We know one thing with certainty: in 2009, the United States will have a new president. What is far from clear is whether it will also have a new Cuba policy. Those of us fighting to change Cuba policy looked to the 2008 presidential campaign with feelings that ranged from antipathy to resignation to outright loathing. For nearly half a century, America’s policy toward the island has been frozen in the amber of its own ineffectiveness—with not even the most committed anti-Castro zealot able to identify a shred of progress, toward political or economic reform, stemming from our embargo or policy of isolating Cuba diplomatically. Fifty years of failure seemed to speak eloquently for itself. A policy that had produced nothing in decades, that hurt US companies and workers, that infringed on our citizens’ constitutional rights to travel, and that hurt America’s image abroad, was overdue for change. Yet the odds of anything positive, anything new coming out of this campaign seemed long indeed. Compared to the urgency of ending the Iraq war, extending health care coverage to the uninsured, or stopping the Arctic ice packs from melting into the oceans, Cuba looked like a second order concern indeed, especially to voters living outside the confines of Miami or Florida itself. What’s more, it was an article of faith, shared by Democratic and Republican operatives alike, that it was just plain stupid to disturb the New US President,new Cuba policy?peace on Calle Ocho by calling the embargo the failure that it is and offering something new. You just can’t win Florida any other way, the conventional wisdom went, so the conga line of candidates would head for the cash register at the Versailles, hoist the ceremonial cup of Cuban coffee, and pledge their oath of fealty to keeping the embargo just as it was. Election after election, year after year, the only certainty was that nothing would change. But against our greatest fears and expectations, the 2008 campaign is shaping up to be different from what we expected. Along with our allied NGOs in Washington, we’ve examined the websites, the policy positions, and the public statements about Cuba of the major party candidates running for president. Are there some still living in the past, captured by the conventional wisdom, spouting slogans of the status quo? Of course there are. But a surprising number from both sides of the political aisle are taking a second look at Cuba and the Cuban-American community. By starting to see this issue with fresh eyes, they have restored a small sense of optimism to our hearts. Here, we discuss the 2008 Presidential candidates and describe what they have done to earn our praise and heap our scorn. The Courageous Connecticut, has advocated the most sweeping changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba in a generation. In one forceful statement, he called for lifting the ban against legal travel by all Americans to Cuba and ending restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to the island. He dismissed the discredited of notion of Cuba as a security threat, and called for engagement by the U.S. government with the people of Cuba. Dodd has been voting against sanctions on Cuba since at least 1996. He is fluent in Spanish, a returned Peace Corps volunteer from the Dominican Republic, and a leader in the US Senate on Latin America policy. While Dodd has yet to emerge among the top-tier candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, he is Captain Courageous among all candidates for the principled stand he has taken on Cuba. Honorable mentions: Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is a persistent opponent of the travel ban. He has called for an end to the embargo and repeal of Helms-Burton. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has voted in the Congress to end restrictions on trade and had previously advocated loosening restrictions on travel. Mike Gravel, former Senator, (D-AK), opposes the embargo on Cuba and calls for normalization of relations. In a debate in September, Gravel asked: “Why can’t we recognize Cuba? Why—what’s the big deal?”. The Clear Senator Barack Obama, a top-tier Democratic candidate for president, went right into the heart of Miami, and announced his support for restoring the right of Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba and provide financial support for their families. In public remarks and an op-ed piece published in the Miami Herald, Obama endorsed family travel while retaining support for the trade embargo and conditioning further steps on actions taken by the Cuban government to reform its policies and politics. Although his positions in the Senate have taken greater risks—voting to open travel for all Americans and to cut off funds for TV Martí—Obama earned credit as a top-tier candidate for taking these steps in defiance of the conventional wisdom in Florida politics. Governor Bill Richardson gave an address on Cuba in October 2007 that vaulted him close to the top of the class. He called for ending restrictions both on Cuban-American travel and the financial support they give to their amilies. He also expressed a willingness to reassess the embargo, but only after the Cuban government satisfies conditions they have rejected in the past. Still, this former diplomat seems to sense an opening when it comes to Cuba, in US foreign policy and US politics. The Gentleman “C” Senator Joe Biden remains a friend of the embargo, and a supporter of the punitive Helms-Burton statute. At the same time, he has called in the campaign for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and voted in the Senate to restore the right to travel. Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is often a statesman on foreign policy issues, but could use a little more statesmanship when it comes to Cuba. The Confounding Under President Bill Clinton (as Wayne Smith notes in his article) US policy toward Cuba was at its most expansive. Cuban-Americans faced few restrictions on travel. The administration opened up licensing opportunities for students, religious travel, and other forms of so-called People to People exchanges. Cuba and America even talked, occasionally and quietly. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a member of the US Senate, voted twice to legalize travel by all Americans during votes on the Treasury Department budget. But that was then, and this is now. Her policy on Cuba is indistinguishable from that of President Bush. Her rhetoric toward Castro and Cuba is bellicose, with little understanding or concerns about how these words resonate in Cuba or elsewhere in Latin America. The candidate who once said “it takes a village,” supports the policy of dividing Cuban families. Of course, she´s a frontrunner for the nomination. Still one has to ask: on Cuba, does she really mean it?. Senator John Edwards says he’d end the restrictions on family travel, but not the restrictions on families sending money to Cuba. In the Senate, he voted against legalizing travel for all Americans and has expressed support for the embargo. Yet he told the Associated Press during the 2004 presidential campaign that he favored help for the Cuban people by allowing trade for food and medicine. In a recent debate, he also said that he wouldn’t change the embargo until “something has happened with Castro.” Taken together, it’s not consistent, it’s confounding. The 21st-Century Cold Warriors As the Council on Foreign Relations crisply noted, apart from Ron Paul, “All other Republican candidates support the Bush Administration’s draconian restrictions on travel.” But against even this barren landscape, some candidates deserve special note. Governor Governor Mike Huckabee wrote President Bush in 2002 urging him to end the embargo, calling it bad for business. Five years later, in the heat of a presidential campaign, and standing at a campaign event in Miami, he committed himself to changing the regime and punishing U.S. firms that do business in Cuba. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who wants hard-line Cuban-American votes, called federal agents who rescued Elian Gonzalez “storm troopers,” opposed reuniting him with his father, and is an aggressive supporter of the embargo today. Senator Fred Thompson supports the US embargo on Cuba, has called Cuba’s medical system a myth, and has suggested that Cuban immigrants are potential terrorists. In a recent Univision debate, referring to Castro, he said “I’m going to make sure that he didn’t survive 10 U.S. presidents.” How would he accomplish that? It was left unsaid. That is where the candidates are now. What about the future? What happens when a new president is actually sworn into office on January 20, 2009? Will we have a new Cuba policy? Or will we have more of the same? We have some grounds for optimism. First, while even the fiercest opponents of change growl when they hear Fidel Castro’s name, the new president is likely to be met by a very different Cuba than the candidates’ rhetoric and outlook would have them believe. In unmistakable ways, Cuba’s transition has already taken place. Raúl Castro, Fidel’s brother, is firmly in charge. Cuba is already making noticeable, if small, economic reforms: raising payments to farmers, importing car parts, and rethinking aspects of its health care system to better meet its people’s needs at home. Cubans are now invited to engage in a surprisingly frank debate on matters like corruption and more. Marches by millions of party faithful once brought to the streets to castigate any slight from Washington are not a feature of Cuban political life under Raúl; they’re expensive and cause industry and services to shutter for the day. Fidel occasionally flickers across the television screen, but his principal outlets for expression are now on Cuba’s editorial pages. Cuba is moving in new directions, how far or how fast, nobody knows. That this is happening at a time of utter American isolation from the Cuban people only compounds the stupidity of our policy. Second, the politics of the issue are changing. The pundits and political analysts may differ over the causes—the backlash against the barbarous Bush travel restrictions, growing opposition to the Iraq war, a more youthful tilt to voter registration—but this much is clear: a once solid rock electorate in Miami is now less Republican, more independent, and showing clear signs of moving past the exile-driven politics of the past in search of a more pro-family and reconciliatory Cuba policy. Third, there is a growing recognition in both political parties that our policy has failed. This business of allowing no talk, no travel, no trade, and no family ties means the United States is sitting on the sidelines at precisely the moment a real debate is starting in Cuba about its future. That simply has to change. But will our leaders change as well? What happens if a less than courageous candidate ends up raising his or her hand on Election Day? What then?. There can be a thin line between cynicism and idealism. Our cynicism compels us to believe that candidates simply cannot mean the outlandish or sad things they say in campaigns about Cuba and our idealism commands us to hope that they will do something entirely different and better once they serve. No issue has been treated so cynically and less nobly than our policy toward the Cuban people. Starting in 2009, those of us living on both sides of the Florida Straits deserve better. Perhaps the next American president will understand that and rise to the moment history is offering. |
