…but only when Cuba makes certain concessions. I would certainly support removing the embargo if:
1. That all Cuban political prisoners and prisoners of conscience be released immediately and granted an unconditional amnesty.
2. That all Cubans be allowed to move freely within the country.
3. That the existing system of apartheid-like segregation be eradicated immediately, specifically that all Cubans be treated as equals to their foreign counterparts.
4. That all Cubans be granted access to all sources of uncensored information, whether in broadcast, print, or Internet immediately.
5. That all Cubans be granted the freedom to express their opinions freely without fear of repercussions.
6. That all Cubans be allowed to travel abroad freely.
7. That all Cubans be allowed to live, work, and seek a better life for themselves as they see fit.
8. That all Cubans be allowed to elect their leaders through verifiable, transparent democratic elections as allowed for in Cuba’s last legitimate constitution, the Constitution of 1940
Who are we to demand such changes? Well we’re the ones that have something the Cuban government wants. That’s what negotiating is about. You want something, you have to give something up. The reason there is an embargo today, almost 50 years later, is because the Cuban government has refused to budge on ANY of the above issues which we take for granted in the free world.
Roger Noriega had it right in his recent piece about Cuba:
Making unilateral concessions to a moribund regime that has no legitimate claim to power would squander U.S. influence and credibility.
Instead, the U.S. government should offer the promise of normal economic relations as an incentive to those forces in Cuba committed to essential change. Contrary to some misconceptions, U.S. policy does not impose unreasonable demands; it simply asks the government to commit to democratic elections, release political prisoners, and dismantle the police-state apparatus. Indeed, U.S. law authorizes the president to provide economic assistance to Cuba if he believes it will advance a democratic transition.
While there will be some argument for allowing Cuban families to travel to the island once a genuine transition is under way, the windfall of tourism income should be reserved for a time when elections are scheduled and normal commerce will benefit a newly elected government. More normal contact can resume just as soon as there is a transition team in place in Havana committed to realizing the legitimate aspirations of the Cuban people for political and economic freedoms. Full diplomatic relations should be restored only when a democratically elected leader is in power.
So yes, let’s lower the embargo, when the time is right.
When the TIME is right? Or when concessions are made?
Mr. Gomez, you say that if “You want something, you have to give something up.”
This is the same position of the Cuban government. Furthermore, Cuba has also had demands to be met by the US since the 60’s. The US has not met those demands since.
The US has only INCREASED their efforts over the years to topple the Cuban government. Therefore, Cuba justifies their position as a US target.
There is hardly any trust between the two nations. Why should any make a first move?
According to James Blight, researcher from the Watson Institute for International Studies and with a background in psychology, and Philip Brenner, a foreign policy professor from American University and advisory board member of the National Security Archives, they say:
“Our analysis of US-Cuba relations is rooted in an approach we call ‘realistic empathy,’ which interprets a conflict by putting oneself in the shoes of each side. From the Cuban perspective, what is central to the struggle with the United States is the asymmetry between the two countries. Cuba is a small country, and the United States is the most powerful country that has ever existed. This approach makes clear why it is necessary for the United States to take the first steps in ending the hostility between the two countries.”
Henry,
I am all for every one of those issues on the list and how I hope and pray that they will be achieved. With that said we need to embargo China,Iran,Iraq,Afghanistan,Saudi Arabia,North Korea,etc, etc, etc. The list only exists in a handful of countries. Realistically you are saying that we remove the embargo when Cuba becomes a free country. Before someone blows a gasket I am PRO EMBARGO!!! I just would rather have a real embargo not a paper embargo that only effects Cubans in the US.
Mambi,
It is Cuba’s move to make although I seriously doubt they want the embargo lifted. They are the ones who violated everything on Henry’s list not the US. The embargo political capitol for castro. castro needs the embargo. The issue is we dont have an embargo.
In order to think that the U.S. needs to make the first move, one has to assume that a moral equivalence exists between the two countries and their respective situations. Of course, it’s absurd to weigh the U.S. and Cuba on the same scale, but not because of the size and power of each country, but because one country repeatedly and systematically violates human rights, and the other is trying to protect its citizens from dealing with and propping up such a regime.
Why should the U.S. trust Cuba to do the right thing, when it repeatedly and purposely does the wrong thing?
This is the elemental aspect of the debate, and those that refuse to see it this way, those who blame the U.S. for Cuba’s failures, will always demand that the U.S. act first.
