|
Max J. Castro. Posted on Tue, Jul. 02, 2002 in The Miami
Herald
A few months ago, a former high-ranking government official involved in
U.S.-Cuba relations privately laid out a disturbing scenario. The United States
was in the process of undertaking a new, more aggressive policy vis--vis Cuba,
including intensifying efforts to support the opposition on the island, the
former official told me.
The Cuban government would see these actions as a campaign to destabilize it
and respond in characteristically tough fashion. The ensuing confrontation could
have far-reaching consequences, up to and including a decision by Fidel Castro
to close the U.S. Interests Section in Havana and cancel the immigration
agreement with the United States.
This would probably mean the end of normal migration from Cuba to the United
States, more rafters and possibly a mass exodus.
Such a scenario, which earlier this year seemed somewhat alarmist, is now
several steps closer to reality. In recent months, while Congress and public
opinion increasingly favor a policy of dialogue, the actions and words of U.S.
executive branch officials with regard to Cuba have become visibly tougher.
These have included the denial of U.S. visas to Cuban officials, harsher
words about the government and stronger support for dissidents by Vicki
Huddleston, the head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana.
President Bush's fiercely anti-Castro speech in Miami, in which he vowed not
to end the embargo, was the culmination of the ratcheting up of the
administration's Cuba policy.
The response came in the form of a warning last week by Fidel Castro that he
might take the very steps predicted by the former U.S official.
Castro said he would rather not close the U.S. Interests Section and cancel
the immigration agreement but would if what he described as interference with
Cuban sovereignty by U.S. officials on the island does not cease. That action,
if followed by an uncontrolled exodus, could trigger tougher economic sanctions
or even a U.S. military response.
The former U.S. official who spoke to me last spring has so far proved to be
farseeing. But he is no oracle. For what is happening in U.S.-Cuba relations
today follows a familiar, tragic script that goes as far back as 1960 when
President Eisenhower signed an executive order for operations to overthrow
Castro that eventually evolved into the Bay of Pigs invasion.
The United States then and now wants to see a different regime in Cuba, one
more attuned to the interests of the United States and, in its view, of the
Cuban people as well.
In pursuit of its objective, the United States has been willing to undertake
certain aggressive actions against the Cuban government. But these halfway
measures -- ranging from proxy invasion to assassination attempts to economic
sanctions -- have proved ineffective, counterproductive and costly, especially
for the Cuban people.
Against a determined regime, the current administration's souped-up policy
will also fall far short of the objective. But it will have the same costs and
negative side effects of earlier actions. Ultimately, probably only a full-scale
U.S. invasion would accomplish the U.S. objective of regime change.
But such a move would have massive costs, tragic consequences and, according
to public-opinion surveys, be hugely unpopular with the American people.
There is an alternative to that and to the current ineffective, costly and
unpopular policy of wimpy aggression that seems to be leading nowhere other than
to an ominous confrontation. Without abandoning its advocacy of democracy or
human rights, the administration could follow the lead of Congress and propose
engaging both the Cuban government and Cuban society in dialogue, debate, trade
and travel.
maxcastro@hotmail.com | 
