CUBAN RELATIONS

[Lord Jim]

The Koreans threaten to kill Americans and the Cubans have. Remember President Kennedy?

No lib, Castro didn't have Kennedy assassinated, (that was Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone; that's what all the evidence supports) but he did encourage Khrushchev to start WW III:

Castro urges the Soviets to consider attacking the Americans if the U.S. invades Cuba.

Letter from Fidel Castro to Nikita Khrushchev
October 26, 1962

Dear Comrade Khrushchev:

Given the analysis of the situation and the reports which have reached us, consider an attack to be almost imminent -- within the next 24 to 72 hours. There are two possible variants: the first and most probable one is an air attack against certain objectives with the limited aim of destroying them; the second, and though less probable, still possible, is a full invasion. This would require a large force and is the most repugnant form of aggression, which might restrain them.

You can be sure that we will resist with determination, whatever the case. The Cuban people's morale is extremely high and the people will confront aggression heroically.

I would like to briefly express my own personal opinion.

If the second variant takes place and the imperialists invade Cuba with the aim of occupying it, the dangers of their aggressive policy are so great that after such an invasion the Soviet Union must never allow circumstances in which the imperialists could carry out a nuclear first strike against it.

I tell you this because I believe that the imperialists' aggressiveness makes them extremely dangerous, and that if they manage to carry out an invasion of Cuba -- a brutal act in violation of universal and moral law -- then that would be the moment to eliminate this danger forever, in an act of the most legitimate self-defense. However harsh and terrible the solution, there would be no other.

This opinion is shaped by observing the development of their aggressive policy. The imperialists, without regard for world opinion and against laws and principles, have blockaded the seas, violated our air-space, and are preparing to invade, while at the same time blocking any possibility of negotiation, even though they understand the gravity of the problem.

You have been, and are, a tireless defender of peace, and I understand that these moments, when the results of your superhuman efforts are so seriously threatened, must be bitter for you. We will maintain our hopes for saving the peace until the last moment, and we are ready to contribute to this in any way we can. But, at the same time, we are serene and ready to confront a situation which we see as very real and imminent.

I convey to you the infinite gratitude and recognition of the Cuban people to the Soviet people, who have been so generous and fraternal, along with our profound gratitude and admiration to you personally. We wish you success with the enormous task and great responsibilities which are in your hands.

Fraternally,

Fidel Castro

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie ... fk-attack/

It was this cable that convinced Khrushchev and his Kremlin cronies that their "fraternal ally" in Cuba was a mentally unbalanced lunatic, and that they needed to get their nukes away from him as quickly as possible...

[rubato]

Reagan was right, the only thing communist respect is force. We should resist them not submit to them; they don’t see the normalization of relations as cooperation, but as a case of us submitting to their will.

They think of us a criminals for not giving what they want. To communist noncommunist nations have no rights. Should we pay Cuba reparation for maintaining a boycott, to them it is a criminal act?.

So we should continue a policy which has failed for 50 years because we are too otiose to admit we were wrong? That is more like religious dogma than practical politics.



yrs,
rubato

[RayThom]

... "it seemed like a good idea at the time."

All indication show Fidel is still stuck in the '50s and battling senile dementia. It's Raúl that who is more progressive and sees the need for change. Either way, it's a done deal. Besides, the pope said it and I believe it.

In the words of Dr. Seuss, "Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened."

[wesw]

otiose??????????????

[Lord Jim]

I think from a political standpoint for Obama this is is an all pain no gain decision...

The decision to confront the new Congress over immigration reform made good political sense...this confrontation doesn't...

Apparently the "strategy" that Obama is going to adopt for the last two years of his Presidency is to pick fights with the GOP controlled House and Senate willy-nilly, whether the politics of the fights make good political sense or not...(this will delight the Liberal base of his party, but not particularly thrill the vast majority of the country)

I think Big RR is right when he says that most people probably don't care one way or the other, but the only ones likely to care enough to vote solely on this issue are overwhelmingly going to be those opposed to it...

