AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > March > 22
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Should the U.S. open a dialogue with Raoul Castro?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
I must admit Andy almost had me sold by her compelling argument. But then I snapped back into reality to remember that Cuba is a communist, totalitarian state with neither Castro interested in easing his strangle-hold on the Cuban people.
If this was a real transition, it might be different. But Raul “Clone” Castro has shown no willingness to change on any issue we have raised. Without willingness, it is utterly foolish to expect dialogue to magically “get movement going for the change we want.” Remember: Cuban leaders are totally corrupt, they allow absolutely no ownership of private property, thousands of people are jailed and tortured for sharing unpopular opinions, and the nation’s economy has been so mismanaged the island can’t even provide basic services.
Let’s also have no illusions about what Andy really means by “talking.” This isn’t trying to build a bridge by comparing notes on how the grandkids are doing. U.S. and Cuban representatives can talk that way at the U.N. every day. No, “talking” is usually shorthand for “concessions” - in other words, “breaking our embargo and allowing trade.”
Is that really a good idea when every penny goes straight into the pockets of a corrupt regime? As Dr. Jaime Suchlicki, Director of the University of Miami’s Institute of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies said in a phone interview, “Any trade from us will put money into the military and government, which owns everything in the country. The money won’t go to Cubans.”
Its not that the United States is unwilling to talk. What we are unwilling to do is to provide direct support to corrupt, harsh, totalitarian dictators who oppress their people. We’ve been quietly providing the Cuban people “back door” humanitarian help for years, totaling $270 million in private aid last year alone.
Many people point to our easing of restrictions on Vietnam as an example of communist dialogue. But as Ray Wasler of the Heritage Foundation pointed out, we did that only after Vietnam’s leaders took some baby steps, like developing international trade rules.
Baby steps aren’t a huge hurdle; if Raul isn’t willing to take even those, we’re kidding ourselves to think that ‘talking’ would be anything more than our one-sided concessions for a dictator to continue business as usual.
Commentary
By Andrea Cornell Sarvady
Recently, a bipartisan committee of over 100 House members sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, practically begging her and the Bush administration to take advantage of a change in leadership in Cuba to reopen a dialogue. They reminded her that “Our policy leaves us without influence at this critical moment….After fifty years; it is time for us to think and act anew.”
This is a critical moment, indeed. With cheap oil from Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez and opportunistic friendship from China, our silence gives Cuba no reason to align itself with Western democracy. Given Cuba’s strategic location, it could be an important security and trade partner, particularly given its abundance of sugar. Furthermore, the resources put toward monitoring Cuba are troubling when far more dangerous places under US sanction—like Iran—could use our full attention.
Nobody is suggesting that Raoul Castro offers a massive change from his brother, or that a dinner dance at the White House is suddenly in order. Yet even Cuban-Americans themselves, notorious hard-liners and influential Florida voters, are softening their stance. A study by Bendixen and Associates showed that over 70 percent of Cuban-Americans want our government to deal with a post-Fidel Cuba, provided we get some cooperation. Not withstanding a fervent vocal minority, this is a far cry from the “there is no talking to a Castro under any circumstances” position that has reigned for years.
“Right now, we have a failed policy” explains Dr. Jennifer McCoy over a cup of coffee near the Carter Center, where she is Director of the Americas Program. “Castro left on his own accord, not because of U.S. policy. That’s all the proof you need that our strategy isn’t working.”
For Dr. McCoy, taking the first step doesn’t undermine our credibility, it signals a willingness to try something new, in the face of overwhelming evidence that something new is desperately needed. Imposing preconditions, such as the release of political prisoners, before any dialogue has an emotional appeal but ultimately makes no sense. “To change the relationship, we have to talk.” McCoy advises. “The whole idea of preconditions is illogical. You have to talk to get movement going for the change that you want.”