Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We've spent many decades maintaining our adversarial relationship with Cuba. A different approach might not be such a bad thing. You're more likely to affect positive changes in Cuba by normalizing relations.
You're right, if "normalizing relations" includes treating Cubans like normal citizens.
treating Cubans like normal citizens. ? normal in CUBAN - that will be up to them. But once they let the world in- there will be more pressure on the regime-- both fogies know they have to die- and they can't keep it up, so maybe in some twisted arrogant way, want to die doing some good for their country? Who knows? they( the bros ) profit NOTHING for opening doors...
I'm not sure where you're going with that. Can you please clarify?
I guess by normal I mean free, since that is what is normal for us. In a free society people are permitted by their government to profit commensurate with the extent of their labor or their contribution. Not so on the Island. The benefit resulting from normalizing relations will only "trickle" down to the people, to the extent that the government deems appropriate to maintain the status quo.
I guess by normal I mean free, since that is what is normal for us. In a free society people are permitted by their government to profit commensurate with the extent of their labor or their contribution. Not so on the Island.
We have a lousy track record when it comes to that. We've supported and upheld many corrupt dictators that trampled all over their people's rights. Cuba and other Communist states are especially bad on human rights issues.
We maintained dialogue and trade with China and the USSR despite their Communist regimes. China is now Communist in name only and Russia not at all. If you're goal is to change things in Cuba, I think our relationship with China and the USSR are the more effective template for success.
So king Obama has decided to visit Cuba. Although there is a congressional embargo on Cuba, he still is over-riding the embargo and visiting a COMMUNIST dictator ran country that imprisons its own people.
So tell me this, why is Obama so against Assad ? Why is he always trying to over-throw the dictator, but he decides to sit down and play golf with another tyrant (CASTRO) ?
I also hear they want Gitmo back? Who here guesses that Obama will give it back?
Hmm, a country that imprisons its own people--who knew such an oddity could exist in the 21st century.
If you can't tell the difference between Syria and Cuba, you need some help.
The President is the Head of State. He is constitutionally entitled to serve as the nation's chief diplomat. Congress' embargo cannot (and does not) prevent that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
We have a lousy track record when it comes to that. We've supported and upheld many corrupt dictators that trampled all over their people's rights. Cuba and other Communist states are especially bad on human rights issues.
We maintained dialogue and trade with China and the USSR despite their Communist regimes. China is now Communist in name only and Russia not at all. If you're goal is to change things in Cuba, I think our relationship with China and the USSR are the more effective template for success.
I agree with you--change will come in Cuba through trade and engagement.
We have a lousy track record when it comes to that. We've supported and upheld many corrupt dictators that trampled all over their people's rights. Cuba and other Communist states are especially bad on human rights issues.
We maintained dialogue and trade with China and the USSR despite their Communist regimes. China is now Communist in name only and Russia not at all. If you're goal is to change things in Cuba, I think our relationship with China and the USSR are the more effective template for success.
Due to their size, military strength, etc., we decided it was in our best national interests to maintain relations with Russia and China, even if during the time it was not in the best interests of their common people. Russia and China eventually had to adapt to a global economy or collapse under their own weight. We just waited them out (well, we're still sort of waiting on China). Cuba is a different case in that the interest of the U.S., an economic behemoth compared to Cuba, aren't compromised if we take a strong position consistent with our own Constitutional principles. The only question, if anyone cares to ask it, should be what is the most moral diplomatic approach.
I understand the thinking that some change is better than nothing, and that if we wait them out, things will change there over time. Its tough watching people suffer. Problem is, their current regime has already demonstrated that even economic collapse is not enough to get them to change their civil rights record. Russia and China aren't good analogies here, the best one is North Korea, where the govt holds on to power on the backs of its people and is prepared to do so to the bitter end. Do you think if Obama went to Pyongyang and Hilton opened a hotel there that it would benefit the people? Maybe you do, but I don't. It would only legitimize their Supreme Leader, who would proceed to funnel his share of the tourism bucks into the military.
Also, fact is, Cuba has maintained relations with European and Latin American nations for a long time now. That hasn't changed the status quo. The embargo hasn't worked, but the argument that if Cubans could just see how the rest of the world lives there would be change, hasn't worked either. I don't claim to have the solution to Cuba's problems. My point in this thread has been simply that Americans should not delude themselves thinking that they are helping the Cuban people by touristing in Cuba. They can have a good time, and some Cubans will make a bit more money, but we are hardly making a dent in the thinking of those in power. Nothing will materially change in Cuba until all traces of the Castros are gone and free elections can be held.
