Max J. Castro. Published Tuesday, February 20, 2001, in the
Miami Herald
The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) thinks the United States
should have a new policy toward Cuba. At least that is what Chairman Jorge Mas
said in a recent speech to the Inter-American Dialogue excerpted in The Herald.
It's an amazing thought coming from the folks most responsible for crafting
and maintaining the current policy toward Cuba. It's even more amazing when you
consider the line about needing a new Cuba policy is exactly what critics of
CANF and of the longstanding U.S. policy of economic embargo and political
isolation of Cuba have been saying for years. Has the CANF been converted or
subverted?
To be sure, the CANF is speaking in a new tone and has adopted a new, more
polished, more "American,'' less confrontational style. But on the
substance of Cuba policy, CANF is basically offering more of the same, a higher
dose of the old medicine, and calling that new. Realizing the clamor for a new
policy was unstoppable, the CANF smartly decided to repackage its old product
and advertise it as new. It's an old marketing trick, and in this case it's
intended to capitalize on the desire for change while, through a sleight of
hand, reversing the direction of that change.
AN IMAGE PROBLEM
But why bother? Evidently, CANF leaders must have realized two things in the
wake of the Elián defeat and the emergence late in the Clinton
administration of a bipartisan majority in Congress in favor of a partial
lifting of the embargo. First, the folks at the CANF must have noticed that the
old CANF had a terrible image problem with many Americans. Enter the new,
improved, kinder, gentler CANF featuring fresh faces, softer language and a
refined message.
Second, the CANF must have seen that it was losing the debate on Cuba
policy, even among conservative Congressional Republicans. That's because many
people in this country were growing tired of a policy, specifically the embargo,
that has been in place for four decades with no positive results. There was a
call for a more-flexible, less-hostile Cuba policy among growing sectors of the
U.S. public and in the ranks of the political and business leadership.
But the CANF wasn't happy with Cuba policy under Clinton, either -- for a
different reason. The policy wasn't getting results, and the CANF believed that
was because the policy wasn't being applied inflexibly and vigorously enough.
But how do you sell a hard, old policy when most people want a new, moderate
one?
You try to do it by repackaging the messenger and the message. Changing the
messenger's clothes is easy, but how do you repackage the message? By changing
the focus from the most disliked ingredient of the old formula to a seemingly
more palatable one that can be presented as new.
STICK AND A CARROT
Since the early 1990s, U.S. policy toward Cuba has consisted mainly of a
stick, namely the embargo, and a poisoned carrot in the form of assistance to
dissidents in Cuba. The embargo is very tough already, and it's unpopular.
Moreover, with Congress and the White House in Republican hands, it's not in
danger of being lifted, so why mention it. The CANF is concentrating instead on
stiffening part two of current policy by trying to get a dramatic increase in
U.S. aid to opposition groups in Cuba.
Helping dissidents has a nice ring, but change in Cuba won't come through
massive injections of U.S. money, only through Cuban initiatives.
Cuba is not Poland. Historically, the United States and the Catholic Church
have played vastly different roles in the two countries. You can help Solidarity
but you can't create it. Trying will only produce a harder, more-nationalistic
line in Havana and a tougher time for dissidents.
The CANF is right. There is a crying need for a new policy toward Cuba. Too
bad it didn't propose one, like ending the embargo and reestablishing diplomatic
relations.
maxcasto@miami.edu
Copyright 2001 Miami Herald | 