The following is a series of views on the political meaning of Illinois Senator Barack Obama's campaign call for an end to restrictions on the rights of Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba and sending financial help to their families living on the island. He's not the only one calling for the lifting of some or all of such restrictions on people from the U.S. Others have also called for the removal of some or all restrictions

Views presented here include myself, Walter Lippmann, editor of CubaNews, long-time Cuba solidarity activists Karen Lee Wald of California and Ike Nahem of New York, and former Venceremos Brigadista Phil Tarley also from Los Angeles, and Martin Suter, a Canadian activist. My comments are in response to theirs. They posted their comments to the net, or sent them to me.

I've included a letter to the Miami Herald by Sgt. Carlos Lazo following my comments on this. 
Lazo, a Cuban-American whose family has been harmed by the Bush-imposed visitation rules, 
is a decorated Iraq war medic. His voice is unusually authoritative, since he's both the only 
Cuban-American among the participants, and he's personally been affected by, and fought 
actively against, the cruel restrictions on family travel to Cuba.
The selection of articles is mine alone.
==========================================================================
Some people just can't take "yes" for an answer
Comments on Barack Obama's proposals to change U.S. Cuba policy.
by Walter Lippmann, August 22, 2007

For almost half a century, mainstream dominant political discourse about U.S. policy toward Cuba 
has been characterized by a combination of silence and bi-partisanship. Washington has been able, 
for close to half a century, to prevent nearly all people from the United States, and most people form 
Cuba, too, to visit one another's countries. In the 2007 presidential nominating contests, Cuba policy 
has become an issue. This is an entirely good thing. While supporters of the Cuban Revolution may
not agree with each and every, or many of the arguments which are made to support the proposed
changes, the fact that they are being discussed and debated is a very good thing.

This reflects the demographic changes which have taken place in the Cuban-American community,
first of all in South Florida. The older and more rightist and Batistiano elements which have dominated 
Cuban-American politics are dying out and losing influence. The younger ones who may not support 
the Cuban Revolution, who mostly came to the United States in hopes of better possibilities for an 
improvement in their material way of life, are coming to the fore.  

Some perfectionistic people are freaking out about this. They say that because people like Obama
and Dodd frame their arguments in how best to overthrow the Cuban Revolution (or as Republican 
Congressman Jeff Flake has long done, that we have to raise up the warning flags and follow the
advice of Nancy Reagan. We must JUST SAY "NO" according to these people.

Personally, I'm a socialist and don't support Democrats and Republicans politically. But I'm glad to
see this issue becoming one subject to public debate in the United States. This is all to the good
as we witness the current legal phase of the Cuban Five trial. This is all to the good as we watch
a new Elian Gonzalez type of case unfolding in the courtrooms of Miami. If I had my druthers, my
preferred candidate would be Peter Camejo, but he's on sick leave. Cynthia McKinney hasn't as
yet been nominated by any political Party. Mumia Abu-Jamal is not available for public campaign
engagements right now, and he's not in quite the same position as Eugene V. Debs was in 1920.

But campaigns like those of Obama, Dodd and others are raising these issues in a very timely
and effective manner, within the framework of the political positions which they hold. No one who
supports the Cuban Revolution could get nominated for high political office in the United States
of America today. Cuba has been demonized for close to half a century. That giant mental log-jam
must be broken. Cuba has its problems, but I'm confident Cuba can handle the challenges of an
end to the travel and remittance limits, but first they would have to be enacted.
Carlos Lazo is speaking out strongly in support of the proposal to end the travel and remittance
restrictions. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he want out to raise funds for Obama. Why shouldn't he?
He's a U.S. citizen with the right to vote. He has the right to vote for anyone he wants and the right
to campaign for anyone he wants. Some people who are very strongly pro-normalization and for
good reasons are participating actively in the Obama campaign. They're even raising money for
Obama on the basis of his of his support for the right to travel. This is not a bad thing. It helps to
generate interest in the issue. It can add emphasis and encourage Obama to go further and come
out for full freedom for everyone to travel, as Dodd has done. This is not something which Cuba's
friends and supporters should be fretful about.
Winston Churchill, a reactionary if there ever was one, had a few good things going for him. One
was his expression that "prefectionism spells paralysis", on which he couldn't have been more right.
The fear and panic which some are expressing over the calls by Obama and Dodd to allow more
travel and more remittances to Cuba would be amusing if they weren't so tragically mistaken.
Among the silly comments received recently was that from the Canadian "mart" who calls Sgt. Lazo
a "baby-killer". Lazo is a medic, not a combat officer.
Ike Nahem, of whom it is my pleasure to say "I Like Ike", argues fiercely against what he says is a
series of comments he says I wrote. Unfortunately, Ike didn't read carefully since the comments he
is so upset about were written by Mathew Glesne, of A View From the Left, not Walter Lippmann.
I have never met Mathew Glesne, but he and I are, as they say in Cuba "en la misma trinchera"
(literally, in the same trench) on thinking that when candidates think it's good for their campaigns
to come out for travel to Cuba, that's a "GOOD THING" and not a "BADDD THING."

