Fidel Didn't Really Dash Hopes For Cuba Talks

[Mika]

Fidel Didn't Really Dash Hopes For Cuba Talks
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/22/world/worldwatch/entry4962728.shtml

Fidel Castro is once again demonstrating that he knows how to stir up controversy.

An online essay penned by the former Cuban president Tuesday evening seemed to throw a wrench into the apparent thawing in U.S.-Cuba relations. But some analysts question whether that is really the case.


(CBS)
This screengrab taken from the Cuban government Web site CubaDebate.cu shows the top of former leader Fidel Castro's editorial column, published on April 21, 2009.

It's a "script that has repeated many times before," says Nelson Valdes, a Cuban-American sociologist at the University of New Mexico.

"The United States proposes something. The Cuban government reacts to the proposal and states on what basis it is willing to interact," Valdes says, stressing that, as always, Cuba insisted that in any talks the sovereignty of both countries be respected.
Fidel Castro was just setting the record straight, says Valdes, when he wrote that President Obama had "misinterpreted" the remarks made by his brother, Cuban President Raul Castro.

The media reporting blurred the "nuance and principles" in President Castro's declaration that he was ready to discuss "everything," including human rights, freedom of the press and expression and political prisoners.

That statement set tongues wagging. Now the U.S. government and the foreign press have made it seem as though Cuba is "changing its stance," says Valdes, when in reality "the Cuban position has not changed an inch."

In his latest essay, Fidel Castro noted that his brother's offer to discuss all issues was "a show of courage and confidence in the principles of the revolution."

In other words, Havana is happy to defend its positions on the issues in question, but was not signaling a readiness to make concessions in exchange for better relations with Washington. The former Cuban leader, sidelined by illness in 2006, was clearly put off by Mr. Obama's subsequent call for Cuba to unconditionally release political prisoners and suspend a 10 percent currency exchange fee slapped on the U.S. dollar in 2007.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration lifted restrictions on family visits by Cuban Americans and limits on the amount of financial aid they could send relatives on the island. It's assumed that most of those funds are sent in U.S. dollars, but Cuba's leaders do not welcome the American currency on the island, and not just because of the dollar's falling value.

As part of the application of Washington's economic and trade embargo, the U.S. Federal Reserve went after a Swiss bank for handling U.S. dollars from Cuba. The $100 million fine it imposed in that case discouraged other foreign banks from taking dollars from Cuba, complicating the island’s international trade payments.

Havana hoped the 10 percent surcharge would discourage the circulation of U.S. dollars and that visitors would instead spend Euros, British pounds, Swiss francs and other convertible currencies which can be exchanged for the local currency at the going world rate.

Julia Sweig, Director of Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, was reluctant to say exactly what Fidel Castro's jumping into the breach at this point meant, but she conceded that it, "muddies the waters a bit... but then, the waters were already muddied."

Everybody has been chiming in, says Sweig, "some with more conciliatory and more open-ended statements, some with the same old, same old." She stresses the need to look for "substance over rhetoric."

The biggest sticking point for the Cubans is the U.S. economic and trade embargo, and in his essay Fidel Castro chastised Mr. Obama for clinging to it, predicting that that policy would lead him to failure as it did for his ten predecessors.

Castro ended his essay by implying that unless Mr. Obama does something different, Cuba will be treading water with a different U.S. president who will be, "without-doubt less intelligent, promising and admired in the world than Barack Obama."

That reasoning might also explain why the Castro brothers are disappointed in Mr. Obama's decision to not reject the existing parameters in the relationship to encourage change on the island.

Cuba-U.S. relations dramatically worsened during the Bush administration, and there is no way of knowing who will replace him. Therefore, Mr. Obama's leadership was likely seen as a window of opportunity for the aging Castros to bring closure to the five-decade-old dispute between the two neighbors, and to do it on their terms before the mantle of leadership passes to a younger generation.

Raul Castro is also feeling pressure from his public to improve living standards, and an end to the embargo and the opening of two-way trade and travel with the U.S. would go a long way to improving the government's current financial liquidity problems.