Henry’s (and the US) position is quite simple really. Play fair, play by the rules, and we’ll drop the embargo.
Pototo, I don’t know how much trade we have with North Korea but it can’t be much (in fact I would guess that our current trade with Cuba is much greater than with N. Korea despite embargo) I have authored pieces on the differences between China and Cuba, you can search for them with the search engine in the side bar. BTW, China maid a settlement for expropriated American property (the reason the embargo started in the first place) and so did Vietnam. Do you think Cuba is going to do the same under the current leadership?
The point is we do have an embargo, and it’s pretty much the only piece of leverage we have when a different person is in power. Even though fidel isn’t calling the shots, the fact he’s still alive means those people around him have to pay lip service to his ideas.
Now, at this critical time it’s crazier than ever to give up the best tool we have.
BTW, I don’t care about China because I’m not Chinese, I don’t care about Iran because I’m no Iranian. Let Chinese Americans and Iranian-Americans advocate for what they think is right. I’m Cuban American and I’ll advocate for what I think is right no matter how many dipwads say it’s wrong (not talking about you Pototo).
Pototo, I don’t know how much trade we have with North Korea but it can’t be much (in fact I would guess that our current trade with Cuba is much greater than with N. Korea despite embargo) I have authored pieces on the differences between China and Cuba, you can search for them with the search engine in the side bar. BTW, China maid a settlement for expropriated American property (the reason the embargo started in the first place) and so did Vietnam. Do you think Cuba is going to do the same under the current leadership?
The point is we do have an embargo, and it’s pretty much the only piece of leverage we have when a different person is in power. Even though fidel isn’t calling the shots, the fact he’s still alive means those people around him have to pay lip service to his ideas.
Now, at this critical time it’s crazier than ever to give up the best tool we have.
BTW, I don’t care about China because I’m not Chinese, I don’t care about Iran because I’m no Iranian. Let Chinese Americans and Iranian-Americans advocate for what they think is right. I’m Cuban American and I’ll advocate for what I think is right no matter how many dipwads say it’s wrong (not talking about you Pototo).
Thanks for excluding me Henry, btw I am in agreement as my 1st priority is Cuba. But what I am saying is that the embargo which is in place can’t hurt Cuba. We need get serious with it because it has no effect on Cuba. I don’t want to remove it just make it what it was supposed to be.
Robert you bring up a great point. Both parties don’t come to the table with clean hands. One of the parties has repeatedly violated not only human rights but treaties, and trade agreements, etc. etc.
And again Cuba is the country that wants something. It’s up to them to make the first move. If I am going to the store I have to pay for the item before I carry it to my car. Hell they don’t even let you pump first at the gas station anymore. So why is this any different. Cuba needs the embargo to be lowered if it is going to join the international community. The US doesn’t need to lower the embargo. That means we get to dictate the terms of when and how it is lowered. Period, end of story.
Cuba doesn’t have to accept those terms. And it hasn’t in 48 years. But that’s why they are in the trouble they are in today. Nobody’s fault but castro’s and the people the surround him.
Robert you bring up a great point. Both parties don’t come to the table with clean hands. One of the parties has repeatedly violated not only human rights but treaties, and trade agreements, etc. etc.
And again Cuba is the country that wants something. It’s up to them to make the first move. If I am going to the store I have to pay for the item before I carry it to my car. Hell they don’t even let you pump first at the gas station anymore. So why is this any different. Cuba needs the embargo to be lowered if it is going to join the international community. The US doesn’t need to lower the embargo. That means we get to dictate the terms of when and how it is lowered. Period, end of story.
Cuba doesn’t have to accept those terms. And it hasn’t in 48 years. But that’s why they are in the trouble they are in today. Nobody’s fault but castro’s and the people the surround him.
Pototo,
I don’t mean to pick on you but you mentioned something that is often repeated that I think is untrue. That castro wanted the embargo because it gives him something to rail about. I think castro wants the embargo lowered because he would do to the US the same thing he did to the USSR and to other countries, leave them holding the bag. But he has decided that while it is in place to get maximum propaganda value of it. He was being smart, and nobody ever accuses him of being dumb.
New leadership in Cuba (even Raul, the murderous bastard that he is) may not share the same feelings about antagonizing the US. We will see.
And though embargo doesn’t hurt Cuba as much as you and I might want it to, it hurts them. Believe me it hurts them. Tourism is down. With American tourism not only would their occupancy rates go up, but the room rates would go up because of much increased demand.