(Obviously he understands this decision isn't a political winner or he'd have done it before the mid-terms)

I also think the timing is poor; a time when we're trying to stand up to dictators like Putin and Assad doesn't seem like a good time to decide to make nice with another dictatorship...it seems to me to send the wrong message...

And Obama also seems to have given the store away; giving the Castro regime everything it wants and getting nothing in return...(no release of political prisoners, no loosening of restrictions on freedom of expression, or the press or political pluralism)

So I think this was a bad decision for this President to make at this time, in the way he made it...

All of that having been said, as far as the underlying idea of restoring relations with Cuba is concerned, it's not something I have a huge problem with...

The fact is that ever since Mr. Reagan won the Cold War and defeated the Soviet Union,(once again, let me express my great gratitude to The Gipper for that) Cuba has really ceased to represent any sort of meaningful strategic threat to the US...

It no longer serves as a subsidized wholly owned subsidiary for a tyrannical power bent on world domination, and as a "stand alone property" Cuba doesn't really mean very much...

So conceptually, under the right circumstances I would not have a problem normalizing relations with that country (there's certainly no indication that they are involved in aiding the Islamo-Fascist terrorists who represent the primary threat we face today.)

But as I've said, I don't see these as the right circumstances, and if there's organized effective opposition to this on The Hill to thwart the implementation of this policy , I have no problem with that either...

[wesw]

the castro bros are not long for this world, I think. seems a prudent move on the presidents part. tho I doubt his motives, with al Sharpton perched on his back, whispering into his ear.

[Lord Jim]

I think his motives are pretty obvious...

Number one, he's throwing red meat to win approval from his liberal base, (I have to say I'm rather amused when I think about what the reaction from these folks who are gushing with approval over this would be if this were a right wing dictatorship the President was making overtures towards...the Cuban dictatorship is on the Politically Correct "approved" list...)

Number two, he's trying to "burnish his legacy"...

He wanted to be known as the President who ended US military involvement in the mid-east, , but unfortunately reality intervened so that didn't work out so well...

He wanted to be known as the President who hit the "reset button" in our relations with countries like Russia and Iran, but again that pesky reality thing got in the way...

So being known as the President who restored relations with Cuba, while not a particularly huge accomplishment, at least isn't likely to completely blow up in his face like his other foreign policy legacy attempts have...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Nixon/China. 'nuff said.

[Lord Jim]

That analogy fails on so many levels...

First of all, Mr. Nixon, what ever else one might say about him, (and there's a lot to say) had huge cred as a hardcore Cold Warrior of long standing who certainly would not be naive in negociations, or a novice when it came to protecting US security interests...

This decision would have been better made by a conservative Republican President...(like President Jeb Bush for example)

Second, the opening to China was part of a much larger strategic geo-poliical game, involving a calibrated power triangulation with the Soviets and the world's most populous country...

The significance of this pales in comparison...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Analogy - it wasn't popular amongst hard-right dinosaurs

[Big RR]

I'm rather amused when I think about what the reaction from these folks who are gushing with approval over this would be if this were a right wing dictatorship the President was making overtures towards...the Cuban dictatorship is on the Politically Correct "approved" list...

Come on Jim, the left can be pragmatic, and many have embraced the relationship with the right wing dictatorship (OK monarachy) in Saudi Arabia as it is in our interest. Likewise for a number of others (although your definition and mine of a right wing dictatorship may differ). Indeed, I think the hypocrisy is more on on the right, the people more than willing to embrace dictatorships so long as they do not discuss economic reforms or any property reforms. Those condemning "giving in" to the Castros loudest, were also the loudest in their support of brutal thugs like Pinochet and Noriega (at least while it still was in our interest to support him).

[Econoline]

(I have to say I'm rather amused when I think about what the reaction from these folks who are gushing with approval over this would be if this were a right wing dictatorship the President was making overtures towards...)

All right then, Jim: name a right-wing dictatorship with which the U.S. does NOT have diplomatic relations.

Oh, wait...there aren't any...

