Last night, Marc posted a link here on Babalu to a piece he wrote at Uncommon Sense titled “Travel, currency limits reveal absurdity.” Ill admit that I reluctantly agree with most aspects of his take on the issue but I must take exception to the following:
As long as American policies reflect this amorality, the dicatorship will survive, and our influence in a future Cuba will be only an illusion because of the bad example we set.
Not only to I take exception, I wholeheartedly disagree. US policy towards Cuba, while in some respects worthy of criticism, are anything but amoral. On the contrary, the US is the only country that has taken a moral stance against the current regime in Cuba. Despite unending and ubiquitous criticism, the US has been the only country to refuse to cowtow to the Cuban regime without said regime making concessions vis-a-vis its abysmal human rights violations.
It is not amoral to prohibit your citizens to travel to a country where human rights are violated and an apratheid system is in place. Remember South Africa? Remember Nelson Mandela? What is amoral is to allow your citizens to travel to a country to exploit the people of that country. Sex tourism is amoral. Apartheid is amoral. The systematic violation of every human and basic civil right is amoral, and so is the acceptance of same.
To state that the US is setting a bad example is myopic at best. You want to see a bad example? Look no further than the Canadians, the Spanish, the Brits, etal. Not only do they ignore the human rights abuses and apartheid system in Cuba by freeling traveling and vacationing on the island, but they themselves become a de facto element of said apartheid.
We can all criticize much of US policy towards Cuba until we are all blue in the face, but the fact remains that not only is the US the only country that has accepted more Cuban exiles than any other, but it has been the one that has stood its ground from a moral standpoint. There are no US owned hotels in Cuba, there are no US owned businesses in Cuba, there arent a plethora of US tourists in Cuba exploiting the natives and supporting the apartheid. All of this, I am absolutely certain, much to the chagrin of US hotel chains, US businesses and many US citizens.
I have a great deal of respect for Marc and his work on behalf of Cuban political prisoners at Uncommon Sense is exceptional, but on this particular issue, I simply must disagree.
I have absolutely no reservations in agreeing with Marc on the absurdity of many aspects of the travel restrictions. They are too harsh to the average person who simply wants to go see a mother or father who won’t be around much longer, but not harsh enough to the people who openly and blatantly get around the system and visit on a regular basis just for the hell of it.
That being said, I agree with Val that the only true amorality here is the Cuban regime’s continued oppression. Quite frankly, the bills being pushed around in Congress don’t convince me of being anything but an opportunity to make a buck or two in Cuba at the Cubans’ expense.
Now THAT’s immoral.
I agree, but (and obviously I don’t speak for Marc) I got something very different from his criticism of the policy and his calling it amoral.
Certainly that US is the only country that by enacting such policy has taken any significant position against Cuba’s abuses. However, that policy has been compromised in so many ways by now that, for al intents and purposes, it has ceased to exist.
What we are left with is a symbol standing where an “embargo” was supposed to be. Maybe it’s because their are two sides of the issue that, through their constant “take it down/leave it up” heave-ho on the embargo, have rendered it useless.
Maybe it’s because those in politics have found that, to them, and no matter what side of the issue they stand on, the embargo is much more valuable as a political pandering tool than a liberating tool.
No matter the reason the embargo – as it exists today – fails to be purely “good” or “bad” to either side of the debate. Those who favor it (like myself) agree that because it had been picked and prodded at, it is only a shadow of what it was intended to be, and those who oppose it agree (fallaciously, I bleieve) that it is jurting the Cuban people.
So in the sense that the end result has been one of amorality (not immorality) – I can se Marc’s point.
The betrayal of the freedom fighters at the Bay of Pigs was immoral. The Kennedy-Khruschev Pact was immoral. The “Wet Foot/Dry Foot” policy is immoral. The persecution of fleeing refugees on the high seas by the U.S. Coast Guard (in conjunction with the Castro’s Coast Guard) is immoral. Not amoral, but immoral.
It is the eminently moral acts of the U.S. in respect to Cuba, such as the trade embargo and the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, which the enemies of a free Cuba protest most vociferously.
“US policy towards Cuba, while in some respects worthy of criticism, are anything but amoral.”
“AMORAL”
1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply.
