Saturday, May 9, 2009

CUBA

WILLIAM M. LeoGRANDE, American University Government Professor, May 15, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: While Mr. Carter’s trip is giving Mr. Bush problems, isn’t It also creating problems for Mr. Castro? Jimmy Carter has called for greater human rights in Cuba. While Castro may not act, doesn’t this help put pressure on the next Cuban government to adopt more progressive values regarding human rights and perhaps even economic freedoms?
LeoGRANDE: President Carter’s explicit endorsement of the Varela project on live, nationwide television in Cuba is a big boost for Cuban dissidents. Most Cubans didn’t know about the project because the state media hasn’t reported on it. Carter’s speech is analogous to the Pope’s homilies when he was in Cuba---it conveys to the Cuban people a message of democracy and human rights. And it reinforces the idea that democracy and human rights are not just code words for the re-imposition of U.S. imperialism on Cuba, which is the Cuban government’s constant refrain. So, yes, I do think Carter’s trip causes some headaches for Fidel. I think he’s betting that it will cause bigger headaches for George Bush.

KEVIN SULLIVAN, Washington Post Foreign Correspondent, May 17, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Does Jimmy Carter’s visit add pressure on the next Cuban government to respond to his calls for greater human rights? Maybe his visit has positive long term effect for the Cuban people?
SULLIVAN: I love the phrase, “the next Cuban government”. Castro looked a little stiff trying to field a bunt at the baseball game, but otherwise he appears to be holding steady. If we only know what the Cuban succession might look like, it would be easier to take a stab at your question. In the meantime, I think Carter’s speech turned up the heat on Castro. Two days after Carter’s speech, the state newspaper Granma published the entire transcript. That was startling---the dissidents have always been invisible in the official press there. Carter put them on the front page---and I think it’s significant that it was two days later. They couldn’t bring themselves to do it on day one, but the next day they felt forced to, I think. The dissidents think Carter has given them some cover, and some authority with which to press their ideas to other Cubans. We’ll see. Maybe Castro will shut them all down tomorrow morning.

JIM McGOVERN, Member, U.S. Congress and MIKE CONAWAY, Member, U.S. Congress, November 20, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What benefits may we derive from trade with Cuba?
McGOVERN: We can benefit from cultural and academic exchanges. We can also benefit from some impressive biotech and medical research that is ongoing now in Cuba. I have talked with many medical researchers in the U.S. who would like very much to collaborate with their counterparts in Cuba. Furthermore, lifting the embargo would open Cuba’s markets to U.S. trade.
CONAWAY: Laying aside the issue of the trade embargo being lifted, one specific areas that both countries would benefit from would be in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. We were shown evidence of some very promising prospects for drilling in the waters off the north shore. U.S. expertise in this field could benefit not only the successful drilling and production activities but would also help Cuba conduct those operations in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.
CZIKOWSKY: To me, and you may disagree, the primary reason why we have not opened better relations with Cuba is the political presence of Cuban-American voters who quite understandably are upset over the notion of greater trade with a country that mistreated so many of them. Yet, especially realizing that opening relations with Cuba will also help many of the people trapped in Cuba improve their lives, what do you see will be needed to either convince the Cuban-American voters to allow stronger relations to occur, or is this something that should be done without attempting to convince these harsh critics?
McGOVERN: Increasingly, the Cuban-Americans that I have met with want a different approach to how the U.S. deals with Cuba. Many Cuban-Americans are offended by the fact the U.S. law allows them to visit their family members in Cuba only once every three years. Many in the younger generation of Cuban-Americans have advocated improving relations. But the fact is U.S. policy reflects a double standard when it comes to Cuba. Why deal with China and Viet Nam but not Cuba? I believe that more interaction results in more freedom.

MARK FALCOFF, American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar Emeritus, August 2, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What will a post-Fidel Castro Cuba do the Cuban American voters in Florida who influence politicians not to recognize Cuba? Does this influence disappear?
FALCOFF: Actually the Cuban American voter has been tending away from the Republican Party for some time. We now have two Senators—one Republican, one Democrat, both of Cuban origin. After normalization of relations I assume the ethnic edge would gradually disappear, to be replaced by the usual economic and social drivers that determine party identification.

JULIA E. SWEIG, Council on Foreign Affairs Latin America Studies Director, February 19, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Do you see any shifts in Cuba’s foreign policies resulting from a post-Castro government, especially in the desire of Cuba to seek allies among other countries in South and Central America?
SWEIG: Since about 1988 Cuba has rebuilt its ties throughout Latin America. Even with Central America, where the countries are staunchly allied with the United States, Cuba has now if not full diplomatic ties at least the beginnings of them, with every one, except Costa Rica if my memory serves. From Cuba’s standpoint, diplomatically speaking, the Cold War ended before the wall even fell.
CZIKOWSKY: Our State Department states there will no changes on the embargo on Cuba, yet shouldn’t we expect there to be changes on this? What will it take to bring about a lifting of the embargo, and about how long do you think it will take?
SWEIG: About five years to straighten it all out, in my view. If there is the political will in the U.S.

No comments:

Post a Comment