SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
April 10, 2009
Exclusive: No ‘Normalization’ Until the Castro Regime is Gone
When I was in Ankara, Turkey for a defense trade conference at the end of January, I had lunch with two French delegates. We spent much of the time re-fighting the UN debate over the Iraq War which threatened to sunder U.S.-French relations. At the end of the lunch, one of the Frenchmen turned to Cuba, arguing that if American business was allowed to reach the Cuban people, “the U.S. would own the island in six months.” I told him that America would be happy to help the Cuban people build a new life for themselves, but there would have to be a regime change first. Otherwise, the economic benefits of removing sanctions would be grabbed by the communist elite and never reach the average citizen.
The recent trip to Cuba by a delegation of six U.S. House members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) reinforces my point. The delegation did not meet with the people of Cuba, only with the regime. The entire delegation held a five-hour meeting with President Raul Castro. Then Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the leader of the group, Reps. Bobby Rush (D-IL), and Laura Richardson (D-CA) were personally invited to the Havana home of “retired” despot Fidel Castro for what was more like a pilgrimage that a diplomatic mission. Rep. Rush said of his conversation with Fidel, “It was almost like listening to an old friend…. In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor.” That Fidel Castro has also seen himself as the ultimate enemy of the United States did not seem to occur to the CBC idolaters.
According to CBC Chairwoman Rep. Lee, “The 50-year embargo just hasn’t worked. The bottom line is that we believe its time to open dialogue with Cuba.” But she also told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that the delegation had gone to Cuba to “listen to Cuban officials” which means she is not interested in liberating the people of the island, only strengthening the dictatorship that has opposed them for half a century. The Castro regime is facing a crisis as the ruling brothers age. There is a strong desire on the part of the American Left that there be no change in Havana’s “progressive” policies in the transition to a successor regime.
It is often said that the trade and investment embargo on Cuba be lifted because it has “failed.” But what is meant by this? The notion that economic sanctions are sufficient to topple a regime without additional pressure from domestic revolutionary groups or outside military intervention is a straw man.
Sanctions are a form of pressure. They are meant to persuade foreign states to refrain from behavior at odds with American interests and values by raising the costs of such actions. Where, however, a regime is determined to follow an adversarial course -- as has been the case of Castro’s Cuba where ideology has taken precedence over the welfare of the people, the aim of sanctions has been to weaken the ability of the rogue state to act by denying it material resources and financial aid.
Rep. Lee and her cabal are clearly interested in providing the Castro brothers with more resources by lifting trade sanctions. They want to open the U.S. market to Cuban exports, pump investment capital and bank loans through state agencies, and expand the island’s tourism business. As Rep. Lee said, "When you look at new markets, my God – Cuba has a lot of manufacturing equipment. We talked about tourism. We talked about what possibilities exist for America and Cuba.” The resulting flow of funds would give the regimen the means to keep itself in power, while claiming to be a success.
The United States first imposed economic sanctions on Communist Cuba in 1960. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1964, Secretary of State Dean Rusk laid out the aims of the policy, which it should be noted did not include any expectation that the sanctions alone would lead to the overthrow of the Castro regime.
“First, to reduce Castro’s will and ability to export subversion and violence to the other American states; Second, to make plain to the people of Cuba that Castro’s regime cannot serve their interests; Third, to demonstrate to the peoples of the American Republics that communism has no future in the Western Hemisphere; and Fourth, to increase the cost to the Soviet Union of maintaining a Communist outpost in the Western Hemisphere.”
Measured by its aims, U.S. sanctions policy has been successful in Cuba, and should be maintained because it continues to serve the first three of the four ends set out by Secretary Rusk.
The only goal that is no longer a concern is number four, as the Soviet Union has disintegrated. Before its collapse, the USSR was providing Cuba with $5 to $7 billion in aid each year and spending scarce hard currency on the purchase of oil for Cuba. With some effort, it was able to offset Cuba’s loss of trade with the U.S. though the cost became another nail in the Soviet coffin.
It was also during this time, that the Castro regime was sending troops to fight in support of Marxist regimes in Africa and sending money, weapons and advisors to revolutionary groups and terrorist organizations throughout Latin America. It was also modernizing its own military and internal security forces which are the foundation of Castro’s control of the island. In other words, when Castro had the means to do so, he showed his determination to destabilize the international order.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Castro lost his Moscow subsidies. U.S. trade sanctions have taken an increasing toll on Cuba’s resources in the years since. Castro has not been able to send his troops abroad, and his ability to support violence in Latin America has diminished. Leadership of left-wing subversion in Latin America has shifted to the Hugo Chávez regime in Venezuela where oil revenue provides the means to cause trouble. Chavez has also taken on the burden of subsidizing the Castros.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), another CBC member and chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, has in the past suggested that Cuba be allowed to join the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The CBI was established by President Ronald Reagan to support the growth of democracy and capitalism in the region to better defend against Castroite influence. Members of the CBI are given trade preferences. The fragile economies of these countries need U.S. help. The creation of a Cuban trade rival would take away part of their American export market and divert capital from their needs to Havana. Trade policy should be conducted for the mutual benefit of friends and allies, not to aid adversaries.
American policy should certainly not be used to bail out a failed dictatorship and help it survive to fight another day against American and allied interests. Relations cannot be “normalized” with a Cuban despotism that is not “normal” in its ideology and actions.
FamilySecurityMatters.org William Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
