|
Debating
Cuba policy
Max Castro. Posted on Tue, Oct.
07, 2003 in The
Miami Herald.
People have been talking about a growing ''moderation''
in the Cuban-American community. Yet they don't
agree on what that means. Most who debate Cuba
policy nationally probably would say that it means
being against the embargo.
In Miami, however, many people consider themselves
moderate and continue to support the embargo and
other policies that almost everyone outside Miami
considers hard-line. Then there are some who call
any moderation treason and vow retribution. There
are hard-liners and pro-dialogue people, ranging
from dialogue pioneer Bernardo Benes to hard-line
radio commentators, who say that all the talk
about moderation is more spin than reality.
What's really happening? I don't pretend to have
the answer. But I have some thoughts, starting
with observations about a curious thing in Miami
this weekend: Two groups with diametrically opposed
ideas about U.S.-Cuba policy held conferences.
Curious because the pro- and anti-embargo events
were held in the same hotel (the Biltmore) on
the same day (Saturday).
Understandably, many in Miami are concerned with
Cuba, some to the point of obsession. But there
is good news and bad news about the noncoincidence
in Coral Gables. The fact that so many people
with differing but equally passionate views, including
Cubans on both sides, could meet here in close
proximity without incident, isn't something we
should have to celebrate. But I can't see how
it would have been possible 10 years ago, and
so it is progress. It's one step toward a more-tolerant
political culture. Even the protesters outside,
never more than a few dozen of them peaceably
assembled, arguably contributed to this exercise
in free speech.
But it is only one step. The bad news is that
there had to be two events at all, and that participants
in one event didn't even speak past attendees
at the other event, much less speak together.
It's bad news that there were two events because
it's clear that one of the events was hastily
organized to steal thunder and drown out the other
event. The anti-embargo event, the National Summit
on Cuba sponsored by a loose coalition of Miami-based
and national groups, had been scheduled for months
and was intended to air pro-dialogue positions
that are mainstream in most of the country but
seldom are expressed in a public way in this city.
The pro-embargo event, sponsored by the UM's Institute
of Cuban and Cuban American Studies, was announced
a few days ahead and consisted mainly of pro-embargo
arguments that have been heard, ad nauseam.
Organizers of the second event had the right
to hold their show, but my argument isn't about
that. It's about common sense and the spirit of
democracy. Given the history of violent confrontations
over Cuba, what is the point of holding a contradictory
event at the same place and time? Why not hold
a bigger, better event the following weekend rather
than risk disaster? The noncoincidence reflects
hard-liners' reluctance to give up on the in-your-face
school of politics and their will to maintain
a monopoly on discourse by not allowing the adversary
to have the floor uncontested. Free speech won
a victory in Miami this weekend. The true spirit
of democracy will someday prevail, too.
|