It hurts them badly and that’s why all the lefties in the US, like Mambi Watch who is always willing to give the dictatorship the benefit of the doubt, are SCREAMING about it.
Pototo,
I don’t mean to pick on you but you mentioned something that is often repeated that I think is untrue. That castro wanted the embargo because it gives him something to rail about. I think castro wants the embargo lowered because he would do to the US the same thing he did to the USSR and to other countries, leave them holding the bag. But he has decided that while it is in place to get maximum propaganda value of it. He was being smart, and nobody ever accuses him of being dumb.
New leadership in Cuba (even Raul, the murderous bastard that he is) may not share the same feelings about antagonizing the US. We will see.
And though embargo doesn’t hurt Cuba as much as you and I might want it to, it hurts them. Believe me it hurts them. Tourism is down. With American tourism not only would their occupancy rates go up, but the room rates would go up because of much increased demand.
It hurts them badly and that’s why all the lefties in the US, like Mambi Watch who is always willing to give the dictatorship the benefit of the doubt, are SCREAMING about it.
Don’t forget the majority of Libertarian organizations, human rights organizations, consumer rights activists, the countries of the United Nations general assembly, ALL the nations of Latin America, and the list goes on and on.
But, don’t forget James Blight, researcher from the Watson Institute for International Studies and with a background in psychology, and Philip Brenner, a foreign policy professor from American University and advisory board member of the National Security Archives.
And, also Timothy Naftali, leading historian of Cuba and US relations. Not to mention many other historians.
MW,
That’s fine that all those organizations and countries are against an embargo.
But answer me this: what have those same people done to help Cuba’s cause?
Robert, those orgs might be against it, but they aren’t HOWLING about it like mr MW. And the President is for it, and he’s the only one that matters. I’m betting that the embargo will be history before his term is up because once castro is in the ground things are going to change in the blink of an eye compared to the last 48 years.
Viva Bush!
Robert, those orgs might be against it, but they aren’t HOWLING about it like mr MW. And the President is for it, and he’s the only one that matters. I’m betting that the embargo will be history before his term is up because once castro is in the ground things are going to change in the blink of an eye compared to the last 48 years.
Viva Bush!
Henry, (don’t worry I don’t feel picked on)
But I disagree as I believe that castro needs the embargo politically more than it affects him economically. If he had free trade (pun intended) with the US he would lose the excuse of the evil empire. He hates the US for political reasosns not economic. He has plenty of benefactors already. If the embargo were lifted it would not affect the avergae Cuban as the wealth only flows to castro. Socialism and free trade are opposites.
He doesn’t want to trade with us the embargo is too valuable to him. As for his end the embargo messages with the travelling congressmen he knows good and well that it won’t be changed anytime soon. He just wants more controversy.
Robert,
You’re question is a crucial one. Even dissidents ask themselves nowadays if the US is really on their side. When $80 million of US funds were proposed for the dissidents in Cuba, and for transition, many were opposed to the measure in fear that it would give Fidel ANOTHER excuse to jail them for. Even Miriam Leiva, from the Ladies in White, has written that the majority of dissidents oppose the embargo and new measures.
So what has the US REALLY done if this is the rhetoric from dissidents?
Would you say that the dissidents were HOWLING against the embargo? How about Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. How can they HOWL if they hardly get any media coverage?
Mr. Gomez says that the president is the “only one that matters”. How about the Cuban dissidents? Do they matter? I guess not to Mr. Gomez.
Contrary to Mr. Gomez’s remarks though, the embargo cannot be made history very easily.
Vicki Huddleston, ex-chief of the US interest section in Havana recently wrote an op-ed saying:
“it isn’t all up to Mr. Bush. Congress will have to act if the president is to have the flexibility he needs in the coming months and years to respond to the challenges and opportunities Fidel Castro’s death and Raul Castro’s succession will bring…if Congress abrogates or revises Helms-Burton, the president will have the opportunity to respond should Raul Castro begin to carry out reforms.”
According to Helms-Burton, the US president, despite his amazing powers, CANNOT lift the embargo until Raul is also out of power, or Congress makes its revisions by a TWO-THIRDS vote.
So no Viva Bush just yet. But, of course, I’m sure Mr. Gomez knew that.
btw, lifting the embargo is political suicide. I wonder if a poll were taken by all the presidential candidates I doubt any would say that they would lift the embargo.
Pototo makes a reasonable point about the politics involved with the embargo. This point is also made by several foreign policy analysts, and libertarians, that Fidel Castro has used the embargo as a political justification for his orthodoxy, and used the sanctions as a scapegoat for his economic failures.
It’s not hard to grasp. The logic in this case for abolishing the embargo is to be deny Fidel, or any after him, the same justification of US interference.
Its a rational argument.
Pototo,
You make a good point, but it would not be political suicide if a “constructive engagement” policy towards Cuba was accepted. And, the tide is turning.
The 2004 FIU Cuba poll showed that Cuban-Americans who came here after 1985, and those born here, are more even divided against the embargo than older generation Cubans. In other words they see the possibility of a different policy, instead of a failed one. These two groups also consider the embargo a far worst failure than older generation Cubans.
If they accept another policy, then the embargo will finally lose its leverage and politicians can suck up to Cuban-American and Florida voters in another fashion.
Oh here we go again, it’s the Miami mafia controlling US policy. I guess thats why castro is still in power and balseros still get sent back. Give me a break.
Ziva, many political analyst consider the Florida vote (specifically the South Florida vote) as an important variable in the question of the embargo.
Even, Timothy Naftali, one of the leading historians on Cuba and US relations, admitted on C-Span that as long as there are hard-liners in Miami, then the embargo shall remain a US policy.
I don’t give a rats ass what Timothy Naftali or any other expert “says”, that’s not the reality. If you want to know how much power Cuban Americans have just look to Cuba, 48 years and counting while exiles hands are tied behind their backs. Here’s a question for you, what do you think would happen if a few private planes carrying Americans from say Oregon were purposly shot down over international waters?
Anybody that says that removing the embargo takes away his ability to condemn the US doesn’t know fidel castro very well. Besides the logic of that argument goes like this:
We know that the failures of Cuba are Castro’s failures not the US.
The world believes Castro when he says it’s the US’ fault.
If we take away that excuse the world will suddenly see the light.
So we have to change our policy, that we all seem to agree is not responsible for the failures of Cuba to prove to people that aren’t smart enough to see what we see that what we see is true?
What the fuck is that? That’s one messed up strategy. If we are right and other people are wrong that’s their problem. It’s not like other countries are going to condemn the human rights violations any more if American tourists are dropping dollars in the government coffers.
And Pototo I have to disagree again. More money in Cuban coffers means more subversion, guerrillas, propaganda, etc.
Anything that diminishes that is welcome in my book no matter how many names mr. dipshit drops.
Anybody that says that removing the embargo takes away his ability to condemn the US doesn’t know fidel castro very well. Besides the logic of that argument goes like this:
We know that the failures of Cuba are Castro’s failures not the US.
The world believes Castro when he says it’s the US’ fault.
If we take away that excuse the world will suddenly see the light.
So we have to change our policy, that we all seem to agree is not responsible for the failures of Cuba to prove to people that aren’t smart enough to see what we see that what we see is true?
What the fuck is that? That’s one messed up strategy. If we are right and other people are wrong that’s their problem. It’s not like other countries are going to condemn the human rights violations any more if American tourists are dropping dollars in the government coffers.
And Pototo I have to disagree again. More money in Cuban coffers means more subversion, guerrillas, propaganda, etc.
Anything that diminishes that is welcome in my book no matter how many names mr. dipshit drops.
Ziva, if you don’t care what experts have to say, why would you ask me about what I think?
Obviously, you are prepared to dismiss (without discussion) any point that opposes yours.
Your question is curious. Its an example that would receive immediate condemnation, so what is your point?
To once again get off topic?
Mambi, give me a well thought agument based on fact and not some so-called experts opinion and I won’t dismiss you. So far you haven’t done that. Tell me what you think, not what the UN says.
My arguments are based on the views presented by the many mentioned above.
In summary, the embargo is a failed policy based on traditional, and accepted, definitions of sanction policy, and also historical misapplication.
It violates international laws, and thus has received condemnation by the international body, and several human rights groups.
Finally, the embargo, and its political addendums over the years, is perceived by Cuba as a continuation of US hegemony, the very reason that perpetuated the revolution and its continued struggle against the superpower.
But, don’t take my word for it. It’s been written about by many organizations and “experts”.
Mr. Gomez,
No need for your head to spin with your false assumptions. Read the writings and reports of those that I have mentioned above, don’t assume.
The same international bodies that stand by and do nothing when terror reigns.
Zero credibility with me and 99% of babalu readers.
My head doesn’t spin when I’m talking to the morally challenged. Every time you open yoru mouth figuratively, we see more of what makes you tick.
You hide behind a pseudonym and don’t share your personal ideology. You quote libertarians but you aren’t a libertarian. Libertarians don’t deny the situation in Cuba. They may have a different idea about how to change it (something I have written about too) but they don’t apologize or give a moral equivalency argument.
No, you are a lefty loser, probably Matt Glesne or maybe you are Tony from Yonkers. It doesn’t matter because you aren’t convincing anyone with your blog that nobody reads.
Bye bye loser.
The same international bodies that stand by and do nothing when terror reigns.
Zero credibility with me and 99% of babalu readers.
My head doesn’t spin when I’m talking to the morally challenged. Every time you open yoru mouth figuratively, we see more of what makes you tick.
You hide behind a pseudonym and don’t share your personal ideology. You quote libertarians but you aren’t a libertarian. Libertarians don’t deny the situation in Cuba. They may have a different idea about how to change it (something I have written about too) but they don’t apologize or give a moral equivalency argument.
No, you are a lefty loser, probably Matt Glesne or maybe you are Tony from Yonkers. It doesn’t matter because you aren’t convincing anyone with your blog that nobody reads.
Bye bye loser.
Praise to Mr. Gomez!
This is the message that needs to be heard every single day and in every Cuban-American blog, Down with the embargo! IF and only if, the Cuban government gives back basic human rights to it’s slaves! Instead of criticizing those who want the embargo to go away, yes even those liberals, join them and educate them. You solve two problems, one, you open the eyes of those ignorant castro/guevara lovers, and second, you turn away less people that find your position aniquated and impractical. We need every one to be preaching this exact message. Then, when the Cuban government rejects it, it will be them, and not the Cuban-American conservative, who will be criticized as closed minded.
MW, I just got home after a long commute and see that others have answered you just as I would. I would however like for you to think about this. The United States is a sovereign nation ruled by a freely elected government under the rule of law, and that government is charged with protecting its citizens and does so by guarding US interests. To concede it’s sovereignty to an international court would be national suicide.
Whoa Cowboy,
I am not for dropping the embargo. We need it as well as castro does and as Henry stated so well it is our only tool right now. We don’t need to engage with Cuba we need to disengage the castros.
Mambi, in all your leftist rantings you have failed to respond to one thing: what is wrong with the cnditions we have listed? I mean, we aren’t really asking for much are we?
1. That all Cuban political prisoners and prisoners of conscience be released immediately and granted an unconditional amnesty.
2. That all Cubans be allowed to move freely within the country.
3. That the existing system of apartheid-like segregation be eradicated immediately, specifically that all Cubans be treated as equals to their foreign counterparts.
4. That all Cubans be granted access to all sources of uncensored information, whether in broadcast, print, or Internet immediately.
5. That all Cubans be granted the freedom to express their opinions freely without fear of repercussions.
6. That all Cubans be allowed to travel abroad freely.
7. That all Cubans be allowed to live, work, and seek a better life for themselves as they see fit.
8. That all Cubans be allowed to elect their leaders through verifiable, transparent democratic elections as allowed for in Cuba’s last legitimate constitution, the Constitution of 1940.
Are you against any (or all) of these? If so, I would really love an explanation, tortured or otherwise, as to what makes them so unreasonable.
(BTW, your ability to comment freely on this blog, despite your obvious leftist sympathy, is one the conditions we demand for ALL Cubans on the island before the eeeeeeevil embargo is dropped.)
These are all resonable conditions for lifting the embargo. That’s because until the Cuban government does these things they will produce no wealth and will be unable to buy anything – embargo or no. Can’t everyone today see that the wealthiest countries are always the freest? Venezuela has lots of oil but their economy is sinking fast because of a lack of freedom. There is no embargo there so who will they blame the mess Hugo has created there on?
I have no problem with the conditions, and neither with the ones posed by the US.
I disagree the above on who should make the FIRST concession. As I stated in the first post, I think it should be the US.
And, I don’t see this as a question of “moral equivalency”. Such a perspective is absurd. I prefer a pragmatic solution in order to address the most pressing problems: namely the situation of political prisoners in Cuba.
The more we wait for the Cuban government to make the FIRST move, its another day in hell for a prisoner.
“Who are we to demand such changes? Well we’re the ones that have something the Cuban government wants. That’s what negotiating is about. You want something, you have to give something up.”
The problem is the thing you want to trade isn’t yours to give (or hold hostage in this case). United States citizens should have just as much right to travel abroad freely as Cubans. The Cuban government denying this right to it’s citizens doesn’t give the U.S. government a green light to do the same.
“The more we wait for the Cuban government to make the FIRST move, its another day in hell for a prisoner.”
How very noble of you. I have a bulletin for you: it is their move to make. They are the offenders, not us. They are the criminals, not us. They are the slavemasters, not us. Give me a break. You’re spewing more of the same crap we’ve had to listen to for decades.
When the regime makes its move to satisfy those eight conditions, so that everyone on the island can live like human beings again, then and only then will I support an end to the embargo. Only that unconditional unilateral action on the part of the regime will free prisoners.
Anything else is gaslight.
You don’t coddle the slave master to get him to be nicer to the slaves. You give him an ultimatum that says that when he frees the slaves then he’ll be allowed to join civilization.
You don’t coddle the slave master to get him to be nicer to the slaves. You give him an ultimatum that says that when he frees the slaves then he’ll be allowed to join civilization.
Mike,
It’s an economic embargo. Americans are free to travel anywhere in the world they want including Cuba. But you may face a fine if you do. Call it a surtax but you can still go. That’s quite a difference from what Cubans can do.
Playing the moral equivalency card doesn’t fly around here. You can say it all you want but it only discredits you.
So are saying that Americans have a right be tourists in even the most repressive regimes? Makes me wonder if the old stereotype of “the Ugly Americans” is true after all.
Mike,
It’s an economic embargo. Americans are free to travel anywhere in the world they want including Cuba. But you may face a fine if you do. Call it a surtax but you can still go. That’s quite a difference from what Cubans can do.
Playing the moral equivalency card doesn’t fly around here. You can say it all you want but it only discredits you.
So are saying that Americans have a right be tourists in even the most repressive regimes? Makes me wonder if the old stereotype of “the Ugly Americans” is true after all.
A surtax? That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard.
Glad I could amuse you. You aren’t going to go to jail if you take a vacation in Varadero.
Glad I could amuse you. You aren’t going to go to jail if you take a vacation in Varadero.
“It’s an economic embargo. Americans are free to travel anywhere in the world they want including Cuba. But you may face a fine if you do.”
By your logic Cubans are free to travel anywhere in the world they want, including America. They just may face jail time if they do. In both situations the government is trying to prevent it’s citizens from traveling broad. The only difference is the penalty not the actual policy.
“So are saying that Americans have a right be tourists in even the most repressive regimes?”
I’m saying that people have the god given right to travel freely. And if a government passes a law that obstructs that right then that law is unjust and citizens have no more of an obligation to follow that law then they had to follow laws passed legalizing segregation.
If a government preventing it’s citizens from traveling freely is unjust then it’s unjust whether it’s the Cuban government or the American government enforcing the policy.
“Playing the moral equivalency card doesn’t fly around here. You can say it all you want but it only discredits you”
A group that decries a government for denying it’s citizens property rights and freedom of travel and then hypocritically supports restrictions that restrict the same rights of residents of said groups home country discredits people.
Supporting an embargo on one authoritiarian regimes while freely buying products made in other authoritarian regimes (when is the last time you bought something made in China or bought gas and drove somewhere when you could have walked?) discredits people.
Pointing out that the basis of the argument for keeping a policy is rooted in hypocracy, authoritarianism, and that the policy creates the very same problems at home that said policy claims to be able to alleviate abroad doesn’t discredit anyone.
We won’t foster freedom abroad by abandoning it at home. Also one question. Since you truly believe that the embargo is just have you written your congressman demanding that we establish embargos’ with China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, Libia, Venezuela, and most of Africa?
“BTW, your ability to comment freely on this blog, despite your obvious leftist sympathy, is one the conditions we demand for ALL Cubans on the island before the eeeeeeevil embargo is dropped.”
I was browsing previous comments when I came across this gem. Pretty funny stuff considering that Val and friends routinely deleted or edited the comments of people with opposing views prior to a couple of months ago. And the fact that Ziva deleted my post a couple of days ago. I thought that they abhorred the Cuban government for doing the same thing. And before anyone says it I know that this blog is private property paid for by the moderators. But still I’m sure any sane individual can see the irony and hypocracy in their actions.
And of course by hypocracy I mean hypocrisy. lol
Nobody tells you how to run your blog. That’s freedom.
Nobody tells you how to run your blog. That’s freedom.
Mike, there’s no hypocrisy at all. We tolerate opposing points of view. Your (and MambiWatch’s) undeleted diarrhea of the keyboard is proof of that. However, that does not mean that all of them escape deletion or that commenters are not banned. That is our prerogative, after all, as the ones who run the blog. The only hypocrites are the leftists who tacitly support a murderous regime with specious arguments and selfish motives.
Mike,
Take a minute to set aside your “by your logic” arguments, and grand pronouncements about “fostering freedom abroad while abadoning it at home.”
Lets look at real life. You were asked whether “Americans have a right to be tourists in even the most repressive regimes.” I take the liberty of pasting your non-answer here:
“I’m saying that people have the god given right to travel freely. And if a government passes a law that obstructs that right then that law is unjust and citizens have no more of an obligation to follow that law then they had to follow laws passed legalizing segregation.
If a government preventing it’s citizens from traveling freely is unjust then it’s unjust whether it’s the Cuban government or the American government enforcing the policy.”
That is a nice piece of rhetoric that avoids the question. it lacks context. Do you have a right (and is it right) to be a tourist in even the most repressive regimes? How about a tour of the Nazi camps in 1943? The Cambodian killing fields? Let’s go watch the poor natives in Cuban struggle, dissidents beaten and jailed, long food lines, etc. before “things” change? Where would you draw the line?
I’d like to know whether you are arguing here for the sake of argument (ivory tower academic hypothetical), or do you really realize the real world implication of your position? Is it right, moral, ethical (pick your word) to travel to a highly repressive regime as a tourist, funding the system that maintains the repression?
Yes? No?
“Mike, there’s no hypocrisy at all. We tolerate opposing points of view. …is proof of that. However, that does not mean that all of them escape deletion or that commenters are not banned.”
So which is it? Do you tolerate opposing points of view or do you censor commentors that disagree with you? If you do delete comments because the author has an opposing view (and that has already been demonstrated) then you are a hypocrite.
“That is a nice piece of rhetoric that avoids the question. it lacks context. Do you have a right (and is it right) to be a tourist in even the most repressive regimes?”
I’ve already answered that question. Citizens have a god given right to travel freely. You either support individual rights or you don’t. There is no in-between and there is no line.
If you don’t support an individuals right to free travel then stop complaining that the Cuban government doesn’t either. If you do support an individuals right to travel freely then stop backing the embargo.
“d like to know whether you are arguing here for the sake of argument (ivory tower academic hypothetical), or do you really realize the real world implication of your position?”
I’d like to know if you realize the real world implication of your position. Human beings are born with certain natural rights bestowed upon them by their very existence. These rights are broad and innumerable while governments legitimate responsibilities are small and define. People are not pawns or bargaining chips to be used to advance a political objective. Doing so is wrong whether the government enacting such laws is Cuban, American, or both.
“Is it right, moral, ethical (pick your word) to travel to a highly repressive regime as a tourist, funding the system that maintains the repression?”
It’s not the governments place to legislate morality. Especially when morality it’s self is a highly objective and fluid thing. Also since you brought it up have you ever bought any goods manufactured in China or bought gasoline or oil that was sold by an authoritarian, oppressive Middle Eastern country? Do you think that that choice pass your personal ethics test?
Mike you said, “Especially when morality it’s self is a highly objective and fluid thing.”
That’s where we differ, morality is not objective and fluid. There is right and wrong, and freedom comes with moral responsibility; or do you advocate anarchy?
“That’s where we differ, morality is not objective and fluid. There is right and wrong, and freedom comes with moral responsibility; or do you advocate anarchy?”
Personal ethics are objective and highly fluid. To a Muslim eating pork is wrong. A vegan may argue that eating any meat or using animal products is wrong. It’s not the governments job to legislate personal ethics.
In America the obligations and responsibilities of the government are very small in scope and clearly defined in the constitution. While the rights of the people are great and innumerable. The philosophical justifications for this framework (or governmental morality) are clearly laid out in natural rights philosophy.
So while you may think that it’s immoral to travel to Cuba. And you are free not to go there. In practice you should not be able to force your ideology upon others anymore then Fidel Castro forces his ideology upon his people.
I do apologize for not being as clear as I should have. Instead of saying: “morality” I should have said: “personal ethics”.
Mike,
You still haven’t answered the very simple original question (or any other). You are still only writing grandiloquent pronouncements sans context.
Is it right, ethical, moral, etc. to travel as a tourist to highgly repressive society, thereby supporting the oppressor with your dollars? I’m not asking you to spout a noble sounding proposition of individual freedom. I’m asking a simple direct question.
Can you answer it?
You just made my point. You are talking about personal belief, thats not the same thing as ethcics or moraltiy. Whether or not you eat meat, or pork is hardly comparable to funding a murderous dictator.
Pardon the typo’s. I’m at work and rushing.
Mike, the fact that you are still commenting even after writing your swill should prove that we tolerate opposing points of view. Please. The editor and contributors are the judges of when a commenter passes the fidel-ass-licker test. You have not — as yet. When you do, if you do, it will be my great pleasure to ban you and delete your comments.
Like I have said on many occasions, reasoned debate is welcome, different opinions are welcome; propaganda is not.
“Is it right, ethical, moral, etc. to travel as a tourist to highgly repressive society, thereby supporting the oppressor with your dollars?”
Whether something is ethical and whether it should be legal are two seperate subjects. Individuals have an inalienable right to freedom of travel so any law infringing upon this freedom is unjust.
Whether or not engageing in commerce (which is what the helms/burton act targets) with an authoritarian government is ethical would depend on whether an individual though he would do more harm then good by doing so.
If your question is if I think it is wrong to do business with Cuba, then my answer is that it is no worse then doing business with China, Venezuala, the Middle East, Africa, or a large chunk of the rest of the world. A lot of times travel and trade opens up the door wider for new ideas and accelerates change. We won the cold war with ideas and by showing that our economic and political system was better then communism.
“You just made my point. You are talking about personal belief, thats not the same thing as ethcics or moraltiy.”
A persons personal beliefs are part of his or her ethical or moral code. They are the same thing. You believe that not eating pork is unimportant while preventing people from trading with Cuba is. Someone else may have the exact opposite view.
What most on this blog should be able to agree on is that people have a right to: life, liberty, and property. That freedom of travel falls under one of those categories. And that a government shouldn’t have the ability to take away those rights.
How can I make this claim? Because that is the very claim being made on this blog on a regular basis. There is article after article about the Cuban government violating these rights. In this very artical Henry lists freedom of travel as one of the fundimental freedoms being denied to the Cuban people.
So the subject of it being wrong for the United States government to deny these rights to citizens shouldn’t even be up for debate. The question being asked should be if it is ethical and possibally beneficial to engage in commerce with Cuba not if it should be legal.
Mike,
First, thank you for expounding on your previous responses. Once you got away from broad platitudes, I was able to understand a little better the point you are trying to make.
I agree with you that personal freedom includes the freedom to travel to and from your country at will. It also includes the freedom to decide where to go. But no inaliable right is absolute.
Freedom of speech is one of our most treasured rights. Justice Black believed that it was, perhaps, the right upon which all of our other rights depended. Yet, it is limited. One easy to understand example is that no one has the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
Another right is the right to life, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, if your life and happiness depend on obtaining a heart transplant, you cannot take another’s life to save yours.
Most would agree that consenting adults have a right to engage with each other in whatever form of sexual relations they find acceptable. But, not in public, not in front of the children, etc.
You see, no one is saying the right to travel isn’t an important right. But, you are arguing that it is absolute, limited only by the traveler’s sense or right or wrong. That is a very faulty argument.
I hope you will think about this, and reconsider your position.
BTW, that should be “limited only by the traveler’s sense OF right or wrong.” Sorry about my typing skills.
Mike, We will never agree because you’re a relativist, and the problem with relativism is the absence of morals. Relativists function well in an amoral organization like the U.N. for instance, but is incompatible with accepted American morality which is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition, and ditto what LittleGator said. I would also add, that as citizens it is our responsibility to hold elected officials to a high moral standard to ensure our national health and security, and this includes shunning oppressive dictators.
If I thought there were even one ounce of honesty in the American president or Congress, I would support lifting the trade embargo for a renewable one-year period contingent upon even one of Henry’s conditions having been met. But we know too well what would happen: the embargo would never be reinstated regardless of Castro’s failure to comply with the agreement or even if he instigated another crackdown. This is essentially what has happened with the granting of Most Favored Nation trading status to Communist China. However egregious the Chinese regime’s human rights violations, each year the president and Congress would automatically renew its MFN status like clockwork. Exactly the same thing happened in reverse with the Helms-Burton Act, which was suppose to tighten the embargo, and which, if it had ever been enforced, would likely have toppled Castro. But its most stringent sanctions were never applied. Each year the president saw some reason not to implement it until it became a dead letter.