Zcom_simple

Jeremy-scahill

Obama's Cuba Moves Do Little to End the Economic War on Havana




Change Text Size a- | A+


A group of U.S. lawmakers visiting Cuba has called on the Obama administration to join every other country in the Western hemisphere in normalizing relations with Cuba. “Most of the members of our delegation believe we need to actually normalize relations and then the details of what that means would follow,” said Representative Barbara Lee, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, which is leading the Congressional delegation. Most recently, El Salvador’s new president, Mauricio Funes, broke with the U.S. position, saying he would reopen ties in June when he officially takes over. Costa Rica has pledged the same, leaving Washington alone in its half-century-long policy.

 

Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, recently “called on President Obama to appoint a special envoy to initiate direct talks with the island’s communist government and to end U.S. opposition to Cuba’s membership in the Organization of American States.” While his letter was filled with the language of empire and U.S. “interests,” Lugar called on Obama “to recast a policy that has not only failed to promote human rights and democracy, but that also undermines our broader security and political interests in the Western Hemisphere.” Lugar stopped short of calling for a total lifting of the blockade, but his appeal for an envoy could be seen as a step in that direction.

 

Despite calls from some of Obama’s closest Congressional allies, his administration is unlikely to end the blockade against Cuba. A recent report in the Wall Street Journal cites a senior U.S. official, revealing, “President Obama doesn’t intend to call for lifting of the trade embargo against Cuba, which would require congressional action, nor is any specific diplomatic outreach contemplated.” This point was also made clear by Vice President Joe Biden last month on a visit to Latin America when asked if Obama would lift the blockade. Biden responded bluntly, “No.”

 

There was a point in Barack Obama’s political career when he advocated for a dramatically different approach to U.S.-Cuba policy than most politicians with a decent shot at winning the White House. In January 2004, Obama said it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba,” and said, “It’s time for us to acknowledge that that particular policy has failed.” After it became clear that Obama might well be within arm’s reach of the presidency, he began to use harder line rhetoric and, as most politicians do, he pandered to the right-wing Cuban-American mafia in Florida (which, by the way, decreasingly represents the views of most Cuban-Americans). “I will maintain the embargo,” he declared on the campaign trail last year in front of the ultra-right-wing Cuban American National Foundation. “It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations. That’s the way to bring about real change in Cuba -- through strong, smart and principled diplomacy.” While Obama has said he supports “eventual normalization” of U.S.-Cuba relations, his bottom line is this: “Make no mistake – the embargo must remain, and I strongly oppose any aid to the Castro regime.”

 

Over the past several days, Cuba has popped up in U.S. press reports because of speculation that Obama may make some adjustments to Cuba travel policy, as it relates to the Cuban-American community. According to reports in the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets, Obama is considering allowing Cuban-Americans to visit their families on the island nation as often as they wish and to send an unlimited amount of money to relatives living in Cuba, both of which would be departures from Bush-era policies. This comes as little surprise given that Obama pledged bluntly to do so while on the campaign trail (which was hardy a bold move given that it has wide support among Miami Cubans). “I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island,” Obama said in Miami on May 23. “It’s time to let Cuban-Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It’s time to let Cuban-American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.”

 

According to The New York Times, “The White House is expected to announce the action before Mr. Obama travels to Trinidad and Tobago for a meeting on April 17 of Latin American and Caribbean leaders.”

 

Possible Obama action on Cuba travel comes after Congress approved legislation earlier this years that, in the words of the WSJ, “had the effect of rolling back the Bush rules:”

 

As they now stand, family members -- broadly defined -- may visit once a year. The rules on how much money family members can send to Cuba, which date to 1978, have also changed with various administrations, but under Mr. Bush, funds were limited to a maximum of $300 per quarter for each household in Cuba receiving them. Remittances from the U.S. to Cuba now amount to around $700 million a year.

 

While a step in the right direction, Obama’s move to ease some travel restrictions are being framed with anti-Cuba rhetoric and do not do anything to address the decades-long economic blockade of Cuba. Actual change in U.S.-policy toward Cuba would decriminalize travel to Cuba by any U.S. citizen or resident and allow Cuba to do business and trade freely and openly with whomever it chooses.

 

 

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His writing and reporting is available at RebelReports.com.

582867

Tampa on the Embargo and Castro

By Small, Brian at Apr 09, 2009 03:17 AM

The Port of Tampa wants the embargo lifted. A Spanish-language newspaper actually supported the Castro takeover in the fifties. History is interesting. Thanks Democracy Now! Florids is even more interesting that Carl Haiassen and Tim Dorsey make it out to be.

AMY GOODMAN: Here in Tampa, the Port of Tampa, you have an interesting shift in political alliances, because a lot of owners here, a lot of businesspeople want that embargo lifted. Explain what it would mean for the Port of Tampa.

PATRICK MANTEIGA: Well, the Port of Tampa is actually the closest major port to Havana, and we’re closer even than Miami, as a ship goes. And historically, Tampa used to have daily passage between Havana and Tampa. It was just as—it was very easy to just to hop on a boat and go there, as it was to go anywhere in the United States. So you always had a strong relationship shipping cattle over there, workers coming up here for the cigar industry, Historically, there is this tie, and if you read Cuban history books, you will read about Tampa. Tampa was a cradle for a lot of revolution in Cuba. So there’s this emotional tie between the two cities—between Tampa and the country of Cuba.

But the Port really needs Cuba relations. You’ve got a cruise ship industry that would give us a three-day cruise that we currently don’t have. You’ve got a lot of shipping that could happen with phosphate going down there. A lot of relations. In fact, our congresswoman here, Kathy Castor, just asked President Obama to allow Tampa International Airport to have charter flights to Cuba, where there’s only three airports in the United States that currently is allowed this, and I think it’s by executive order, and she’s asked for that executive order to expand.

ROB LOREI: Have you editorialized in favor of lifting the embargo?

PATRICK MANTEIGA: We were the first Spanish-language newspaper in the state of Florida to do so, and we’re still here, so they didn’t burn us out. So—

ROB LOREI: But did you receive any threats or any repercussions?

PATRICK MANTEIGA: No. We had some people who called up and were very concerned about our position. We had some people call, crying on the phone, that they were upset that—you know, and explaining their past history with Cuba.

But we’ve always had repercussions from the fact that originally, back in the 1960s, we supported—before, in the ’50s, we supported the Castro takeover. And we’ve been blacklisted by corporations in Miami for years and years. In fact, recently, three Miami congressmen blocked the naming of a post office for my father here in Tampa, because in 1960 he didn’t condemn Castro fast enough for them. So, you know, we’re talking about a long time where these things still happen. In fact, I don’t even know if the congressmen were born at the time.

Reply this comment


670852

By Lucker, Andy at Apr 08, 2009 09:39 AM

Obama's position on Cuba has been pretty hostile, especially in his campaign lead up:  "Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas". Obama for America. 2008. http://obama.3cdn.net/f579b3802a3d35c8d5_9aymvyqpo.pdf.

 

I wrote a piece on Obama and Latin America last fall: <http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18734>.

Reply this comment

Loading_border