Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4267)	5/4/2000 12:58:00 PM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9127

Here's a good summary of the background of the Cuba embargo and what *might" change in US-Cuba relations eventually: Will New Policies Wash Ashore After Little Elian Gonzalez? By GERALD F. SEIB Wall St. Journal, May 3, 2000 THE END OF THE Cold War has changed everything. Well, everything except one thing: American policy toward Cuba. In the short run, little Elian Gonzalez isn't going to alter that state of affairs. Right now, in fact, the saga of the pint-size Cuban refugee is mostly entrenching the status quo and reducing the appetite in Washington to change it. But the long run could be different. Whether the Elian episode proves to be the catalyst for change in Cuba policy depends on two things: what the political scientists know as "intensity," and what we all know as "money." Measured by the simplest test of all -- whether it succeeds or not -- U.S. policy toward Cuba is a miserable failure. For four decades, the U.S. has pursued a policy centered on economic and diplomatic isolation of Cuba. The goals are to get rid of Fidel Castro and bring democratic change and market economics to Cuba. If anything, those goals remain as elusive today as back in 1959, when Cuba's leader revealed himself to be a Communist dictator. Yet for three decades, even a policy that failed on those grounds was justifiable on national-security grounds. Keeping Mr. Castro economically weakened and diplomatically isolated was vitally important in its own right back when he was a Soviet client and avowed sponsor of anti-American revolutions. The need for security trumped any desire for policy experimentation. BUT ALL THAT changed nine years ago, when Cuba's Soviet sponsor evaporated into the East European mists. Since then, most Americans have stopped worrying about Cuba as a security threat. Until Elian, they had stopped thinking much about Cuba at all. So what has kept America's policy toward Cuba, and its sweeping economic embargo, intact? Largely, it has been the fervor of the one slice of the population that really cares, the Cuban-American community. This community may not be large in number, but it has something that counts for even more. "What matters in American politics is not general inclination or overall numbers but intensity," says Richard Haass, director of foreign-policy studies at the Brookings Institution and a former national-security aide in the Bush White House. "It's the balance of intensity. And right now the lion's share of those who feel intensely about anything to do with Cuba are Cuban-Americans who oppose any sort of normalization." For the rest of this election year, that will continue to trump all other arguments. But over time, Elian may have planted the seeds of change. For starters, the Elian episode has reminded Americans at large that the U.S. and Cuba still are locked in their own Cold War standoff, one driven on the American side in large measure by Florida's Cuban-Americans. And they haven't done themselves any favors among their countrymen with their reactions to the Elian episode. An ABC News poll last week, for instance, showed that by more than a 2-to-1 margin, Americans disapproved of the way the Cuban-American community has handled the Elian case. Other polls have similar findings. THAT, IN TURN, may present an opening to a bipartisan constituency that is emerging for the first time to challenge the status quo in general and the economic embargo in particular. A growing number of conservative Republicans have concluded that the embargo is, if anything, helping keep Castroism alive by giving the dictator a badly needed excuse for the failures of his command economy. Serious conservatives -- Sens. John Warner of Virginia and John Ashcroft of Missouri and Illinois Gov. George Ryan -- have argued it's time for a change. Sen. Warner, in particular, has proposed a bipartisan commission on Cuba that could give everyone political cover for making changes. The American business community increasingly sees Cuba as an untapped emerging market. Agricultural interests are eager to put food on Cuban tables. Businesses are interested in tapping a market suffering from a 40-year drought in consumer goods. Even Jack Sheehan, a retired U.S. Marine Corps general and former head of the Atlantic Command, has argued it makes sense to loosen the embargo against a Cuba that no longer is a threat. Mr. Haass says the U.S. could consider making changes in the embargo in either of two ways. It could move unconditionally, simply deciding it is in America's own interest to open the economic spigots, or could move reciprocally, tying economic openings to changes in Cuban behavior. Either way, Elian's case has revived discussion of such possibilities. It's also highlighted other oddities, including the fact that U.S. law gives any Cuban refugee big built-in legal advantages over someone seeking to flee, say, vicious anti-Christian persecution in Sudan. So far, the intensity of those favoring change doesn't nearly match the intensity of those opposing it. Maybe it never will. Or maybe a little boy has given change a little push.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4267)	5/4/2000 1:49:00 PM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 9127

This Elian business has put the issue back on the radar scope of typical Americans, but I don't see any stimulus out there. No stimulus, no action. I agree. In my earlier post I put the benefits/reason why it should be lifted. What you are suggesting here is correct. The stimulus (for public support), needs to come from "reasonable and wise" leadership. NOT the existing cartel of extremist. I do believe that private industry is motivated already (The proverbial profit/greed, see other countries already getting into the action), but at this time it is illegal for US companies or individuals. Now if the public decides that this change should take effect, they will create enough pressure on their corresponding representatives to bring this about. --more like "Changing the current representatives". Even if it were feasible, I'm concerned that ending the embargo on the heels of the Elian matter is a bit tacky. For those who look at life as a series of wins and losses (which appears to be most people) this matter is going to end up in what can only be called a loss for the exiles They have brought it on themselves in a most remarkable way indeed ! Why ? Because of their radical and confrontational stance. Not very smart, imo. They should/could have capitalized on this issue by behaving in a more reasonable manner. Indeed, the Cuban exile group is to the Cuban cause (i.e. lifting the embargo), what the religious right is to the Republican party ! ---> They are both extremists, and there is no possibility to encounter a "middle ground". I have always maintained that a "bad deal is better than a good fight" (of course, within limits). How can lifting the embargo be realized? By showing how much better off both Cubans and Americans would be by lifting the embargo. For one, possibly less illegal immigrants from the island, improved standard of living for the Cubans, etc. Why is it that they have motivated so many people from both sides to "rally" against each other ? Why not use the same energy to bring a more constructive change about. Can there be a "win/win" position ? I really do not know, I am a mere observer. I fail to see how both sides continue on such extremist positions and in reality no advance is made either way. It seems people at large, just like to "live in circles". I do not understand it. ______ "Pap , y si en vez de luchar con la vida, por que no mejor, nos hacemos amigos de ella ? " ~ Mafalda (cartoon caracter by Quino, in Argentina).