I don't see any way that lobby will relent or compromise--the value of the embargo is measured less rationally and more emotionally IMO by its advocates. This creates a domestic trap for President (or Presidential contender) which limits the change they can pursue internationally--now with the added dimension of Congress it is even more difficult. I hope I am wrong, but I have seen too much pandering (regardless of party) to that particular lobby to assume a policy change at this point.
Every church youth group in Florida goes to Cuba once a year to "fight" poverty but really they want the commies to surrender to God. I guess Cuba is so hungry for dollars it lets them in. [I am not joking.]
Castro is a folk hero to people around the world. Trying to erase Fidel won't work. Just easing tourism and trade is probably an excellent first measure.
Do you know that Spain views the 19th century "liberation" of Cuba by the US as a crime? Private individuals and newspapers lament to this day "when the yanqis took our Cuba from us".
I respect the Cubans for their self-determination and so should Congress. Leave them alone...and get rid of that shameful so-called lease of Guantanamo.
Peter:
"Engaging Cuba could steer them away from Chavez and toward the US. The US has identified the rise of Chavez as a national security challenge, and has identified a clear interest in reducing Chavez’s influence in Latin America."
Chavez poses no national security challenge to the United States; what he poses is a threat to the property interests of transnational oil companies. We all know what happened the last time the U.S. confused those interests with its own national interests.
Silvia Wilhelm said it best on the NewsHour last night:
"And number one is we have had a policy in place for close to 50 years that has not given the intended goal, which was the, you know, disappearance of the Castro government.
"Fidel Castro has resigned today on his own term, not because of the U.S. embargo. We don't have another 50 years to wait.
"So I would say that this is a blatant announcement to the international community that our embargo has failed, that it is time to allow immediately Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba."
--
David Johnson
Chandler, Arizona
Chavez poses a political-diplomatic challenge to the U.S. in the sense that he is likely to oppose U.S. policy and initiatives. If the U.S. supports the current Colombian government (which it does) and gives it lots of money to fight the 'war on drugs', then Chavez is going to position himself as negotiator with the FARC and suggest that the Colombian govt is en route to becoming an instrument of U.S. imperialism in the region. Etc. True, Chavez also threatens the property interests of the oil companies, but his political challenge to the U.S. is somewhat separate from that.
So while it is correct that Chavez poses no national security challenge to the U.S. in that Venezuela is not going to launch a military operation vs the U.S., he does aim to hasten the process of the dissolution of American informal empire (if you like that terminology). Which might be good or bad, depending on your point of view.
"So while it is correct that Chavez poses no national security challenge to the U.S. . . . he does aim to hasten the process of the dissolution of American informal empire. . . ."
So, are we to conclude then, when he characterizes Chavez as a threat, that Obama is signaling his intentions to continue to support "American informal empire" if he's successful in being elected President?
Won't that be a refreshing, hopeful change!
David Johnson
Chandler, Arizona
I wasn't aware of Obama's statement on Chavez, but I would say the answer to your question is probably yes. There will be differences between an Obama (or Clinton) administration's foreign policy and a McCain administration's foreign policy, but not, I suspect, quite such deep or striking differences as many people no doubt expect and hope for.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
