In an election about 'Change,' Cuban policy should be next

When it comes to opinion, there are few absolutes in the world, however, hatred of Fidel Castro by the Cuban-American population in Miami likely hits 101%. On the other hand, uniformity about how to deal with the regime, now including little brother Raul Castro, is as common as a sushi restaurant in the heart of Little Havana, which is to say, there may be one, but for the most part, no, not really.

Case in point, Sunday’s Miami Herald Issues & Ideas section, fronted by a disturbingly pensive President-Elect Obama, Cuban flag waving in the background, as he is "Contemplating CUBA." Two somewhat varied opinions are presented, one by Camila Ruiz Gallardo, director of government relations for the Cuban American National Foundation and the other by Mauricio Claver-Carone, a director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC.

While both agree that sanctions should continue – despite Claver-Carone’s arguments to the contrary, there are those within the Cuban-American community with the opinion that sanctions should be eased – Gallardo wants some change, entitling her editorial "Current Cuba policy is weak and ineffective."

Gallardo argues that aid and assistance should be allowed through, not just to family members in need, but to dissidents on the island who need the financial support to be successful in their struggle for democracy. Gallardo blames current and past policies, both Republican and Democrat for the failure to bring forth the long-hoped-for transformation.

Not exactly an exposition of opposite points of view, Claver-Carone’s argues, not specifically against the recent travel and remittance restrictions, but for a continuation of the embargo until Castro complies with three demands: "the release of all political prisoners," "(the) recognition and respect for fundamental human rights," and "(the) legalization of independent political parties and labor unions." Another way of putting this would be: No change in U.S. policy until Castro gives up every ounce of power he (they) currently hold.

In effect, espousing an all-or-nothing strategy that is clearly unrealistic, Claver-Carone also seems to assume that the only choice is to continue sanctions, or open up Cuba completely, ignoring any scenarios that develop from some middle-ground policy. To make matters worse, his entire premise that President-elect Obama should not consider any modification of current policy without the aforementioned changes, is based on his belief that Cuban-Americans would unilaterally disapprove.

Pointing to the Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart brothers victories in the recent elections, Claver-Carone opines that Cuban-American thought is united on the issue as he frames it, writing:

"Cuban-American voters overwhelmingly supported the three incumbents, none of whom favor unconditionally altering any sanction against the Castro regime, and gave them significant victories despite an anti-incumbent environment."

In addition to ignoring the middle-ground, his argument ignores certain other factors: A campaign against Raul Martinez that showed him to be (perhaps rightly) an unethical, hot-headed and self-serving bully; a campaign by popular and well-financed Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen against an absolute neophyte; and a competitive race by Democrat Joe Garcia in a district gerrymandered specifically for Republican victories.

Sadly, neither commentator discusses the fact that U.S. policy, relatively unchanged since the 60's, has done nothing to break Castro’s hold on the island. Not being Cuban may be a disadvantage for me in understanding what is going on 90 miles south of us, but perhaps it allows me to think more with my head, and less with my heart.

The Soviet Union and China went from mortal enemy to trading partner, not because of isolation and economic threats, but because we flooded the Communist states with capitalism. Once they tasted Levi’s and Coca-Cola, and more importantly, the ability to profit from each, the walls (in the case of the Soviet Union, at least) crumbled.

Claver-Carone’s short-sighted and factually-void opinion does little to move democracy forward, and Gallardo‘s view on policy changes needed, while a step in the right direction, probably doesn’t do enough. Unfortunately, there was no advocate for middle ground or radical departure to current policy – points of view that need to be seriously considered.

No one is reasonably advocating an immediate and absolute change from isolation to a free market approach, but the Castros have proven that current policy will not change their approach to governing Cuba, and ordinary Cubans appear more inclined to leave their homeland than suffer official wrath in response to "subversive" activities. When the threat of starvation, drowning, and shark attacks is a preferable alternative, it is clear that "change" is not enough.

There must be dramatic, important, and effective change. It must be something about as dramatic as a black man being elected President.

If such a thing could happen in America, certainly, freedom in Cuba is not that far off. And a sushi restaurant in Little Havana might not be a bad idea either.

Related Elections 2008 info: 
Meet the new U.S. House members
Meet the new U.S. Senators
Slideshow: Obama sweeps election
Examiner nationwide straw poll
Examiner Coverage: Elections 2008