Due to their size, military strength, etc., we decided it was in our best national interests to maintain relations with Russia and China, even if during the time it was not in the best interests of their common people. Russia and China eventually had to adapt to a global economy or collapse under their own weight. We just waited them out (well, we're still sort of waiting on China). Cuba is a different case in that the interest of the U.S., an economic behemoth compared to Cuba, aren't compromised if we take a strong position consistent with our own Constitutional principles. The only question, if anyone cares to ask it, should be what is the most moral diplomatic approach.
I understand the thinking that some change is better than nothing, and that if we wait them out, things will change there over time. Its tough watching people suffer. Problem is, their current regime has already demonstrated that even economic collapse is not enough to get them to change their civil rights record. Russia and China aren't good analogies here, the best one is North Korea, where the govt holds on to power on the backs of its people and is prepared to do so to the bitter end. Do you think if Obama went to Pyongyang and Hilton opened a hotel there that it would benefit the people? Maybe you do, but I don't. It would only legitimize their Supreme Leader, who would proceed to funnel his share of the tourism bucks into the military.
Also, fact is, Cuba has maintained relations with European and Latin American nations for a long time now. That hasn't changed the status quo. The embargo hasn't worked, but the argument that if Cubans could just see how the rest of the world lives there would be change, hasn't worked either. I don't claim to have the solution to Cuba's problems. My point in this thread has been simply that Americans should not delude themselves thinking that they are helping the Cuban people by touristing in Cuba. They can have a good time, and some Cubans will make a bit more money, but we are hardly making a dent in the thinking of those in power. Nothing will materially change in Cuba until all traces of the Castros are gone and free elections can be held.
Underlying thing: How well has isolating North Korea and Cuba worked? The answer is simple. It hasn't. And the truth is, China used to be just as isolated as North Korea and Cuba. They got into a fight with the USSR, Nixon saw his chance and we reached out to China. The result? China has gradually opened up. It is no longer really a Communist nation. There's a dying old breed in the Communist Party that wants to go back to how it used to be, but the genie's out of the bottle and there's no putting it back in. The government still obsessively clings to it's control of everything, but that control is gradually slipping away in favor of progress and development. Modern-day China is a lot more like Singapore these days. They're letting capitalism work for them. It's making many Chinese rich and prosperous. But they're still operating under a fairly totalitarian regime -- just like Singapore.
We saw it with China and we're seeing it with North Korea and Cuba. Hardcore Communist countries can and will wait out isolation tactics indefinitely. Doesn't matter if their people are living in squalor or dying from starvation.
Can you offer me a single example where isolation tactics successfully toppled a totalitarian regime?
Underlying thing: How well has isolating North Korea and Cuba worked? The answer is simple. It hasn't. And the truth is, China used to be just as isolated as North Korea and Cuba. They got into a fight with the USSR, Nixon saw his chance and we reached out to China. The result? China has gradually opened up. It is no longer really a Communist nation. There's a dying old breed in the Communist Party that wants to go back to how it used to be, but the genie's out of the bottle and there's no putting it back in. The government still obsessively clings to it's control of everything, but that control is gradually slipping away in favor of progress and development. Modern-day China is a lot more like Singapore these days. They're letting capitalism work for them. It's making many Chinese rich and prosperous. But they're still operating under a fairly totalitarian regime -- just like Singapore.
We saw it with China and we're seeing it with North Korea and Cuba. Hardcore Communist countries can and will wait out isolation tactics indefinitely. Doesn't matter if their people are living in squalor or dying from starvation.
Can you offer me a single example where isolation tactics successfully toppled a totalitarian regime?
No, I cannot definitively offer such an example. However, neither am I so sure that China underwent change because of Nixon's actions. Fact is, their political/economic model just didn't work -- couldn't meet the needs of its population, and they were forced to join the global economic community one way or another. One could argue that Nixon saw it coming and it was a savvy political move, but the US change in policy was not necessarily the prime cause for the change in China. The USSR went down while Reagan watched. He's credited with its downfall, but what exactly was it he did to bring it about?
I actually feel less uncomfortable with having reached out to China. Their system may have been antithetical to ours, but I don't recall China offending the US to the extent of appropriating American property or blatantly threatening the launch of nuclear missiles.