Ike Nahem, a well-intentioned militant who enthusiastically supports the Cuban Revolution, some
of the time gets a bit carried away with the exuberance of his verbosity. This was the friend who
thought that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a PRO-war movie[?!?!]. Here's what Ike wrote about that:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/f-9-11.html 
Finally, let's keep in mind what Blase Bonpane explained awhile back: "Perfectionism is not part of the 
program. We don't wait to do the perfect thing before we do something. Those who are waiting 
for perfection will live and die without doing anything. 
http://www.walterlippmann.com/bonpane-religion-and-revolution.html  
Some people, it really does seem, would prefer that Cuba remain poor, but pure. This is where 
I part company with that paralyzing kind of political non-thinking. Where Ike and some others 
go wrong on this? Basically, they haven't understood what is perhaps one of the most 
profound concepts to come out of the Cuban experience. As Jose Marti explained clearly:
"to achieve certain objectives, they must be kept under cover; to proclaim them for 
what they are would raise such difficulties that the objectives could not be attained."
PERFECTIONISTIC POETRY:
"Mother, may I go out to swim?" 
"Yes, my darling daughter, 
Hang your clothes on a hickory limb, 
But don't go near the water."
Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
August 25, 2007
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ 
==========================================================================

MIAMI HERALD
Posted on Fri, Aug. 24, 2007

http://www.miamiherald.com/456/story/213577.html 

Ease travel rules

As a veteran of the Operation Iraqi Freedom, a proud combat medic in the U.S. Army and, foremost, a Cuban-American victim of the inhuman Cuba travel restrictions imposed by the Bush administration, I thank Sen. Barack Obama for his stand on lifting these cruel regulations (Our main goal: Freedom in Cuba, Aug. 21, Other Views).

He is right that, "Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island.''

Since the policy was implemented three years ago, most in the Cuban community have realized that these despicable travel restrictions lack common sense. The regulations not only have taken away our chances to have normal relationships with our families in Cuba, but also have stolen the most basic right to go to the funerals of our parents.

I do not know if Obama will win the Democratic nomination or if he will become president. But I do know that he has already won a place in the hearts of thousands of Cuban Americans for his courage, integrity and compassion.

CARLOS LAZO, Lynnwood, Wash.


==========================================================================
Here is the Cuba dialogue page of Obama for President website:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/cubadialog 
==========================================================================
From: Mart4 <mart4@sgci.com> >
Sent: Aug 25, 2007 12:47 AM 

Re: [Cuba SI] IMPORTANT: Sgt. Carlos Lazo: "Ease Travel Rules" (letter to MH)

Quote from Sgt. Carlos Lazo that ending travel restrictions to Cuba are - "our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of 'grass-roots democracy' on the island.''? Huh?? Cuba under socialism is in *inherently* more democratic than the U.S. or any other country under capitalism could ever be. Walter - why do you persist in posting diatribes from anti-communist, anti-Cuban propagandists like Lazo and his ilk here on the Cuba Si list?? Fuck 'proud U.S Army Iraqi invader, occupier and baby murderer 'Sgt. Carlos Lazo! Lazo chose sides a long time ago and this dispute between the Bush regime and Lazo (and Obama and the rest of the Democrats too, for that matter - is merely a dispute on tactics as to he best way to attack, subvert and destroy Socialist Cuba! Lazo is only reaping the treatment, typical of his U.S. government masters - whom he himself has willingly chosen . He feels betrayed?? Boo hoo! Poor anti-socialist bastard! The U.S absolutely must end the illegal and immoral blockade of Cuba and the travel restrictions that the it imposes on it's own citizens. That's all fine, good and necessary. But not with the goal of Lazo, Obama and others of ilk - and which is ultimately, absolutely the same as the Bush regime anyway - to subvert and ultimately, bring about the destruction of Socialism in Cuba!


==========================================================================


From: Ike Nahem <ikenahem@mindspring.com>
Sent: Aug 21, 2007 6:25 PM
To: CubaNews@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CubaNews] Obama Calls for Easing Anti-Cuba Restrictions

Walter,

It's astonishing to me that you would practically praise Obama as "bold" and "politically smart" for his absurd position that the best way to bring about "freedom" and "democracy" in Cuba and end "Castro's dictatorship" and "discredited ideology," is to ease the embargo, actually he doesn't call for anything beyond allowing Cuban-American remittances and the unrestricted right of Cuban-Americans (but no one else apparently) to visit Cuba, so he is in no way calling for an easing or amelioration of economic sanctions. There is nothing "bold" about what he says. On the contrary it is totally cowardly. It doesn't even propose going back to the failed "Track 2" policies of Clinton, the velvet glove around the iron fist of Helms-Burton. Obama's posture, with the exception of easing remittances and Cuban-American travel, is no different than the foraml position of the Bush Administration: "If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed elations between our countries for the last five decades." There is nothing there that the Bush State Department hasn't said, or any other White House since Kennedy for that matter.

