|
Today, by mere chance, I remembered that the OAS still
exists, when I read a cable posted on the Internet which
contained an article by Georgina Saldierna, published in
La Jornada, titled “Insulza rules out the possibility of
re-admitting Cuba into the OAS”. No one even remembered the
OAS. Note how retrograde this line of reasoning is.
Yesterday, the Secretary General of the
Organization of American States (OAS), Jose Miguel Insulza,
dismissed the possibility of immediately re-admitting Cuba
into this multilateral organization because there is no
consensus on the matter among its members, among other
reasons.
In this connection, Insulza remarked that, for full
re-admission into the OAS, one of the requisites Cuba would
have to meet is adhering to the norms of the organization,
including the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the
Convention on Human Rights.
If this isn’t comical enough, read Antonio Caño’s
article, published in El Pais on February 21, 2008,
titled “Cuba’s Isolation only Serves the Purpose of
Perpetuating the Agony of the System.”
“One of the most respected voices among Cuban
exiles, businessman Carlos Saladrigas (Cuba 1948) hopes that
Fidel Castro’s resignation could represent “the open door
for permanent changes” and asks the Cuban community in Miami
and the Government of the U.S. to act “cautiously” and with
a “spirit of reconciliation”, to avoid losing this
opportunity.”
“Saladrigas, who is President of a small
organization known as the Cuba Study Group, which is
composed by other political associations and human rights
organizations known as Consenso Cubano, has spent millions
of his private funds in the last few years in order to plant
the seeds for a modern and centrist alternative to the
radical leadership that used to dominate the Cuban exile
community in the U.S. In the leadership vacuum in which
Miami found itself after the death of Jorge Mas Canosa,
Saladrigas is a respected voice in intellectual circles and
listened by the media and foreign diplomats.”
“During a phone conversation from the Dominican
Republic, Saladrigas expressed his belief that (…) Cuba’s
isolation only serves the purpose of perpetuating the agony
which the regimen represents”.
“In his
opinion this is the time for great hope, both for Cuban
exiles, as well as for dissidents inside the island”.
“The
exile community must help by stimulating the steps that will
begin to take place in Cuba and by not rejecting them.
Transitions are made one step at a time”.
“It is important”, says Saladrigas, “that the
regimen loose its fear of the exile community, because the
lesser the fear, the faster things will move along”. Change,
in his opinion, is unstoppable (…)”
“There
are a million Cubans in Florida with sufficient resources to
revitalize the economy of the Island in very little time,
given adequate conditions, which must be created both by the
U.S. and in Cuba: by the U.S. lifting restrictions to U.S.
citizens wishing to invest in Cuba, and by Cuba, legalizing
private property and foreign economic activity.”
“Once
these conditions have been achieved, according to Saladrigas,
political reforms will follow automatically. The most urgent
measures should be the release of all political prisoners.
Once this has been done, and the door has been opened to
investments, the exile community could become the biggest
support fund that any political transition has ever known
throughout history.”
The
name Carlos Saladrigas rings a bell; it is a name I heard
many times when, at 18 years old I was concluding my fifth
and last year of high school. He was the candidate Batista
had chosen at the close of the last year of his
constitutional term. Before, he had been his Prime Minister.
The Second World War was coming to an end.
The new
Carlos Saladrigas
now wants to buy us for peanuts! With the money in Miami,
“the biggest support fund that any political transition has
ever known throughout history.” This is something the United
States has never achieved, not even with all of the money in
the world.
The
facts are quite different and they are evident to those who
follow events in Cuba objectively.
An
article by David Brooks, published less than 12 hours ago by
Mexico’s La Jornada, titled “The United States
relegated to mere spectator of Cuba’s political transition”
employs arguments which ought to be emphasized.
Brooks
notes that he does not cease to be amazed by how one of the
smallest countries in the world obliges the political,
business, media and academic leaders of the world’s most
powerful nation to respond to its decisions of doing or not
doing, changing or not changing, or simply leaving
everything shrouded in mystery.
In the
past 24 hours, he stresses, President George W. Bush, senior
State Department and National Security Council officials,
federal legislators, the presidential pre-candidates and
other top-level political figures, political analysts and
the main foreign policy institutions, all printed and
electronic media, human rights organizations and others have
responded to Fidel Castro’s decision of not running for
another term in office.
“While
a political transition is underway in Cuba, no one in the
United States, according to Brooks, expects any changes to
take place in the few months that remain of term of George
W. Bush, the tenth U.S. president who promised to impose
changes in Cuba only to reach the end of his term and see
Fidel Castro still defending his country’s policy and
defying the superpower.
“Once
again, he adds, Washington and all of the experts were
reduced to mere spectators and had to recognize that the
transition is to be determined by Cuba and is not the result
of the policy Washington has pursued for half a century.”
“He
points out that Julia Sweig, an expert on the bilateral
relations between the two countries and director of the
Latin American program for the Council on Foreign relations
underscored that the embargo and other restrictions, which
have only served to limit U.S. foreign policy at this
pivotal moment, should already have been lifted.
“Ex
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson,” Brooks writes, “General Collin
Powell’s right-hand man and currently co-chair of the New
America Foundation’s U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative again
remarked that this juncture is an opportunity to change the
United States’ posture, admitting that ‘our Cuba policy is a
failure’ and that no changes were likely under the current
presidency. The presidential candidates and others should
begin to analyze this policy, including obvious things like
lifting travel restrictions and some aspects of the embargo,
so that the next president can implement some changes.”
As
Brooks points out, the New York Times echoes these
arguments in today’s editorial, arguing that “the
administration has gone out of its way to ensure that it has
no chance of influencing events there. In the name of
tightening the failed embargo, it has made it much harder
for academics, artists and religious people to travel to
Cuba and spread the good word about democracy (…).” The
Times proposes putting Miami’s interests aside, even if
it’s particularly difficult in an electoral year, to enter
into direct communication with “Mr. Castro’s successors”.
“Following Castro’s announcement in Havana,” according to
Brooks, “the United State’s political dynamic can also
change. The three main presidential pre-candidates commented
on the matter yesterday. Republican John McCain and Democrat
Hillary Clinton repeated the old rhetoric that Cuba must
show changes before Washington can consider changing its
policy.
“Democrat Barack Obama –who, as candidate for Senate in
2003, was in favor of lifting the embargo— has now qualified
his position, but he is the only one who has supported a
relaxation of restrictions on travel and the sending of
remittances to Cuba, stating, yesterday, that if there are
signs of democratization on the island “the United States
must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize
relations and to ease the embargo (…)”
According to the Wall Street Journal, “we have had a bad
policy for nearly 50 years, for bad reasons that have
nothing to do with Cuba” federal representative Charles
Rangel, chair of one of Congress’ most influential
committees, declared. Several other legislators regard this
moment as a possible opening to promote changes in bilateral
policy.
“The
business sector,” he adds, “which for years has expressed
its opposition to the blockade, could also see this as an
opportunity to redouble their efforts to change U.S. policy,
turning to the bipartisan support of legislators and
governors who see the Cuban market as something more
attractive than maintaining an ideological position aligned
with a president and government that are increasingly
discredited in Washington.
“Apparently, the transition in Cuba could cause a transition
within the United States, according to the article. But
perhaps Washington and Miami are more opposed to change than
Havana.”
As the
readers will appreciate, I have done some work as I await
the historical decision of the 24th.
Now, I
will go several days without putting pen to paper.
Fidel Castro Ruz
February 22, 2008
5:56
p.m. |