Examples of an “AMORAL” policy:
– “(1) to visit a member of your immediate family who is a national of Cuba once in a threeyear period”
– “I understand that I may send up to $300 per payee’s household in a 3-month
period to myself, my spouse, or my or my spouse’s child, grandchild, parent,
grandparent, or sibling, or the spouse, widow, or widower of any of the foregoing”
Robert,
The travel restrictions for Cuban exiles is a double edged sword. What differentiates the Cuban for most other immigrants is the fact that they come from a repressive society and thus seek asylum from same.
Now, the technicality and semantics of these “asylums” notwithstanding, how truly repressed are they if the first chance they get they travel right back to that country?
isnt that like having one’s cake and eating it too?
From the US government’s standpoint, cant it be said that Cubans immigrating here to the states and returning back to the island to help their families economically makes them exactly like Mexican immigrants? Why then shouldnt the Mexicans be given the same immigration carte blanche that the Cubans are given? What do you think the chances of that happening are? Cant it be said then, that, logically and pragmatically speaking, if Cuban immigrants want to travel freely back to Cuba then they must be reclassified as economic immigrants as opposed to political exiles?
bombillo,
The embargo, from the onset, was a symbolic gesture. A diplomatic tool. The US knew fully well when it implemented the embargo that Cuba was subsidized by the USSR and thus knew , at the time, it would make little if any economic impact on castro’s regime.
Where we had the chance to give the embargo some teeth and possibly make it work from an economic point of view was when the Soviet bloc fell and their economic support of Cuba ended.
Val,
My point about people abusing the system to visit as often as they like concurs with your view. But I’m not referring to those folks. My problem with the travel restrictions is that there’s little consideration for those who want to go simply to visit a close relative that may only have a few months or years left to live. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but does the policy allow for emergency visits within the 3-year period if a close relative is gravely ill? I believe it doesn’t. Why should the majority have to suffer for the few jerks that circumvent the law?
This is what has to change. I’ve proposed one visit a year as some sort of a compromise, with allowances for more frequent visits for emergencies. That’s probably not good enough, but it’s better than what we have now.
I was going to respond to Val’s post, but then I read El Bombillo’s comments, which correctly interpet the larger point I was trying to make.
I agree, Val, the United States has taken the morally correct position towards Cuba, especially when compared with those taken by other nations. Despite the evidence sometimes, I have faith that ultimately, the American approach, if we stick to it, will prevail.
But I think our credibility is hurt, and our morality called into question, when on the one hand we talk about keeping the “embargo” in place, while at the same time allowing all sorts of completely legal business transactions, like the farm sales. Worse than that, we allow such loopholes while simultaneously making it very difficult for Americans to help individual Cubans in need, whether with a visit or a remittance. Those restrictions have not hurt Castro, only Cubans.
Those inconsistencies suggest that our entire policy is one of convenience — whether it’s about winning votes or making money — and not of morality.
Marc,
Again, I stated that I agree with much of your take on this, but your original post, at least to me, wasnt clear.
And, while I wholeheartedly agree with the ridiculousness of the trade agreements on agricultural goods, the economic formula they along with the remittance restrictions create doesnt bother me all that much.
Lots of money going out with no money coming in is a pretty bad situation, dont you think?
Val – Isn’t it more likely that Cubans’ disgust with the economy has more to do with the inherant weakenesses in the communist system — the food shortages, the low wages, etc. — and not the restrictions on remittances?
To question areas of policy regarding Cuba does not make one anti-American or less patriotic. Let me preface this with I LOVE AMERICA. With that said while we do not have American hotels in Cuba we supply much of the food directly and much other through third countries. I also want to say that I favor the embargo if it were a true embargo. But would someone please answer what has restricting legitimate humanitarian assistance to family members and restricted true family and humanitarian visits to Cuba done to hurt the communist regime in Cuba? I hear over and over and over how neccessary this all is yet there has yet to be one solid argument in defense of said actions. There is also a double edged sword as Val eluded to and that is of those who left for purely economic reasons and others who did not. But what we are saying is in order to punish those who left for the wrong reasons we must punish those who left for the right reasons. There are many who left who hate castro and everything in the system yet want to help family members. There are many who have a desire to do some true humanitarian help and put it in the hands of the needy rather tha give it to the castros so they can sell it. It is a big game of chess and we Cubans are the pawns. The existing US policy has not worked. Does this mean we throw it out the window? NO,but it does mean that we should modify it somehow so that it either do some good or at least less harm toward the hurting Cubans that benefit from help. This dead horse keeps coming up. I wonder at times if our hatred of castro is greater than our love for fellow Cubans. I do not believe that the embargo is any excuse for hurting Cuba politically or economically as castro and the other comminists states, but I do believe that parts of it are hurting those who TRULY want to help those who NEED the help. While I despise those who left and want to go back and show off their trinkets their profiting may be a necessary evil in order to help the right people. Keep in mind that those of us on both side of the issue are not the enemy, castro and his henchmen are.
btw, I believe the establishment of the embargo had to do more with US businesses being confiscated and the missile crisis more than with the plight of the Cuban people. I wouldn’t exactly call that moral. If the US businesses were compensated when it happened I am not too sure we would even have an embargo.
