The Cuba Factor

Not that it's going to make him president, but Chris Dodd is making sense:

For more than forty-six years, the United States has maintained an isolationist policy toward Cuba, which I believe has not achieved its intended objectives, namely to hasten a peaceful and democratic transition on the Island of Cuba. Rather, it has solidified the authoritarian control of Fidel Castro, and has adversely affected the already miserable living conditions of 11 million innocent men, women, and children on the Island.

I think Democrats due themselves a disservice when they pander to the absurd views of the Cuban exile lobby rather than saying these words that everyone knows to be true. Among other things, it makes it difficult for Democrats to argue for engagement with Iran or Syria or wherever when they can't point to the most clear-cut and famous example of the failure of isolation strategies.

Comments

Undue due to do, dude.

Posted by abject funk | August 15, 2007 11:27 PM

And undo my undue (due to my being dumb) to undo too.

Posted by abject funk | August 15, 2007 11:28 PM

I think Democrats d[o] themselves a disservice when they pander to the absurd views of the Cuban exile lobby rather than saying these words that everyone knows to be true.

This can be universalized: the Dems do themselves a disservice when they pander to the extreme views of all ethnic lobbies, including The Lobby That Must Not Be Named, rather than steer a sensible, realist course forward for America's foreign policy.

Posted by Martin H. Labouisse | August 15, 2007 11:29 PM

Must you betray all of your heritage? (Do we actually know that Yglesias is Cuban, or was I simply seduced by the marvelousness of (whoever used its) "Juban"?)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 15, 2007 11:58 PM

Any sane person should want to end the embargo. Would be a good question to pose to other candidates just to see whether they pander to the Cuban emigres, ADM, and the American sugar lobby. Ron Paul also would end travel and trade restrictions (unsurprisingly).

Posted by bbartlog | August 16, 2007 12:01 AM

As always, David Mamet gets it right.

DIRECTOR: Would you like a cigar?

MAYOR: Aren't these illegal?

DIRECTOR: Why would they be illegal?

MAYOR: Well, the trade embargo against Cuba.

(Pause)

DIRECTOR: Nobody tells me anything.

-State and Main 2002

Posted by sangfroid826 | August 16, 2007 12:10 AM

Funny what happens to foreign policy when vociferous minorities in important electoral precincts get involved. Why, you could almost say....

...nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

Posted by sglover | August 16, 2007 12:36 AM

On Iran, on the other hand:

"Meeting Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be a mistake; no leader who denies the Holocaust ever took place and actively calls for the destruction of Israel should be rewarded with a face-to-face meeting with a US president – although in a Dodd administration this would not preclude American diplomats from meeting other high level Iran ian officials."

Since Ahmadinejad never called for the destruction of Israel, this puts Dodd firmly in the stupid camp.

To be followed by:

"What is not in America’s interest is letting the actions of bad actors fester. For all its flaws, Syria should play an important role in stabilising Iraq, and a constructive role in achieving a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. Syria can also enhance Israel’s security by applying pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah while ceasing interference in the political life of Lebanon."

Like Syria has any real stake in "enhancing Israel's security". Without Hizballah and Hamas on their flanks, Israel would already be occupying Syria, most likely.

From a US Senate Committee on Banking statement:

"The administration has publicly stated, appropriately in my view, that Iran’s leaders must:

· scale back its nuclear ambitions;
· reverse its support for destabilizing terrorism-related activity in Iraq and throughout the region;
· mitigate its opposition to the Middle East peace process;
· stop efforts to undermine the legitimate government in Lebanon.

I share those publicly stated aspirations. The issue is how do we get there."

And further:

"US economic sanctions are a critical component of our policy toward Iran, as they have been for some time – in this and previous administrations. But sanctions alone are not sufficient. They must be used as effective leverage, undertaken as part of a coherent, coordinated, comprehensive diplomatic and political strategy which tips the scale such that it is more beneficial for Iran to forswear its nuclear weapons ambitions and other behavior that is undermining regional peace and stability.

I don’t know if a strict policy of coercion and sanctions will be enough eventually to bring about a more responsible Iranian government.

