Sunday, February 10, 2008

the Cuba question: where the candidates stand

I, like many (United States of...) Americans have had a hard time not getting swept up in the frenzied presidential primary season. It wasn't until late last week that I first began to wonder about what the positions of the various candidates towards Latin America might be. Predictably, after a quick google search, the bulk (read: ALL that I have been able to find) of the Latin America related primary information has to do with the candidates positions on Cuba. I have to have a pretty good reason to visit the extreme right-wing Cuban American National Foundation's website, but as it turns out they house some of the most interesting direct responses from the democratic candidates on Cuba. These responses are from a questionnaire sent to all candidates by CANF, but only responded to by both Obama and Clinton. A quick comparison yields the a couple of conclusions regarding the policy differences between Obama and Clinton:

First, Barack does not support Television Martí, saying that although he supports Radio Martí, it's television equivalent does not reach the island as its signal is jammed by the Cuban government and therefore is not a wise way to invest the hard earned money of US taxpayers. Sounds reasonable to me, and this is not the first time I have heard that Television Martí is essentially broadcasting to nobody.

Secondly, and this is the most important of the distinctions in my view, Obama supports open dialogue with Raul once Fidel passes away. Moreover, he does not support the US imposing terms or concessions on any negotiation or dialogue between the US and Cuba. Specifically he answered NO to the following question: "Should the United States require a new Cuban government to make concessions such as freeing political prisoners or allowing a free press before the United States moves to negotiate with them?" To me this echoes a sentiment of JFK's that I heard Obama use last night in his speech across the Potomac in Virginia - "you should never negotiate out of fear, but you should never fear to negotiate". Clinton on the other hand appears to favor a bit more hard line position, opposing negotiation with Raul after Fidel's death and requiring concessions for dialogue.

I won't cut and paste each candidates whole Cuba statement, but the links to their questionaire responses and statements are here:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

Unfortunately John McCain did not submit any answers to the questionnaire although word on the street seems to be that he leans towards the hardliners (not surprising). I read in the Baltimore Sun that McCain was on the USS Enterprise, which was the first aircraft carrier sent to Cuba to circle the island during the Cuban Missile Crisis, because it was nuclear capable. Nevertheless, there seems to be some suspicion in the most conservative sectors of the Cuban-American community that McCain is soft on commies due to his early advocacy of normalizing relations with Vietnam.

It will certainly be interesting to see as the primary season continues and morphs into the general election, how latin america will appear or not on the issue radars of the presumptive nominees.

ps. photo credit goes to: http://voteforbreakfast.com/images/barack_sings.jpg

1 comment:

el_hidalgo22 said...

Just after this post the other side of the aisle got some Cuba-related publicity, with some Fidel-McCain back-and-forth. Earlier this year, McCain stated that there was a Cuban torturer/interrogator (coincidetally named Fidel), who "tortured and killed [his] friends" during his time as a POW in Hanoi. He appealed to the Florida community to help find this guy "when Cuba is free," and bring him to justice. Fidel has responded, in his fashion of late, in his column in Cuba's national newspaper, Granma, denying the claim. Fidel, in fact has "written" a 5-part column on the Republicans in the US race. (His columns, for those so inclined, are flowing pieces which tend to jump around topically. I have found that, within the blah-blah, there are at least one or two interesting nuggets, but that's about all.)

This is a small point. But it helps bolster McCain's blood-and-guts image, and gives him a personal justification to avoid dialog with Cuba if elected. But if the winds are blowing the other way, and economic engagement seems the way to go (pressure to access the Cuban market or to get in the developing off-shore oil prospecting game), having inserting a personal connection gives him the credibility to move on engagement. It's a stretch, but I'm thinking something akin to Nixon going to China, but on a much smaller scale. No candidate has a personal tie to Cuba (or anywhere else in Latin America) of any kind, so it benefits McCain to use this tidbit for a bit of leverage.

On a lighter note, former GOP contender Fred Thompson got into it in a very modern way, via YouTube, with Michael Moore last spring. If I recall correctly, Thompson had criticized Moore's film Sicko (worth seeing, BTW), and Moore replied that it was known that Thompson had a taste for illegal-in-the-US Cuban cigars. Thompson replied thusly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoAB6fz8ENc

source: www.bbc.co.uk, Feb 12, 2008