer.
Maslow's hierarchy of basic needs predicts this problem: people need security, identity, community, and self-actualization, in that order. If they do not get it they either seek it out --in this case, by defecting -- or they become fertile ground for the next generation of revolutionaries...or counter-revolutionaries.
Appeals to nationalism, and, in Cuba's case, a common enemy, have succeeded for decades in keeping Cubans loyal to the revolution. When Cuba felt the sting of real isolation, this worked. But now Cuba is, in effect, fully integrated with the global economy, with the United States being Cuba's fifth largest trading partner despite the embargo. "El bloqueo", far from hastening a change in the Cuban system, is sustaining it by providing a constant sense of threat.
Nationalism and fear are alive and well in Cuba this summer. Look at the Olympic send-offs from the two Castro brothers. Fidel's comments -- Ã¢â‚¬Å“To the glorious Cuban athletes on their way to the Olympic Games: Go forward, and traveling with you is the love of our people to our native land,Ã¢â‚¬Â -- rang with the mystique of a fabled revolution, while RaulÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s farewell -- Ã¢â‚¬Å“You all know what the Cuban people expect from you," sounded far more like the charge of a dictator on uncertain ground.
Cuba stands at a crossroads. U.S. policy has provided a crutch to the Havana regime, a fail-safe scapegoat for any and all of the island's woes. We can continue to prolong a cruel level of economic underperformance, or we can help Cuba face the need to embrace a new path. The choice is ours.
(Patrick Doherty contributed to this post.)