Val – Isn’t it more likely that Cubans’ disgust with the economy has more to do with the inherant weakenesses in the communist system — the food shortages, the low wages, etc. — and not the restrictions on remittances?
The economy of the communist system – just like any other system’s economy – depends on production. Unfortunately, Cuba doesnt produce anything to help its economy, except, of course, exiles.
Val,
I’ve been thinking about he argument that returning to Cuba to visit family as soon as one is able, somehow negates any political asylum claim. I’m staring to think that is not a cogent argument.
Here is why: for most Cubans there is no IMMINENT threat of physical harm, separation from work for political dissent, actos de repudio, etc. These are very real threats that hang over every Cuban’s head. But only active dissidents actually encounter the consequence of anti-government action. The threat of represssion is there to keep people “docile.” There is an omnipresent feeling of repression, dread, and potential violence; and the drudgery of living with the economic chaos created by the failed system. But, if one “gets along” and stays quiet, no politically motivated backlash occurs. Anyone fleeing can rightfully claim he is fleeing a repressive society, have no doubt about that. But, few Cubans face the “wrath” of the State on a daily basis. What Cubans face on a daily basis is the incompetence of the State.
The person who left because of the repression, can return one year later to visit family. As long as that person doesn’t stand on a corner and yell “Abajo Fidel” that person is unlikely to be bothered (just as most Cubans are unlikely to be bothered). But, that doesn’t change the fact that he originally escaped a repressive society, and is back (albeit briefly) in the same repressive society. Under the current rules and practices, that person knows his stay in Cuba is short, and he is able to return to the US once the visit is over.
A Mexican is different. He comes for purely economic reasons. Sends money home, and returns any time he wants. The Mexican can yell “Abajo Calderon” without fear of reprisal. The two cases are not comparable.
There is much to discuss on this. And, it is a complex issue. But, I think I have conveyed the “gist” of my thoughts on it.
pototo,
But would someone please answer what has restricting legitimate humanitarian assistance to family members and restricted true family and humanitarian visits to Cuba done to hurt the communist regime in Cuba?
How do you police that? “Legitimate humanitarian assistance” was the reason travel and remittances were allowed to begin with and they were a joke. The percentage of people going to cuba pa joder la pita was much much more than those travelling to help family.
Look, Im not criticizing anyone for wanting to help family in Cuba and I have stated millions of times that i am no one to tell any Cuban not to help their own still on the island.
But if I see this as self-defeating, then i will say so. The Cuban government holds your family hostage in every way shape or form. They know that by separating the family and letting some exile that they are GUARANTEED an income. So, being thatthe income is GUARATEED, what will behoove the Cuban governmnet to make any concessions? Not a damned thing. If anything, as long as the remittance income is there, it behooves the Cuban government to maintain the status quo.
Little Gator,
The person who left because of the repression, can return one year later to visit family. As long as that person doesn’t stand on a corner and yell “Abajo Fidel” that person is unlikely to be bothered (just as most Cubans are unlikely to be bothered).
OF COURSE they are unlikely to get bothered because A) the returning cuban will most likely not risk their family’s well being and shout “Abajo Fidel” from a street corner and B) because the returning cuban has what the Cuban government needs: MONEY.
Val,
I completely agree with you.
But the point is that that person left a repressive society, and is back in a repressive society. His returning to see and help family (and I am assuming pure motives in the return), does not change the reason he originally left; nor, does it change the fact that he is back in a repressive society.
In other words, his claim that he fled a repressive society is not extinguished because of his return. He is back in a repressive society that “tolerates” his presence (for the reason you outline).
The first question that the Cuban newcomers ask upon arriving here is: “When can I go back for a visit?” Not even Mexican migrants expect to be back within the year; most, in fact, never risk going back home for fear that they won’t make it across the border again. Personally, I feel that any Cuban who returns on a visit to the island should have his asylum rescinded and sent to the back of the line with the other economic refugees seeking admission into the U.S.