[Big RR]

Perhaps Libya? As I recall, we don't have formal diplomatic relations with them (although we may have an interests sections , as we do in Cuba).

eta: Sorry, I guess we do have full diplomatic relations with them; I do recall we were going to establish them when W was president, but I didn't think they were fully established yet. Sorry.

[Lord Jim]

Well Econo, we severed full diplomatic relations with Myanmar and imposed sanctions on them (under the George W. Bush Administration) and did not restore full relations and lift sanctions until they had made tangible progress in democratizing their society...(releasing political prisoners, establishing freedom of speech and the press, independent political parties, and independent unions, etc.)

A standard we have not applied here....

[Big RR]

Jim--I don't believe we severed relations with Mayanmar; we did curtail them and withdrew our ambassador, but some relations and recognition were retained until we restored them and sent an ambassador back recently. And while some progress toward democratic reforms has been made, they are hardly a place that is recognized for their respect of human rights. Indeed, I thought you rejected that as a basis for alliances and condemned Carter's policies insisting on such progress for allies.

[Econoline]

So...there are currently NO right-wing dictatorships left in the world.

That's good to know!

[Lord Jim]

Those condemning "giving in" to the Castros loudest, were also the loudest in their support of brutal thugs like Pinochet and Noriega

Supporting dictatorships during the context of the Cold War confrontation with the Soviet Empire was an unpleasant but necessary business...(The alternative would have been dictatorships that were friendly to us being replaced by dictatorships that were hostile to us and allied with the Soviets; we can know this for a fact because that is exactly what happened in every single case where a dictator we supported was overthrown during that period, until the transition from dictatorship to genuine democracy in the Philippines that took place on Mr. Reagan's watch in 1986)

Once Mr. Reagan won the Cold War and that was no longer necessary, we withdrew our support from the dictators in Latin America that we had previously supported, and today as a result, democracy flourishes throughout most of South America and the Caribbean...

The only dictatorships left there now are left-wing ones; in Venezuela and of course Cuba...

It's probably also worth pointing out that among many of the most vociferous critics of the embargo on Cuba, are also folks who were the most vocal supporters of the embargo on the Apartheid regime in South Africa...

An embargo that was a complete failure in terms of changing the regime's internal policies (we started with an arms embargo; the Afrikaners responded by building a highly successful internal arms manufacturing industry, and became a major arms exporter) until the Soviet Union collapsed, and they were no longer concerned that reaching a deal with the black majority would mean the institution of a Soviet allied communist regime.

[Lord Jim]

And while some progress toward democratic reforms has been made, they are hardly a place that is recognized for their respect of human rights.

Well, while Myanmar would not be mistaken for a shining example of Jeffersonian Democracy, (though considering where they were they've made impressive progress) they are certainly light years ahead of Cuba on that score, and again we did not reward them with lifting financial sanctions and full diplomatic relations (yes Big RR, I realize we never fully, technically severed relations with them, which is why I chose my words so carefully... we've also had "diplomatic relations" of a sort with Cuba, through an "Interest Section" in the Swiss Embassy) until they had made at least some progress in that direction...

Again, a standard we are not applying to Cuba...

[Big RR]

Well Jim, I'm not about to start to fight the cold war again, but let's just say you and I have very different ideas about the effects of our support of brutal right wing regimes; you seem to think we were protecting the people from more brutal left wing regimes, I say we were pushing them towards those regimes with our behavior--eventually the people would choose to embrace anything other than the sponsors of the terror against them. it could have ben different, we could have supported moderate left leaning governments (like Allende) and set ourselves as supporters of human rights, not dictators, but we chose the other road.

As for Cuba, the decades of isolation have produced a government somewhat entrenched in their ways, but one I think will be amenable to change in the spirit of friendship--but we cannot make any demands unless we have some relations and show them cooperation is in their interest. It makes sense to at least try, since the isolation has not worked.

[Crackpot]

Jim you're missing what is probably the biggest international effect this has. Or in other words look to the only group outside of congressional republicans that see this as bad news: Venesuela.