But I do know that the strong international reaction against the Iranian president’s disgusting declarations about the Holocaust and Israel’s right to exist; the public rebuke of the president by the Supreme Leader there for his reckless posturing on Iran’s nuclear ambitions; the president’s party’s weak showing in recent local elections, and other similar recent developments offer reasons for hope– hope that if we work more intensively with our allies, we might be able to identify and engage with Iran’s more moderate leadership inside and outside of the current government that could eventually be persuaded to step back from its nuclear ambitions"

And more:

" June 14, 2007

Today, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs seconded the concerns expressed by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson regarding insufficient economic pressure being exerted by U.S. allies’ on Iran.

“The Department of the Treasury is finally getting tough with Iran — both through traditional sanctions and additional targeted financial measures. I strongly share Secretary Paulson’s concerns about our allies’ commitment to the cause. If we are going to be effective in preventing Iran from financing terrorism and seeking to acquire nuclear weapons capability, we will need to see comparable commitments from other nations—in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. These governments must not turn a blind eye towards Iran’s wrongful and destructive use of private sector investment to consolidate power and destabilize the region. Only robust diplomacy coupled with tough multilateral sanctions will convince Iran to come to the table to find a political solution to our current disagreements.”

And more:

" 6/13/07: Statement of Senator Dodd on Administration’s Iran Policy
June 13, 2007

“I am very concerned by Mr. Burns’ assertions that the Iranian government is providing weapons to the Taliban. The administration's mishandling of Iran policy over the last four and one half years has allowed Iran to increase its regional influence and meddle in the internal affairs of its neighbors. These recent developments demonstrate once again that the Bush administration must develop a tough and comprehensive approach toward Iran, with the centerpiece being robust diplomacy coupled with more effective implementation of economic and political sanctions that will bring Iran to the negotiating table, where issues of mutual concern can be discussed and hopefully resolved.”

There being essentially zero evidence that Iran is furnishing weapons to the Taliban...

And more:

" 6/07/07: Senator Dodd Denounces Boycott of Israeli Universities
June 7, 2007

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recently sent a letter to Sally Hunt, the Joint General Secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), applauding her objection to the UCU’s vote to endorse a boycott of Israeli academic institutions and expressing outrage at its passage. "

Sorry, Chris Dodd isn't making much more sense than most other politicians in Congress, other than his call for Bush to "engage in diplomacy" - when he knows damn well Bush isn't going to - which boils down to his making statements intended to play well with Democrats.

If Clinton is made President, Dodd will be approving her "Authorization of Force" bill to attack Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 16, 2007 2:41 AM

I'm going to go out on a limb and say he has also ruined whatever chance he had of being someone's vice presidential pick.

But good for him nonetheless.

It seems that there is a more general phenomenon of "serious", but realistically hopeless presidential candidates putting unconventional or politically inconvenient ideas into wider circulation. In some sense, they have to throw the long ball, because playing it safe guarantees they will never overtake the frontrunner. This is an underappreciated feature of our primary process.

Posted by Knecht Ruprecht | August 16, 2007 4:56 AM

I think it's incorrect to say that Cuba has been isolated. They have not. Cuba has been denied the pleasure of American goods, but they enjoy trade and diplomatic relations with most every other nation in the world. It's not like Cuba's engagement with Canada and England helped to hasten any peaceful democratic transitions, either. I think America's policy is right for Cuba as economic embargo was right for Iraq under Saddam.

Posted by Just Karl | August 16, 2007 7:33 AM

I've always wondered if a way to get more Cuban Americans on board with lifting the embargo would be to for the government to promise to slap, say, a 10% tax on trade with Cuba and use this to create a fund to reimburse the Cuban Americans who had their property expropriated by Castro.

An other issue though is that the vast majority of benefits of trade would accrue to Cuba's Communist inner circle rather than ordinary Cubans. The way it works now for European companies that hire Cuban professionals is that 90%+ of the salary money they pay gets retained by the Cuban government, with only pennies on the Euro going to the ordinary Cubans.

Then of course there's the issue of political repression by the Cuban government, and to what extent increasing trade with Cuba would fund and reinforce this.

If those three issues were addressed by advocates of lifting the embargo, they might get more traction.

Posted by Fred | August 16, 2007 8:30 AM

Ok, Dodd might right in principle. What Matt and most everyone else seems to think is that the Cuban government is unhappy with the embargo. WRONG!!!! I'm not sure about Raul (we will find out when Big Brother dies) but Fidel was always very happy with the status quo and every time an American president tried to change it he would create a crisis. Ask Carter and Clinton. Problem is, how to end the embargo -through Congress- while the commies are creating one crises after the other to prevent you from doing so and an influent minority with 2 senators and 3 congressmen fights you all the way. To put in peril Florida and thus the election for that? Isn't politics the art of the possible? Maybe Matt is too much into the hope thing.