Furthermore you write that "Havana already knows the their prospects in Washington are better than at any time in recent history." The complete oppoosite is the truth. Fidel stated very clearly a couple of "Reflections" ago that "No one should entertain the slightest illusion that the empire, which carries the genes of its own destruction, will negotiate with Cuba. Though we have said, again and again, that our struggle is not against the people of the United Sates -something which is absolutely true- the latter is not in a position to curtail the apocalyptic impulses of its government or the foul and insane call for what they label a "democratic Cuba..." And he doesn't just mean Bush. What is obvious is that Obama, after his flare up with Hillary Clinton over saying he would "meet" with Fidel, Chavez, and other heads of government in conflict with Washington, that he felt the need to state clearly to the ruling class that he will toe the line on Cuba and stay within the framework of the purely tactical debate over whether the best way to destroy the Cuban Revolution is through maintaining and/or intensifying the economic and political war or whether by easing or ameliorating economic and travel sanctions which will allow "Americans" to bring the "ideals of freedom and capitalism" to the "oppressed Cuban masses" and "take away Fidel Castro's excuse to justify the failure of the Revolution." My own opinion is that neither line will defeat the Cuban Revolution, but that the latter "anti-embargo" position is completely false and would have the opposite effect that it's promoters say. In that sense Bush and the Miami Herald types are much more correct from the point of view of any possible chance of "regime change", which all of these liberal and conservative imperialists want. Easing or ending the embargo will "entrench" and "strenghten" the Revolution and make it an even more powerful and resonant.

And that is the point: it is a total misreading of the current political realities in the US, Cuba, and Latin America to think that at this moment when Latin America is undergoing great changes and popular upsurge, when Washington is trying to rerail its policy and take the offensive against the deepening anti-imperialist dynamics represented by developments like ALBA that it would basically capitulate and give up and recognize Cuba's sovereignty -- and to do this without Cuba's government ceasing to be revolutionary, communist, and carrying out a foreign policy of proletarian internationalism. Don't hold your breath on that one!

Finally you write, "As long as they don't make any mistakes, Cuba will be in a position to negotiate (behind the scenes) with the next Admin successfully. I think Raul has been trying to make that clear. Cuba could care little about reversing these stupid Bush policies. They will wait until they get a just return from the US in return for any planned reforms. Perhaps a grand bargain - property claims cancel out embargo damages. Perhaps a grand bargain - property claims cancel out embargo damages. End of embargo for certain political or economic adjustments that give the US political cover." All I can say in response to that flight to fantasy (and total misreading of what Raul is saying, which is not one iota different from what Fidel has said) is that if you really believe that then I'd like you to look at this beautiful ocean-front property in Bolivia that I'm trying to sell.

I love ya Walter but let's get real here!

best,

Ike Nahem

From: Walter Lippmann 
To: CubaNews 
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 5:10 AM
Subject: [CubaNews] Obama Calls for Easing Anti-Cuba Restrictions

Obama Calls for Easing Anti-Cuba Restrictions

http://aviewtothesouth.blogspot.com/2007/08/obama-calls-for-easing-anti-cuba.html 

So Barack Obama has taken the bold step into Cuban-American politics. He is set to release an op-ed announcing his intention to reverse a couple mean-spirited Bush policies that affect Cuban-Americans ability to travel and send money to relatives.

Obama's move is a modest and politically popular position - even in most Miami neighborhoods. Still, to be the first to stake out this easy position was politically very smart. It could help him in the Florida (and NJ) primaries. If someone wanted to trump him, and get help in the farm states, they'd pledge to also end the senseless agricultural restrictions (on payment and just doing business). If convictions trumped politics, they'd pledge to also end the travel ban.

I find the hardline response in the Herald (from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC's Claver-Carone) to be completely uninformed: "It (Obama's as yet unknown op-ed) entrenches the regime at this historic time."