“The embargo, from the onset, was a symbolic gesture. A diplomatic tool. The US knew fully well when it implemented the embargo that Cuba was subsidized by the USSR…”
I understand that, Val. The fact is, though, that the hope has alwas been that eventually, the USSR’s support would stop and these retrictions would do something and have a more utilitarian funcstion. If this wasn’t the hope of the people who implemented the policy, it was certainly the hope of the exile community that kept the policy alove all these years.
I think we finally got our chance with the fall of the Soviet Union. The island entered its “special period” and we saw more dissent. Cuba had to make concessions to its own people becaus if they were dying of starvation, it would only be a matter of time before even their fiercest apologists would have to stop apologizing.
I’m not sure its coincidence that US made swiss cheese of the embargo policy very near the time the special period ended. I also don’t think its coincidence that Cuba has found a mini USSR in Venezuela around the same time as well.
Point is that it was symbol when it had no choice but to be a symbol, and it is a symbol now, even when it can be exponntially more significant. I don’t think an symbol is too tremendous morally if it is not does not represent results.
Manuel,
Do you have a reason for the way you feel other than “that person is putting dollars in Castro’s pocket.”??
Gator,
I don’t know that I would go as far as Manuel in terms of what the reprcussions should be, but insofar as feeling that remittances are counter-productive, “dollars in Catsro’s pocket” is reason enough, don’t you think? I mean… isn’t “not putting dollars in Castro’s pocket” the central idea of any Cuba embargo?
bombillo,
You do remember what administration was in office during the nineties when the embargo policy could have been made effective, no? And what happened then? the policy was LOOSENED instead of tightened.
This, in effect, is exactly the same thing happening once again. With the possibility of the policy possibly actually beginning to have some effect, the barrage is on to loosen it yet again, if not eradicate it altogether. What geniuses do you think thought that one up, the ones in DC or the ones in Havana?
Val,
I think we all know who was responsible then. Just one more reason to despise that administration.
As for who was responsible for what’s going on now, who’s to say it isn’t both?
I don’t disagree with you at all about whether there ought to be a strong embargo, who has been mostly responsible for its failure, etc. All I’ve really been saying that’s at odds with the point you are making is that I agree with Marc’s descrption of the embargo as “amoral” – because of the very failures and as a result of the very assholes you are mentioning.
Bombillo,
I commented at lenght on this a few weeks. ago. Things are kind of busy at the office right now, so I don’t have time to comment at lenght (as much as I’d like to). But, the bottom line, is that I disagree with the “pressure cooker” approach. I particularly disagree with it when it is el cubano de a pie that must suffer the burden, while corporations from every country in the world are free to business with Cuba. And, as others have commented here, there are so many loopholes in the US embargo that it isn’t much of an embargo at all.
So, to say that you can’t send your grandmother $100.00 amonth to buy food, and you can’t send a care package, and you can’t visit once in a while because that puts dollars in Castro’s pocket is not an argument that carries much weight, because family concerns outweigh any benefit to the regime. This is particularly so where that benefit is negligible compared to other activity that is permitted. Just one example, the US has refused to enforce provisions of the Helms-Burton Act that would severely penalize international corporations that do business in Cuba. Why? Because the US does not want to step on other countries’ toes. But, the US (and many exiles) have no problem insisting that poor Cubans should bear the full weight of the failed “embargo.” To quote Mr. Spock “that is illogical Captain.”
Val said: “It is not amoral to prohibit your citizens to travel to a country where human rights are violated and an apartheid system is in place. Remember South Africa?”
What happened with sanctions on South Africa, is TOTALLY different from the position on the US embargo towards Cuba. Mainly because the US was very much AGAINST sanctions to begin with. It was decades, and days of massacres, before the US made any moves. (Remember Reagan’s “constructive engagement”?) By then, a grassroots movement had already gained enough strength to not be ignored.
There is NO grassroots movement throughout the US like there was for South African apartheid. The only thing behind the embargo towards Cuba are just a few political players. And, big business has always been against sanctions, and they don’t get convinced by a few politicians supporting an old policy.
People within a social movement are MORAL agents, not businesses nor policy. Most government policy has always been AMORAL.
Gator,
I understand the argument that people here aree arguing for a policy that seems to hurt people there. However, the logic on my side of the issue is that, while your grandmother or your brother or whoever is spending those 100 dollars you sent, all they are doing is feeding the machine that makes them need that money to begin with. In essence, that money is feeding them in the short term, but further jodiendolos in the long term.