Cuba has been trading with other nations in Europe and Latin America for quite some time, but that hasn't materially affected the regime. If you are right, if trade is the key to political and economic change, why hasn't it happened already? Sure, change will come eventually -- Rome fell, and everything in the universe changes over time -- but show me what material gain we, either the Cuban people or Americans, have achieved now as a result of sacrificing our principles NOW? Cheap vacations and good cigars? As indicated in the article (link I posted) the economic reformation has been going on for a decade, at least, but its a big success story if a Cuban can make $25 a month from tourism.
Ironically, the other link I posted shows that barge traffic has actually increased as a result of our change in policy. Not sure how that is better for Cubans or Americans. Don't get me wrong, as I said earlier, I realize the embargo accomplished nothing. I just don't see how this is helping either, and as an American, I think its at our moral and possibly economic expense.
I will give Obama this much -- it is fair and in our interests to suggest giving Guantanamo back. The strategic value isn't there anymore. They get their land back, and we save on the upkeep. A win/win.
No, I cannot definitively offer such an example. However, neither am I so sure that China underwent change because of Nixon's actions. Fact is, their political/economic model just didn't work -- couldn't meet the needs of its population, and they were forced to join the global economic community one way or another. One could argue that Nixon saw it coming and it was a savvy political move, but the US change in policy was not necessarily the prime cause for the change in China. The USSR went down while Reagan watched. He's credited with its downfall, but what exactly was it he did to bring it about?
China was vastly more isolated than Cuba is today. The entire rule of Mao Zedong racked up about 80 million civilian deaths -- because Mao's hairbrained Communist programs failed so miserably. Did killing off 40+ million Chinese civilians in the Great Leap Forward convince Mao to stop trying to impose Communism and controlling the lives of everyone in China? No, not really. Our isolationist stance against the PRC was nuts! The entire world (other than the USSR) refused to recognize them as the true government of China for a very long time, mostly because they were following the USA's lead. The Republic of China (Taiwan) held their seat in the UN until 1971. The USA didn't completely recognize them until 1979. There are a dozen or so nations who still don't recognize the PRC.
Quote:
I actually feel less uncomfortable with having reached out to China. Their system may have been antithetical to ours, but I don't recall China offending the US to the extent of appropriating American property or blatantly threatening the launch of nuclear missiles.
We had an ugly, bloody, indirect war with China when they invaded and attacked our forces in the Korean War. Cuba is no angel of course, but they've also never actually attacked us. We've never fought a war with Cuba. The only reason that China didn't threaten us with nuclear missiles was because they didn't have them. They were 20-30 years behind the USA and USSR in their development of a nuclear arsenal and could not have conceivably launched a nuclear strike until after Nixon reached out to them.
Quote:
Cuba has been trading with other nations in Europe and Latin America for quite some time, but that hasn't materially affected the regime. If you are right, if trade is the key to political and economic change, why hasn't it happened already? Sure, change will come eventually -- Rome fell, and everything in the universe changes over time -- but show me what material gain we, either the Cuban people or Americans, have achieved now as a result of sacrificing our principles NOW? Cheap vacations and good cigars? As indicated in the article (link I posted) the economic reformation has been going on for a decade, at least, but its a big success story if a Cuban can make $25 a month from tourism.
Ironically, the other link I posted shows that barge traffic has actually increased as a result of our change in policy. Not sure how that is better for Cubans or Americans. Don't get me wrong, as I said earlier, I realize the embargo accomplished nothing. I just don't see how this is helping either, and as an American, I think its at our moral and possibly economic expense.
I will give Obama this much -- it is fair and in our interests to suggest giving Guantanamo back. The strategic value isn't there anymore. They get their land back, and we save on the upkeep. A win/win.
Isolationist regimes thrive in "us vs them" scenarios. This was never more true than it has been for Communist regimes. We've been dutifully providing that scenario for the Castro brothers for many decades now. What I think Cuba needs is to have "them" taken out of "us vs them." That would make a huge difference.
Giving back Guantanamo Bay back could be used as a symbolic peace offering. I've no clue why the hell we need that base anyways. It's the perfect starter for convincing Cuba that we don't want to be enemies anymore. You could also use it as a negotiating piece for getting Cuba to be more open to the outside world.
I think we were successful with the USSR and PRC by accident. We didn't know that trade and normalized relations would change things. It did. The biggest catalyst for change was greater interaction and free-flowing information. Cuba has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Besides, if normalizing relations and trade with Cuba do not work out to our liking, we can always go back to where we are now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