Havana already knows the their prospects in Washington are better than at any time in recent history. As long as they don't make any mistakes, Cuba will be in a position to negotiate (behind the scenes) with the next Admin successfully. I think Raul has been trying to make that clear. Cuba could care little about reversing these stupid Bush policies. They will wait until they get a just return from the US in return for any planned reforms. Perhaps a grand bargain - property claims cancel out embargo damages. End of embargo for certain political or economic adjustments that give the US political cover. The path seems to be getting clearer as Cuba's relative strength increases. Obama however, is not to blame - Bush's stupid policies and Cuba's relative strength and stability are.
===========================================================================

PHIL TARLEY writes: (August 21, 2007)

I read with bewilderment Obama's Cuba op-ed in The Miami Herald. Sad to say Obama's views regarding Cuba seem crafted to carve a bold separation between his policy of engagement and Hillary's policy of containment. Neither candidate is dealing with the reality of the Cuban gestalt. Obama seems not to have a clue as to what life on the ground is like for Cubans. Hillary does not seem to care.

It is obvious that both candidates will say whatever they need to in order to get elected. Both want to curry favor among Miami Cubans. Neither will offer real cures for lousy US policy.

Phil Tatley
VB 2003
============================================================================

KAREN LEE WALD wrote: (August 21, 2007)
As I pointed out in an earlier article, Obama is NOT talking about "freedom to travel to Cuba" for ALL of us; he is simply wooing the large numbers of Florida Cubans that polls indicate want to be able to visit and help their relatives -- and get a foot in the door for investment opportunities.  This speech/article in Miami makes clear where his politics lie....and shows he is certainly not a friend of the progressive forces who want our country to treat Cuba with the respect any sovereign nation deserves. In fact, I haven't heard any presidential candidate other than Kucinich say anything about Cuba that we could wholeheartedly endorse -- and the Dem Party machine will never give Kucinich a chance to run....klw
============================================================================
 

The Miami Herald

Posted on Tue, Aug. 21, 2007
Our main goal: Freedom in Cuba
By BARACK OBAMA
When my father was a young man living in Kenya, the freedom and opportunity of the United States exerted such a powerful draw that he moved halfway around the world to pursue his dreams here. My father's story is not unique. The same has been true for tens of millions of people, from every continent -- including for the many Cubans who have come and made their lives here since the start of Fidel Castro's dictatorship almost 50 years ago.

It is a tragedy that, just 90 miles from our shores, there exists a society where such freedom and opportunity are kept out of reach by a government that clings to discredited ideology and authoritarian control. A democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy. We need a clear strategy to achieve it -- one that takes some limited steps now to spread the message of freedom on the island, but preserves our ability to bargain on behalf of democracy with a post-Fidel government.

The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways. U.S. policy must be built around empowering the Cuban people, who ultimately hold the destiny of Cuba in their hands. The United States has a critical interest in seeing Cuba join the roster of stable and economically vibrant democracies in the Western Hemisphere. Such a development would bring us important security and economic benefits, and it would allow for new cooperation on migration, counter-narcotics and other issues.

Advance political reform
These interests, and our support for the aspirations of the Cuban people, are ill served by the further entrenchment of the Castro regime, which is why we need to advance peaceful political and economic reform on the island. Castro's ill health and the potentially tumultuous changes looming ahead make the matter all the more urgent.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has made grand gestures to that end while strategically blundering when it comes to actually advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in Cuba. This is particularly true of the administration's decision to restrict the ability of Cuban Americans to visit and send money to their relatives in Cuba.
 
This is both a humanitarian and a strategic issue. That decision has not only had a profoundly negative impact on the welfare of the Cuban people. It has also made them more dependent on the Castro regime and isolated them from the transformative message carried there by Cuban Americans.

In the ''Cuban spring'' of the late 1990s and early years of this decade, dissidents and human-rights activists had more political space than at any time since the beginning of Castro's rule, and Cuban society experienced a small opening in advancing the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.

U.S. policies -- especially the fact that Cuban Americans were allowed to maintain and deepen ties with family on the island -- were a key cause of that ''Cuban spring.'' Although cut off by the Castro regime's deplorable March 2003 jailing of 75 of Cuba's most prominent and courageous dissidents, the opening underscored what is possible with a sensible strategic approach.

We in the United States should do what we can to bring about another such opening, taking certain steps now-and pledging to take additional steps as temporary openings are solidified into lasting change.

Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Accordingly, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.

But as we reach out in some ways now, it makes strategic sense to hold on to important inducements we can use in dealing with a post-Fidel government, for it is an unfortunate fact that his departure by no means guarantees the arrival of freedom on the island.

Bilateral talks
Accordingly, I will use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That message coming from my administration in bilateral talks would be the best means of promoting Cuban freedom. To refuse to do so would substitute posturing for serious policy -- and we have seen too much of that in other areas over the past six years.

We must not lose sight of our fundamental goal: freedom in Cuba. At the same time, we should be pragmatic in our approach and clear-sighted about the effects of our policies. We all know the power of the freedom and opportunity that America at its best has both embodied and advanced. If deployed wisely, those ideals will have as transformative effect on Cubans today as they did on my father more than 50 years ago.

Sen. Barack Obama is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

(c) 2007 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.