Adrian Walker. Published Thursday, May 11, 2000, in the Miami Herald
Open markets vs. repressive regimes
As the dust from the Elian Gonzalez saga settles, one unintended but welcome consequence is emerging: the likelihood that the United States will reconsider its policy toward Cuba -- especially the embargo that has been in place since shortly after Fidel Castro took power in 1959.
Not everyone considers that good news. For the Cuban American National Foundation, any step toward trade with Cuba is perceived as a softening of opposition to the longest-running tyrant in the Western Hemisphere.
The Cuban-American community has taken a beating for its support of Elian's Miami relatives. Yet however misguided that community has been, it has acted on passion and principle.
Still, one likely consequence of the Elian episode will be to dilute both the exiles' voice and their influence in favor of traditional U.S.-Cuban policy.
``The Cuban-American community has been a determining factor in keeping the embargo in place, and their capital at the political level has diminished because of the Elian thing,'' said Lisandro Perez, director of Florida International University's Cuban Research Center.
``A lot of people are tending to believe less what Cuban exiles have to say,'' Perez continued. ``They put all their eggs in this one basket, in this cause they never could have won either politically or in terms of public opinion.''
As Castro maintains his iron grip after 41 years, some facts about the embargo have become increasingly indisputable:
It is not going to dislodge Castro.
It serves primarily to impoverish the people of Cuba, adding to the burden of those who are already deprived of civil liberties and political rights as well.
It is the greatest propaganda tool Castro has at his disposal. It legitimizes his false rhetoric of victimization, enables him to present himself as a champion of the people he has oppressed and strengthens his hold on the Cuban economy.
Support for the embargo has been showing signs of weakness for some time. Even among the huge exile community in Miami, there has been growing frustration that it has failed as a means of punishment. Elsewhere, given the United States's willingness to trade with equally oppressive governments --
most notably China -- it has come to be regarded as a hypocritical Cold War anachronism.
The embargo began for legitimate reasons. After taking power, Castro nationalized all U.S. property on the island and vowed to export communism throughout Latin America and build closer ties to the Soviet Union. The U.S. government thought the embargo might bring a quick end to this upstart pest
in its backyard.
By the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, it was clear that the embargo would not be the tool to sweep Castro from power. Even as exiles began pouring into Florida by the thousands, much of the embargo's original rationale was fading.
Castro's threats to export ``armed struggle'' never amounted to much. But by the time the Soviet Union fell apart -- and the United States began moving toward normal relations with many other former enemies, including Russia -- the embargo had taken on a different flavor. For exiles, it had come
to symbolize resistance to the Castro regime and its human-rights abuses. For Castro, it had become an easy excuse for every failure of his ruinous economy. The embargo had become an issue where extremes met.
Some Cuban Americans suggest that lifting the embargo could be tied to internal changes in Cuba such as freeing political prisoners or relaxing restrictions on a free press.
``If Castro [were] willing to allow a general amnesty of political prisoners, if he would allow the people to be able to express themselves without repression, if he would allow the opposition groups to be legalized -- which now he does not -- and if he would allow supervised free elections,
everybody would work together to get rid of the embargo, and the Cuban people would benefit,'' said Ramon Saul Sanchez of the Democracy Movement.
That is far too much to hope for while Castro remains in power. But economic improvements always weaken repressive regimes, and that alone may be reason enough to lift this symbolic gesture.
©2000 The Boston Globe
Copyright 2000 Miami Herald |