But, given the back and forth messages which have come from the Castro brothers, which seem to leave the country's position largely unchanged, many people consider a real breakthrough unlikely in the immediate future.

A frequent visitor to Cuba and the representative of a large U.S. farm group, whose members see the island as an important market for their products, says it was a mistake to think improvements in U.S. Cuba relations were on a fast track.

Asking not to be identified, as his employer has not issued any statement on the latest developments, he explained his perspective on the future of bilateral relations.

"Many years ago, about 1980, I met a Cuban-born businessperson in Venezuela. We became friends and he told me that nothing would change between the U.S. and Cuba until key people (on all sides of the issue) — a whole generation of people, including himself – died," he said.

"That's kind of been a pretty good guide for me and helped ease out the ups and downs of this whole thing."

[Judi Lynn]

1. Thanks for emphasizing the surcharge material, Mika. It's important, and valid.

I plan to reread this article later in the day.

Really appreciate your posting. Thanks.

[Mika]

2. Amazing, isn't it? First the US imposes sanctions on banks, then Cuba makes changes..

First the US imposes sanctions on banks, then Cuba makes changes to reduce the infractions, then the US demands that Cuba changes these very policies intended to reduce infractions as a gesture of Cuba's goodwill.

The US takes a swing at Cuba then gets all pissy about Cuba ducking the punch. Simply amazing.

The US's behavior toward Cuba is a classic case of Münchausen syndrome by proxy. A serious illness that needs treatment.

[Judi Lynn]

3. Treat Cuba with respect

Friday, April 24, 2009
Treat Cuba with respect
Mark Entwistle, National Post


On April 13, U. S. President Barack Obama declared that he would relax rules that restrict Americans' ability to travel to Cuba and remit money to Cuban relatives. Beginning today, the National Post is asking experts and pundits to weigh in on the issue. Is Obama too soft on Cuba? Or should the U. S. trade embargo be removed altogether?

The elaborate dance between the United States and Cuba changed tempo last week, as the Cuba issue took up its informal place on the agenda of the Summit of the Americas.

We have been here before, so the music is not exactly unfamiliar to our ears. Former U. S. presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both took steps toward a more open relationship with Cuba. But, compared with the rigid hostility on display during the Bush years, the conciliatory language used between Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro was noteworthy. Mr. Obama's style suggests that he is free of the knee-jerk dogmatism that marked his predecessor.

~snip~
These differences run deep. The Spanish-American War in 1898 opened the way for the United States to create a colonial-style relationship with Cuba. This ended in 1959. Yet even now, there lingers among Americans the notion that the island should be an exotic extension of their own national economy.

Thus, Americans remain hard-wired to place preconditions on any dialogue with Cuba -- such as demanding the removal of the Castro regime, a commitment to democratic elections, the release of certain individuals from prison, etc.

Even the legal changes announced by President Obama on April 13 -- removing restrictions on travel and remittances by Cuban-Americans, and allowing U. S. telecommunications companies to get Treasury licences to operate in Cuba -- reflected such assumptions. The new rule that permits CubanAmericans to travel as much as they like to Cuba, for instance, was framed as an opportunity for these travellers to become ambassadors for political change. Similarly, rules that would permit U. S. telecom companies to operate in Cuba were framed as an effort at democratization through information. No thought was given to whether the Cuban government actually might want foreign companies meddling within its borders. This is a sensitive political issue in any country.

Just ask Canada.

On the Cuban side, much media attention was given to President Raul Castro's statement that he was prepared to discuss everything with the United States. But there was a second, overlooked aspect to his position -- his insistence that any discussion be conducted on the basis of equality between the two nations, and respect for Cuba's sovereignty.

What would be required for a true breakthrough in this relationship after 50 years of hostility? The United States must drop its goal of regime change, and its desire to meddle in the basic structure of Cuban society. Those decisions are for the Cuban people to make.

More:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1529885