PROGRESO WEEKLY
April 16, 2009
Respect for national sovereignty
By Francisco G. Aruca
http://progreso-weekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=904&Itemid=1
On Sunday, April 12, I received a document sent by its authors to a
number of addressees under the title "President Barack Obama has done
his part."
I do not wish to make a full analysis of the document, written by
Lorenzo Cañizares and Rolando Castañeda. There are parts I share and
others I don't -- or share less. I respect the authors, as I do many
of those who received the article and whom I know. But it is
worthwhile to clarify points that I consider to be too important not
to answer.
The specific issue regarding the "new" Cuban American National
Foundation (CANF) deserves discussion. My criticism is based on a
full reading of the document produced by the CANF, not in the
interpretation of it made by much of the established press. Among
other things, the CANF posits:
1. That the Obama administration must not eliminate the embargo
unilaterally "without any significant evidence of irrevocable change"
on the part of the Cuban government. Personally, I consider it as
Plattist(*) and meddlesome the defense of a U.S. policy of a
unilateral blockade against Cuba as a way to carry change into our
motherland. Changes in Cuba are the responsibility of the Cubans, not
of foreign governments. To ally oneself to foreign governments,
particularly to the U.S. government because of historic relations, to
promote political plans in Cuba is nothing new in our history and
always constitutes a violation of national sovereignty. Cuban
national sovereignty is not, and cannot be negotiable, lest it denies
itself.
2. "The Cuban people, supported by U.S. policy, must be empowered to
speak out, organize, and peacefully enact democratic change." This is
a reconfirmation of the previous point. I also believe that anyone
with knowledge of the Cuban reality and our history should worry
because, among other things, if the process of change is a product of
the support of U.S. policy, sooner or later it will cease to be
peaceful -- with all the disastrous consequences that that entails.
3. Among the four recommendations the CANF makes to the Obama
administration, I wish to emphasize the following:
(a) It must increase its support for the development of civil society
in Cuba.
Here they end up lobbying, as they have done publicly in the Miami
media, for the direct and efficient remittance of funds to finance
and help the dissident or opposition movement. In other words, the
same objectives as Bush's but with greater efficiency. This meddling
by the U.S. turns any Cuban oppositionist who receives the funds into
a salaried agent of the U.S. government. Again, this is a
confirmation of the point made above about sovereignty. For a long
time now, the U.S. governments, and particularly Bush's, have backed
the development of a "civil society" in Cuba.
(b) To increase and improve communications in and with Cuba, so as to
defend the freedom of information.
Specifically, to expand and improve Radio and TV Martí. These are
products of the CANF's era that the Cañizares-Castañeda article
describes as the era of the old "recalcitrant and intransigent
leaders" during the time of the CANF's alliance with Reagan. No one
should be surprised that the Foundation ended up becoming a ministry
in the service of the extremists sectors of exiledom in Miami. This
point, like others in the document, shows the desire to regain the
level of influence the CANF enjoyed under Jorge Mas Canosa more than
the wish to become a new institution with a new focus.
4. The CANF defends the freedom of family travel to Cuba and the
elimination of limits to the remittances of family aid, not for their
humanitarian value or because they should be our right as Cubans but
because they would facilitate the delivery of federal funds to
"oppositionists" and "dissidents" in Cuba, individuals as well as
groups. That's efficient Bushism. Funds from a foreign government.
Reliance on the power groups that are well known in Miami. Plattism.
Nothing new here, either. Nothing respectable.
5. Finally, although there are many other relevant points, I wish to
close by pointing out that all the recommendations the CANF makes in
its document are justified by saying that they would achieve two
objectives envisioned by "a new policy toward Cuba." Two objectives
that the Foundation describes as "inseparable" and "intertwined": (a)
to promote the interests of the United States in the region (i.e.,
Latin America) and (b) to empower the Cuban people in their struggle
for democracy and prosperity. In other words, the CANF invites
Plattism and U.S. meddling, lest the United States see its interests
in Latin America affected.
I think that not even a slightly progressive American who reflects
the times in which we live would defend this kind of U.S. policy
toward Cuba. Nevertheless, from the beginnings of Cuban exiledom in
Miami, that has been the way to justify an alliance with U.S.
governments and to beg for their assistance.
My comments seek to stimulate a dialogue between us, so as to
develop, in the most transparent manner possible, a position among
the Cubans who live in the United States that will genuinely
contribute to the changes that approach. In the creation of that
dialogue and that position, it will be indispensable to state clear
principles that must not be negotiable. The CANF's document allows us
to begin a discussion or a dialogue about what I consider the most
important topic, precisely because we are Cubans in the United
States: respect for national sovereignty.
(*) The word Plattist derives from the Platt Amendment, introduced by
Rep. Orville Platt and passed by the U.S. Congress in 1901. That
amendment was attached to the Cuban Constitution as a condition for
the U.S. to grant an apparent but nonexistent independence to our
homeland. The Platt Amendment, which remained in effect until the
1930s, granted the United States, among other indignities, the right
to intervene at will in Cuba and awarded it territory for military
bases (Guantánamo). Therefore, in practice, the country became a
colony that had to behave according to Washington's dictates.
Francisco G. Aruca, a political analyst and radio commentator, directs the
Radio Progreso Alternativa program and participates every Monday, Wednesday
and Friday in the prime-time program "The evening moves," with Edmundo
García.
To access the complete CANF document, click here:
http://canf1.org/artman/publish/home_page/A_New_Course_for_U_S_-Cuba_policy_Advancing_People_Driven_Change.shtml
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
