Published Thursday, July 20, 2000, in the Miami Herald
MANUEL CUESTA MORUA
Most people want to lift Cuban embargo
Pressure simply does not work. In fact, it is counterproductive.
Manuel Cuesta Morua is secretary general of the Socialist Democratic Current, a
small dissident group in Cuba that calls for a peaceful transition to a more
democratic system.
If the United States listened to the Cuban people, to Cuba's religious leaders and
to the majority of its human-rights activists and dissidents, it would lift its
embargo and normalize relations with Cuba.
That it doesn't do so seems to be because of the power of the ultraconservative
Cuban exiles in the United States. The source of that power is difficult to fathom,
for these exiles don't determine the outcome of statewide elections in either
Florida or New Jersey, and while they may contribute handsomely to campaign
funds, their money, on a national level, can't be that important. Nor do they
represent Cuban-Americans as a whole. I've discovered there are many
moderates in that community: Cubans who believe in reconciliation and in
dialogue with their brothers and sisters in Cuba -- even in dialogue with the Cuban
government.
But the moderates aren't heard; rather, the ultraconservatives are, and they
continue to successfully insist that the embargo be continued as is. It is only by
exerting unrelenting pressure on the Cuban government, they say, that the latter
can be forced toward a democratic opening. But after 40 years, the rest of us
must ask: Where is the evidence for that? These same hard-line exiles even
would have the American public believe that they speak for the Cuban people, that
Cubans in Cuba want the embargo continued. They so assert, however, without
consulting the Cuban people.
I totally reject all these assertions, and I am in a position to do so. I speak as an
Afro-Cuban dissident who lives on the island. I am not some pro-government
sycophant. I was fired from my job in 1991 because of my views, and it is only
after four years of effort that I now have been allowed to travel abroad -- for the first
time in my life.
I work closely with human-rights activists and with other dissidents in Cuba.
Shortly, I will return to the island to continue that work. I will not presume here to
speak for my colleagues in the dissident community, but I know that I reflect the
views of most in calling for an end to the embargo and to the hard-line policy
followed by Washington toward Havana for the past 40 years.
They are relics of the Cold War and should be dispensed with forthwith. U.S.
policy, indeed, is a major obstacle to the peaceful transitional process we all want
in Cuba. A threatening U.S. attitude and efforts to choke Cuba economically
inevitably draw a defensive reaction from the Cuban government and give it the
ideal pretext to call for internal discipline and ideological unity. We cannot have
an atmosphere conducive to positive change so long as we are threatened by the
world's only remaining superpower.
Pressure simply does not work. In fact, it is counterproductive. Every time the
United States announces some new sanction against Cuba, the Cuban
government responds with an internal crackdown. The United States could do far
more to bring about movement toward a more open society in Cuba by ending its
embargo and relaxing tensions generally. It could not possibly accomplish less
than with its current policy, which after 40 years is a total failure.
The tendency of American political leaders to stick with that policy would be
comprehensible if it served the interests of other sectors in the United States. But
that isn't the case.
American farmers need markets. They want to sell their products to Cuba.
American businesses also are interested in trading with Cuba. And the polls
indicate that most Americans believe they should be able to do so.
Why then do U.S. political leaders turn their backs on the interests of these other
sectors and defy majority public opinion in a continuing effort to pander to the
wishes of that tiny group of hard-line Cuban exiles? And apparently we've just had
another example of that pandering.
American friends tell me they'd hoped Congress would this year pass legislation
making possible the free sale of foods and medicines to Cuba. Under pressure
from the Cuban-American lobby, however, the amendment that emerged from the
House has been so emasculated as to sharply limit such sales. I am told that
some of those limitations might be removed in the House-Senate conference.
That is to be hoped. Whose interests were thereby served? Certainly not those of
the American farmer. The question must therefore be asked: Do congress
members and senators from the agricultural belt represent people in their own
states or the exiles in Miami? Whose ox is being gored here?
herald.com
.. my embolding ;-) |