I’m not totally against sending money to Cuba, but that money should go to the families that REALLY need it and to the famillies who, by having the money, will undermine the regime.
Send your money to the families of dissidents who are in prison, so that they know they don’t have to worry about the government using food rations as leverage.
Use your money to help support the independent libraries an independent schools, so that parents can have SOME alternative to the indoctrination of Cuban public education.
So long as we feed Cuba for the sake of feeding it, it will never be anything more than a well-fed island of slaves.
mambi,
What happened with sanctions on South Africa, is TOTALLY different from the position on the US embargo towards Cuba. Mainly because the US was very much AGAINST sanctions to begin with. It was decades, and days of massacres, before the US made any moves. (Remember Reagan’s “constructive engagement”?) By then, a grassroots movement had already gained enough strength to not be ignored.
Umm..was there apartheid in South Africa? yes.
Did the world unite and place sanctions on South Africa? Yes.
Did apartheid end? yes.
so, what’s your point?
There is NO grassroots movement throughout the US like there was for South African apartheid. The only thing behind the embargo towards Cuba are just a few political players. And, big business has always been against sanctions, and they don’t get convinced by a few politicians supporting an old policy.
I venture to say there are no grassroots movements around the world against aparthied in Cuba because Cuba has nice beaches and is a quaint, third world vacation spot where most folks can travel and not be bothered by those pesky little brown natives.
People within a social movement are MORAL agents, not businesses nor policy. Most government policy has always been AMORAL
Except in this case, that social movement is primarily the anti-American one, which, in turn offers false credence to the same Cuban government that perpetuates the apartheid that said social movement prefers to ignore as it meets not with its political agenda.
Little Gator,
That measely $100 adds up to close to a billion dollars a year, making remittances from abroad Cuba’s number one money maker.
Little Gator:
The Jew did not return to Germany mid-Holocaust; the slave did not run back South after having escaped to freedom.
You cannot affirm that you are the victim of tyranny and that your only hope of having your human rights respected is to quit the land ruled by the tyrant, then, having sought and been granted asylum here, return again to the land of the tyrant without calling into question your inconformity with tyranny as as well as the truth of your original petition for asylum.
Manuel,
The jew would have been shipped to a concentration camp upon his return. The slave would have been whipped and put to work. The Cuban who returns to visit family, is allowed to come back to the US after a short visit. That does not change the fact that he initially left because of the repressive regime; nor, does it mean that the regime is no longer repressive. If that Cuban does anything while there that is “counter-revolutionary” he will be imprisoned or worse. The repression remains.
I understand your argument that, from a philosophical perspective (some would say “a matter of dignity”), one should not return to Cuba until there is freedom there. But, I believe that family bonds outweigh that. And, if I must suffer a little humiliation to spend a few moments with my dying grandmother, then I am willing to do it.
Some people would disagree, and deny me that right. Althouhg I understand where they are coming from, I believe they are wrong.
Little Gator:
Exactly my point. The Jew would not return to Germany and the slave would not return South. Their persecution is active and real. Can the visiting Cuban, who is accorded privileges and perquisites not enjoyed by resident Cubans, claim that he has any reasonable expectation of persecution that would justify the original grant of asylum? If such expectation once existed it clearly does not exist now.
I am not opposed to sending aid to family members in Cuba, and in another comment I will tell you how I would do it without benefitting Castro.
Manuel,
I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts on sending aid withoug benefitting the regime. That would be the best of all worlds.
Little Gator:
First, no more dollar remittances to Cuba. Not one red cent. But the right to send an unlimited quantity of foodstuffs and medicines to your relatives, or, indeed, anyone on the island through the U.S MAIL. Of course, Castro would have to agree to accept the shipments. The reason he does not allow it now is because this would curtail the cash remittances and it is these that allow him the greatest profit. Under the Berne Postal Conventions, however, Castro would not be permitted even to levy a surcharge on the delivery of the packages.
Castro will have no choice but to accept the packages if no other assistance is available. If Castro refuses to accept these care packages then he would be exposed for the merchant in suffering which he is, the worst merchant because he produces the very stuff whereof he feeds.
Val and co.:
Thanks for checking in with me via the various emails I have received today.
I think daily about the question of how to engender a democratic transition in Cuba and the emergence of a free market economy, and I struggle with the prohibitions imposed by the US govt on travel and remittances to the island by our compatriots.
Why?
