Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why the Secretary of State's "Personal Beliefs" Defy Logic

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 10:52 AM
Original message
Why the Secretary of State's "Personal Beliefs" Defy Logic

http://counterpunch.com/valdes04232010.html

Hillary's "Feelings" About Cuba and the Castros


"A few weeks back, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that they are opened to a dialogue with Cuba but that they clearly want to see fundamental changes in the Cuban regime. It is my obligation to respond to Mrs. Clinton, with all due respect, and also to those in the European Union who are asking for unilateral gestures in the sense of dismantling our social and political regime. I was not elected President to return capitalism to Cuba or to surrender the Revolution. I was elected to defend, preserve and continue to perfect socialism, not to destroy it...with all due respect, we tell Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State of that country, that if she wants to discuss everything we are willing to discuss everything about here, but about there, too..."

-- Raul Castro, August 1, 2009

***


"It is my PERSONAL BELIEF that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn't happened in Cuba in the last 50 years...I find that very sad, because there should be an opportunity for a transition to a full democracy in Cuba and it's going to happen at some point, but it may not happen any time soon." <1>

So said Hillary Clinton on April 9th.

Personal belief seemingly guides the foreign policy of the Secretary of State. This could save the American public some money. Obviously, there is no need for all the data collection and all the analytical units of the US government.

Let us assume Hillary was correct about her personal assumptions as to what motivates the rulers of Cuba. Should such a conclusion lead her to the use of reverse psychology? Wikipedia tells us: "Reverse psychology is a persuasion technique involving the advocacy of a belief or behavior that is opposite to the one desired, with the expectation that this approach will encourage the subject of the persuasion to do what is desired: the opposite of what is suggested." Hence, the Castros use reverse psychology successfully on the US government, but the State Department does not use the same method.

Hillary is implicitly saying that the Castros are masochists and devious opportunists while she and others are just enablers! Yes, foreign policy is now led by the theoretical assumptions of publicly shared codependency "theory." Since Latin American scholars elucidated dependency theory, why not use co-dependency to guide the great USA?

Let's face it; Hillary operates from a subjective personal universe where wishful thinking reigns. This is not new. On May 1, 2000 the wire services reported that in a radio interview in Buffalo, New York, she "expressed her HOPE that the father of the little Cuban boy Elián González, Juan Miguel, will eventually decide to seek exile and live in the United States. "During the 2007 democratic primaries she repeated the demand for the democratization of Cuba. On February 22, 2008 she asserted that Cuba had to change before Washington could consider having a different policy toward the island. Now, we learn from her that the Castros want the embargo/blockade to continue. One assumes this is a recent discovery on herpart.

This premise has been repeated by the most conservative sectors of the exile community in the 1990s. By 2002 the "Fidel Castro likes the blockade thesis" penetrated the world of the Washington, DC "think tanks". A report by the Cato Institute claimed, ""Supporters of the embargo casually assume that Castro wants an end to the embargo because he believes that step would solve his economic problems. Despite his rhetoric, Castro more likely fears the lifting of the U.S. sanctions. But as long as Castro can point to the United States as an external enemy, he will be successful in barring dissent, justifying control over the economy, and stirring up nationalist and anti-U.S. sentiments in Cuba. It is time for Washington to stop playing into Castro's hands and instead pull the rug out from under him by ENDING THE EMBARGO." <2>

Some members of Congress also "invented" the same assertion. Sen. Max Baucus added "feeling" and "extra political sensory perception." He said at a hearing: "In my view... Castro wants the embargo to continue. Observers have noted an emerging pattern. Every time we get close to more open relations, Castro shuts down the process with some repressive act designed to have a chilling effect on US-Cuban relations. Castro fears an end to the embargo. Believe me, I have a sense - I have been there. I have spoken to Castro, been to Cuba. You can FEEL it. It's palpable. He knows the day the embargo falls is the day he runs out of excuses. Without the embargo, Castro would have no one to blame for the failing Cuban economy. Nor would his way of governing be able to survive the influx of American and democratic ideas that would flood his island if the embargo were lifted." <3>

Cuban authorities have responded to such ridiculous assertions. In an interview with the Austrian paper Der Standard, Ricardo Alarcon on April 1, 1993, challenged the Clinton Administration to lift the embargo/blockade forone year and see if political cohesion collapses in Havana, as Cuban exiles were positing. Alarcón noted that if the US policy was changed, and the Cuban government was accepted by the US; then, Cuba would have no reason to see domestic opponents as agents of the Americans. <4> Ten years later, Alarcón again repeated the challenge, "the US government should dare to lift the blockade for a limited period of time and take the so-called excuse away." <5>

-long snip-
-----------------------

I've wondered too about what Hillary says about Cuba and why Obama wants to treat them badly. it doesn't fit his MO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. I disagree with Hillary, but Counterpunch is disreputable and always
looks for base motives everywhere. For that, I unreccomend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. counterpunch is not disreputable
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Counterpunch at various times was not allowed on this board
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 11:54 AM by karynnj
The reasons included various articles where they repeated SBVT type garbage and other articles that attacked nearly every elected Democrat. As others on the board can attest, I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, but these quotes are cherry picked to make her look extremely right wing.

Here, I disagree with Clinton's policy and I thought the President Obama was open to ending the blockade back in 2008. He did lift the travel ban for Cuban ex-pats. Kerry has a hold on funds for the counter Cuba programs, while the State Department evaluates them - so that is some positive change. http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0410/Kerry_holds_Cuban_democracy_assistance_programs.html?showall

In addition, you post violates fair use - you are allowed to copy only 4 paragraphs or less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I've been on this board since 2000 almost every day and I never

saw counterpunch barred.

and for years I've started threads with a counterpunch article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. "various times"
counterpunch has most certainly been barred here on DU at "various times", especially during primary season, when their attacks on Democrats make them little more than right wing waterboys.

No serious political commentator takes them seriously, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Counterpunch speaks the truth; it's the press releases that are disreputable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC