Our friend Humberto Fontova knows exactly what that chorus calling for an end to embargo cares about, and it’s not the welfare of the Cuban people. His brilliant article is a well aimed laser deftly cutting through the misleading rhetoric that’s spread by the MSM, congress, and others who dismiss the exile community; the one group who knows the most about Cuba. It’s the best writing on the embargo I’ve read, and by the way, he also mentions an equally brilliant statistical analysis by Babalu’s Henry Gomez. It is today’s must read.
Here’s an excerpt:
When it comes to political influence, liberals denounce Cuban-American lobbyists as singularly unscrupulous, diabolically clever, and awash in ill-gotten lucre–unlike those babes-in-the-woods Dwayne Andreas, David Rockefeller and George Soros.
The anti-“embargo” reasoning seems to go something like this: The Carlyle Group, Archer Daniels Midland and The Council on Foreign Relations, along with Congressmen representing the most heavily taxpayer subsidized sector of the U.S. economy, spend most of their waking hours agonizing over the welfare of the Cuban people and yearning to succor them. The Cuban peoples’ cousins, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters in Miami, however, want only to starve and torture their relatives. Never mind that these Cuban-Americans risked life, limb and treasure in a mad scramble to rescue their relatives and countrymen during the Mariel boatlift. Never mind that earlier many of them put their lives on the line attempting a wholesale rescue of their countrymen at the Bay of Pigs. Never mind their near-suicidal, armed attacks against Soviet arms in subsequent years, all launched to free their countrymen.
Never mind all that. Cuban-Americans are malicious and pig-headed scoundrels who simply cannot be made to see reason. They hate their relatives and want them starved.
Furthermore, after a couple of junkets to Cuba, executives of the above mentioned Corporations and their crony Congressmen and lobbyists become endowed with an uncanny clairvoyance. This enables them to divine the whims and motives of Cuba’s Communist officials much more accurately than those who lived for years under Cuba’s communist system, and often within the system. These latter often had daily contact with Cuba’s current Communist officials.
Please read The Cuban Embargo at Front Page Magazine
It’s not only wrong but downright irrational that politicians and media people who couldn’t POSSIBLY know or understand the Cuba situation like Cubans themselves STILL presume to pontificate on the matter to those very Cubans.
It’s absolutely absurd, not to mention arrogant and condescending. Of course they don’t really care about Cuba or its people; that’s mostly a convenient pretext, and even the best-intentioned of them couldn’t care about that as much as the people directly involved and truly connected to the matter.
Fontova’s article is completely absurd, deceptive and honestly had me laughing. But, allow me to analyze the article because it does provide examples of false arguments.
First, the opposition to the “embargo” focuses on the lack of efficacy of US policy towards Cuba to bring change. It does not suggest that an opposition has thus found the “magic pill” to replace an inefficient program. If anyone believes this, then it is clear that they are desperate because they have no evidence to make another argument.
Fontova forgets that Raul Castro offered negotiations to the US in December, but, nevertheless, continues to describe Raul using sources from 1960.
Its also funny how Fontova makes sure to suggest that only exiles really know the Cuban govenments repression. But, as has been published many times over, many of the dissidents IN CUBA are OPPOSED to many measures of US policy towards Cuba, especially the embargo.
In a sarcastic hysteria, Fontova fulminates that “Cuban-Americans are malicious and pig-headed scoundrels who simply cannot be made to see reason. They hate their relatives and want them starved.”
Its pretty clear that many Cuban-Americans here want a military solution to Cuba (check the FIU Cuba polls), even possibly a real naval blockade. The reasoning would be to violently PURGE the Cuban government. This argument is repeated over and over again on Spanish radio in Miami. But, of course they are hampered with “laws”. Anyway, Fontova’s sarcasm is slightly true. Many Cuban exiles believe the if temporary forced starvation would lead to the final, definite expulsion of the Castro regime, they would choose that option. I’ve heard it many times before, over the span of many years.
I found it hilarious that Fontova uses “blogger” Henry Gomez as a source on poll analysis. First of all, there are many and MANY polls that show Americans are opposed to the embargo, with very few showing support. Obviously this does not concern Fontova or Mr.Gomez’s analysis (how convenient) as I have pointed this out on a previous BabaluBog post.
https://www.babalublog.com/archives/004649.html
And, that’s why Fontova’s final declarations are absurd. Based on the ONE poll he mentions, Fontova believes that the “embargo owes less to sleazy Cuban-American lobbying and more to the instincts of a generous and liberty-loving people.”
Fontova, with this comment, reveals an embarrassing ignorance on the history of sanctions, and particularly of the US embargo towards Cuba. It is virtually accepted by many historians and foreign policy experts, of all political dimensions, that the US embargo is a cold war relic, whose only reason for existence is due to Florida politics. I urge Fontova and anyone else to actually look at what has been written over many years about the US embargo, and you shall see for yourself.
But, you can either believe one man (Fontova), or the overwhelming literature on US foreign policy towards Cuba.
Mambiwatch, let me know when you have something to say that adds anything to the discussion. Because so far I havn’t read one worthwhile word from you.
Ziva,
That depends on what you are willing to consider for the sake of argument.
I’m willing to hear you out. So what is wrong with my analysis?
Ok Mambi, I’m going to humor you, for now.
“First, the opposition to the “embargo” focuses on the lack of efficacy of US policy towards Cuba to bring change. It does not suggest that an opposition has thus found the “magic pill” to replace an inefficient program. If anyone believes this, then it is clear that they are desperate because they have no evidence to make another argument.” I have to wonder if you read Fontova’s article; he cites names, Soros, Rockefeller, Flake, etc. Their pro-castro stance is public knowledge, as is their financial interests in doing business with Cuba. If you believe the rhetoric coming from the anti-embargo crowd, you’re naive.
“Fontova forgets that Raul Castro offered negotiations to the US in December, but, nevertheless, continues to describe Raul using sources from 1960.” Again, I have to ask, did you read the article? He writes: In fact, those who read the samizdats smuggled out of Cuba by her courageous underground reporter Carlos Serpa knows that since the succession in August, forty of Cuba’s human Rights activists and reporters (including Serpa himself) have been jailed or severely beaten by mobs of the regime’s plainclothes hoodlums and sadists, Raul Castro’s version of Hitler’s early S.A. More significantly, more such mobs are being trained and deployed throughout Cuba as I write.
“Its also funny how Fontova makes sure to suggest that only exiles really know the Cuban govenments repression. But, as has been published many times over, many of the dissidents IN CUBA are OPPOSED to many measures of US policy towards Cuba, especially the embargo.” I have the utmost regard and respect for the dissidents in Cuba, but that does not mean they are always right, or that we have to always agree. That’s one benefit of freedom, which I hope and pray they too will soon enjoy. No where in the article did Fontova state that only exiles know the Cuban government’s oppression. Again, did you read the article, and if so, then I have to question your comprehension.
“Its pretty clear that many Cuban-Americans here want a military solution to Cuba (check the FIU Cuba polls), even possibly a real naval blockade. The reasoning would be to violently PURGE the Cuban government. This argument is repeated over and over again on Spanish radio in Miami. But, of course they are hampered with “laws”. Anyway, Fontova’s sarcasm is slightly true. Many Cuban exiles believe the if temporary forced starvation would lead to the final, definite expulsion of the Castro regime, they would choose that option. I’ve heard it many times before, over the span of many years.” Do you believe that the regime in Cuba is going to all by itself decide to implement democracy, and if so, just when do you predict that will happen? The castro regime is an illegitimate government, the source of death and misery and destruction for almost 50 years. Had the “military” operations of the Bay of Pigs been successful, or the civil war, I dare say the 200,000 thousand or so lives saved might have been worth the sacrifice. How many more years are you willing to wait? Do you not believe freedom for Cuba is worth fighting for? I think most Cubans given the chance, would most gladly take up arms to liberate Cuba.
“I found it hilarious that Fontova uses “blogger” Henry Gomez as a source on poll analysis. First of all, there are many and MANY polls that show Americans are opposed to the embargo, with very few showing support. Obviously this does not concern Fontova or Mr.Gomez’s analysis (how convenient) as I have pointed this out on a previous BabaluBog post.” Go back and read Henry’s analysis, and check his credentials, he is a “blogger” in his spare time, and there’s a reason Sr. Fontova cites his analysis. What do you do for your day job?
“And, that’s why Fontova’s final declarations are absurd. Based on the ONE poll he mentions, Fontova believes that the “embargo owes less to sleazy Cuban-American lobbying and more to the instincts of a generous and liberty-loving people.” You don’t read enough, because that assertion is correct. I know it’s hard for liberals like you to believe, but most Americans really do believe that fighting for freedom is noble and that’s exactly what those rows and rows of graves attest to.
“Fontova, with this comment, reveals an embarrassing ignorance on the history of sanctions, and particularly of the US embargo towards Cuba. It is virtually accepted by many historians and foreign policy experts, of all political dimensions, that the US embargo is a cold war relic, whose only reason for existence is due to Florida politics. I urge Fontova and anyone else to actually look at what has been written over many years about the US embargo, and you shall see for yourself.” Which foreign policy experts? Give me some names.
Ziva,
I’m humbled that you took the time to respond at length. Allow me to clarify and respond in kind.
1] You mention the “anti-embargo crowd” as those mentioned by Fontova (Soros, Rockefeller, Flake, etc.) Well, the “anti-embargo crowd” goes beyond these personalities and political parties. Fontova in his piece, for example, mentioned the group “Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba”. Yet, Fontova forgot to mention that one former member of this group was the well-known libertarian Milton Friedman. Was he pro-Castro? Did he have any personal financial incentive for Cuban business? The “anti-embargo crowd” is diverse. But, your characterizations don’t apply to them. They definitely don’t apply to the libertarians for example.
2] The description of Raul using a Time article from 1960 is ridiculous. Fontova should use a current source, based on current events. This would acknowledge the current repression that still exists, read the latest reports from the mainstream human rights organizations for example. Yet, repression has been a mainstay unfortunately. Does it mean we shouldn’t negotiate with Raul? I don’t think so. The US negotiates with thugs all the time, and some of the results have been good. Many nations settle peace agreements with their worst enemies and find points of agreement, all for the better.
3] I’m thrilled that you question my comprehension on the article. I have the same sentiments of your reading. Fontova’s article is replete with sarcasm that I wonder if any new reader can really summarize or repeat his argument clearly. Yet, you describe his article as “a well aimed laser”. There’s nothing well-aimed about it. Do a test: ask an impartial reader to see if they can repeat Fontova’s argument clearly after one read.
Anyway, Fontova quotes only ONE person that is pro-embargo: Carlos Gutierrez. He describes Gutierrez as “Cuban-born and privy”. Well, or course, this doesn’t mean only exiles know about Cuban repression. But, within the sarcasm I don’t really know what Fontova is saying. So, YOU are right and I stand corrected.
There’s no surprise that you disagree with the Cuban dissidence about US policy. Today, in Diario las Americas, Oswaldo Paya writes that a dialogue between Cubans and Americans is imperative, and that we have a RESPONSIBILITY to AGREE on the future of Cuba. So I urge you Ziva to find a point of agreement.
4] Your argument of sacrifice does not surprise me either. But, I would like to propose another form of sacrifice, instead of a physical one. There is no need for further bloodshed, we can make compromises in our lives for the good of many. A negotiated peace is a far better option than aggression, and one that many would prefer OVER conflict.
5] I’ve had lengthy discussions with Mr. Gomez before. The link that I included is ONE example. Mr.Gomez, like Fontova, conveniently disregard facts in their analysis. This is a fundamental flaw that is easily pointed out.
6] Ziva, you are misreading the sentence. I am not disagreeing with the assumption that humans have instincts for freedom. I am disagreeing with Fontova’s claim that this instinct is TIED to the results of the AP/Ipsos poll. As I pointed out before, MANY other polls show that Americans are OPPOSED to the embargo. Please check the link.
7] Oh boy, there are so many. I’ve mentioned Timothy Naftali to you before. He’s a well-known and very respected historian of US/Cuba history. He’s the current director of the Nixon Library. Check the views of members from the Council of Foreign Relations. Joaquin Roy from UM is perhaps one of the leading researchers on the Helms-Burton act. You can also check any author on sanctions policy, and find that many oppose, or believe that the embargo is counterproductive. Check Philip Brenners work, and his contributions to the National Security Archives. There are many.
But, there are also those who support the embargo. Perhaps you are familiar with some of them. But, are you asking because you don’t know the experts who are against the embargo?
This wouldn’t surprise me.
Mambi Watch,
Not sure why you waste time criticizing Fontova. His articles are pretty much creative writing pieces. As you said, filled with sarcasm. Read his article on Pinochet if you know anything about Chilean history. It might be the last time you bother to read any of his writings.
My review of Fontova’s article is my opinion, and I stand by what I wrote.
(2) Fontova’s article did include recent information as well as historical documentation, there is nothing wrong with that unless you have been duped into believing that somehow Raul has changed and will be good for Cuba. There is no evidence of that. Would you ask Russians to embrace a Stalin? Jews a Hitler? Why should we negotiate with a deranged mass murderer? Just because we have in the past, doesn’t make it right and I personally do not accept that for Cuba.
(3) Read Fontova’s books, he cites plenty of sources, this is an article which in my opinion is brilliant. You disagree, and are unwilling to accept my opinion, that is your right. I have a responsibility to honestly and to the best of my ability write the truth. I have no responsibility to agree with a political solution that I feel betrays the 1940 constitution and the best interests of the Cuban people. As far as dialog, whom do you think exiles talk to in Cuba? As for the American government, you cannot negotiate with un-elected mass murdering dictatorial regimes, period.
(4) Exactly what kind of compromise do you suggest? A few bucks, more food for Cubans in exchange for permanent slavery? The China model? No thanks, that isn’t compromise, it’s treason and betrayal.
(5) What facts are being ignored?
(6) Your points about polls were answered in a previous post. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
(7) Naftali went to Cuba in 2002 to participate in an academic conference marking the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, on invitation from, and hosted by fidel castro, about which he wrote a gushing account of the exciting, charismatic dictator and apparently didn’t think to question fidel’s account of events. Sorry if I don’t share your enthusiasm for the castro loving historian.
People can have a reasoned debate about the effectiveness of the embargo, and that’s been done here. Go read the archives if you haven’t had enough, because I have, I am done with you. And here is something else, as far as I’m concerned any insult directed at Humberto Fontova insults me and Babalu. Therefore, you and echo Fielding can just kiss our Cuban asses and leave. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Ziva,
I wasn’t insulting Fontova, or you and the others here. I was criticizing his writing honestly. I don’t think it is very good at all. Mambi Watch is Fisking something that is not really written to be Fisked.
I don’t think Fontova addresses the myriad of opinions on the embargo. The sarcasm is a heavy-handed way, not a reasoned way, to discuss a complex issue. I feel it’s just entertainment for those that support the embargo.