Besides, the embargo doesn't include food and medicine (the US is actually one of the main trade partners of Cuba) and Cuba trades with everybody else so its effects tend to be grossly overestimated.

I'm putting myself in the shoes of a Democratic candidate and I'm not speaking as a member of the "Miami mafia" (which I proudly am though I am also: very liberal in social issues, gay, and a partisan Democrat)

Posted by Eduardo | August 16, 2007 9:36 AM

Fred,

IMHO, you made very good points in your post and I'm sure you are very well informed about Cuba.

But related to your 10% tax to compensate Cubans with properties expropriated by Castro, I find that very difficult to get traction. As a nation, we are really "excitable" and just imagine how the "Historic exile" will react to it: "they are buying us!" The same goes for the Cuban government: very hard to sell to the people that the "traitors" are getting paid anything while the "Cubans" are in abject poverty. Besides: a)The property stuff is not the #1 issue for the community: try to trust me on that, and b) the trade between the two countries wouldn't be that high as to the allow the tax to collect money enough to be of much significance for the potential beneficiaries. Cuba is too poor and they are doing mostly well, thank you very much. Finally, the great majority of us here who never had anything would find really obscene to focus first in compensation for expropriations and not on, say, human rights or even some economic freedoms for Cubans in the island no matter how minimal. And a sizable part of the expropriated will think that way for sure. Some people care for the place where they were born, you know.

Posted by Eduardo | August 16, 2007 9:52 AM

I know a few Republicans who might just cross party lines to vote for even a Democratic candidate who promises to lift the silly embargo against Cuba: some people really do want to be able to smoke Cuban cigars, after all.

Posted by DAS | August 16, 2007 10:14 AM

"I know a few Republicans who might just cross party lines to vote for even a Democratic candidate who promises to lift the silly embargo against Cuba: some people really do want to be able to smoke Cuban cigars, after all."

After all, it seems like Dodd was pandering, too: to the powerful Cuban cigar smoker lobby.

Posted by Eduardo | August 16, 2007 11:05 AM

Must you betray all of your heritage?

Matt's grandparents on the Cuban side are the novelists Jose and Helen Yglesias. I don't believe they were anti-Castro Cuban exiles--if I recall correctly what I read about them years ago (I read a couple of their books before I ever heard of Matt) they were lefties who immigrated to this country before Castro.

Posted by rea | August 16, 2007 11:12 AM

Dodd's campaign is going nowhere fast. Maybe he should be back to having waitress sandwiches with Kopochne Kennedy. Munch, munch.

Posted by John | August 16, 2007 11:13 AM

Chris Dodd could be an honorary Beefy Juban Hero.

Posted by Gregorio | August 16, 2007 1:01 PM

Sadly true. America’s policy towards Cuba has been more than schizophrenic: tens of murder plots set up by the CIA and others to get rid of Castro, while at the same time following policies that reinforced his position. But the same senator says also this:

I have long opposed restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to the Cuban people. Frankly I believe it is immoral to deprive innocent people from access to American medical and farm products. Moreover, we hurt our American farm families with such an ill conceived policy. It is a commonsense policy to encourage Cuban authorities to purchase US food and medicine rather than other foreign purchases that may impact adversely on our nation’s security.

This is not good. It’s mercantilism. It’s economic imperialism. Foreign policy as a tool to make the Cuban people ripe for products of the U.S. medical and food industry. Cuba is poor. So it makes sense "for private investment to gain a foothold in Cuba". But, like it or not, Cuba is also good in health care. So it does not makes sense to enforce Cuba to purchase it’s health care from abroad. In a world with really free trade it could well be the other way around.

Posted by ivan | August 16, 2007 1:40 PM

hekiml cxgudefkv xswvu kcgft hixyow mgqcuzwix vdpyzn

Posted by avixstfj bdyup | August 20, 2007 3:37 PM

hekiml cxgudefkv xswvu kcgft hixyow mgqcuzwix vdpyzn

Posted by avixstfj bdyup | August 20, 2007 3:38 PM