Because they are undermined by the actions of 1) other foreign governments 2) citizens of foreign countries and 3) non-US (and US??) corporations. The activities of these three entities provide the cash flow needed to maintain the regime in power, and ironically, our farmers’ and agribusinesses’ sales to the island stave off just enough hunger to prevent a mass-revolt.
Unfortunately, it’s the normal Cubans like Yuliet and her family who are caught in the middle.
It bears repeating that I hate and loathe Fidel Castro and have seen first hand how the commie regime’s evilness inflicts horrible suffering on Cubans, Cuban-Americans and freedom-loving individuals the world over.
What bugs me, however, is when the US enacts policies that are more effective as symbols than in achieving their stated aim, while at the same time permitting actions (like direct sale of agricultural products to the island) that actually allow the regime to maintain its hold on power.
When Ziva wrote that she would prefer to see no money go to the island, rather than controls on legal corporate transactions, I would agree. But only if those prohibitions were followed by an invading force that would topple the regime and liberate all Cubans. Because as it stands now, the broader (stated) policy aims are not being achieved, certain segments of the US economy are reaping great benefits in transacting business with the Cuban government, and at the end of the day, I have to send $500 in cash to an address in Miami and pay $100 on top of that to get the money to my wife that she needs in order to get a chest x-ray and blood test to be able to receive the visa that the Cuban government is trying to prevent her from obtaining.
It’s insane!
It’s insane that Castro and co. are still in power after all these years. It’s insane that Canadian tourists can go to Varedero and sip rum from coconuts while 15 year old Cuban girls whore themselves out to middle-aged Italians. It’s insane that our government enacts one policy (ex.remittance limitations) while supporting others that undermine the stated aim of toppling the regime – and the ones who suffer are the 11 million Cubans who try to get by on $12/month or whatever they can hustle on the street and obtain from abroad.
I would prefer to see Cuba invaded, or a total cessation of all transactions with the Cuban government + persecution and prosecution of any foreign entity trading with Cuba AND a repeal of the wet-foot/dry-foot policy and an effective propaganda campaign against the regime that encourages mass-migration to the USA so that the heat would really put on Castro and co. (as opposed to this insane status quo that makes slaves and whores out of the Cuban people).
But until then, Castro fucks with my wife and her family, and the US criminalizes my behavior if I try to support them financially.
Thank god, though, that the US diplomats on the ground in Havana are caring, compassionate human beings. Seriously.
Keep up the fight. I know none of us is in agreement 100% of the time, but I hope and pray that our common goal remains the liberation of Cuba.
Viva Cuba Libre!
un abrazo,
Joe
Joe, I’m sorry I believe you misunderstood my commnet. I said, “the problem lies with the millions in sales, not the small donations to dissidents or family members. My reaction is different than yours, I’d rather for no money to go in than to sanction those millions”.
I used the word sanction defined as support or authorization, to give consent to, not the other meaning as in penalty or punitive measure.
Val,
My point was that behind the multilateral sanctions on South Africa, there was a grassroots movement that went back to the 50’s, whose collective moral position forced sanctions decades later.
That’s NOTHING like what’s behind the US embargo. NO COLLECTIVE MORAL POSITION is pushing for the embargo. Most human rights organizations consider sanction policy as a last option because they normally fail.
A social movement for Cuba can still happen, but I don’t think they would ask for sanctions.
The Free Burma Coalition even REJECTS the use of sanctions. They say:
“Our people are unhappy living in poverty and oppression; but they are also un-convinced that isolating the country economically, intellectually and politically will make their situation any better.”
Mambi,
Dude, please do something about your reading comprehension. My comment on the sanctions against south africa were to prove the absolute hypocrisy of world governments and “grassroots” organizations when it comes to Cuba.
South Africa had an apartheid system and was sanctioned by the world led by grassroots movements.
Cuba has an apartheid system and no one gives a shit.
Seriously dude, dont come here putting words in my mouth and especially dont do it in CAPS.
Manuel,
Your idea (sending aid through US Mail), sounds plausible. No cash, but unlimited food, vitamins, medicine, clothing, personal hygiene items, and other personal items. It seems like a simple, yet elegant way to stop the cash but continue helping family and friends.
How can it be implemented? What hurdles must be overcome?
Little Gator:
The only hurdle is Castro himself. For 40 years he has refused to accept such care packages mailed from the U.S. It was still possible to do this in the late 1960s.
I think if the cash remittances are stopped completely he will have no choice but to accept the packages or face the consequences of mass (or more massive) starvation.