Cuba, another country ready for the soft-kill

At least according to the slew of articles reporting on Raul Castro's speech, commemorating the start of the Cuban Revolution in 1953. These reports seem to indicate that change is in the air for the Island nation. In his speech, Raul frankly acknowledged problems with the country's agricultural production, economic performance, and even the low wages which are at the heart of people's complaints.

In addition, he has called, once again, for dialogue with Washington. Given the recent spat between Senators' Clinton and Obama over when and how to engage adversaries, the comments seem perfectly timed. Raul, however, made clear that much like the rest of the world, he is looking past the Bush administration and the 2008 elections saying,

"If the next U.S. government puts arrogance aside and decides to talk in a civilized fashion, that is welcome. If not, we are prepared to continue facing their hostile policy for another 50 years." Reuters

In his speech, Raul (talking about the nation's problems) called for "critical and constructive debate to rid Cuba's 90-percent state-owned economy of bureaucratic inefficiencies." He also said that the country needed to produce more of its own food, and cut its reliance on imports, promising reforms to the agricultural sector, as well as a greater opening to foreign investment. The Times reports that fewer dissidents have been arrested since the younger Castro came to power, and that he has the importing of more TVs and even ordered a state newspaper to investigate "the poor quality of service at state-controlled bakeries and other stores."

Raul has also directed the government to pay debts it owed to private farmers and has allowed the prices the state pays for milk and meat to rise. Despite this, the Times reports that the elder Castro remains an important player, and as such Raul cannot move more assertively in with his reform agenda.

Change for our own policy, however, is unlikely to happen soon. Election time, given the importance of Florida to any Presidential contest, is a bad time to begin talking about improving relations with the Communist regime in Cuba. Already the State Department has issued a statement saying that "the dialogue that needs to happen is in Cuba." Tellingly, the article in Reuters article cited above, has a Cuban dissident making the exact same argument as State. Reading this, made me think that maybe Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton's statements during the debate, that they would meet engage diplomatically with the leaders of our adversaries (even if they themselves differed on the manner in which to approach this), achieved one thing; it signaled to the world that the U.S. itself is ready for a new direction. As I said above, it won't come easy, but having maintained the embargo for almost 50 years, it's about time that we look for a better way.

Raul, no matter what many thought is not going away, and neither is the Communist Party and the institutions set up by Fidel. The country has remained stable, and functioning despite his absence, and that is a fact we have to accept it. Barnett has talked about this in his blog, and argued against the very perception that a post-Fidel Cuba would see the collapse of the system he built. He has also blogged on a post-Castro (meaning both brothers) scenario for reconnecting this state to the globalized world. Given Raul Castro's willingness to not only engage the U.S. but also to open up his country to more economic connectivity, it is incumbent on us to exploit that opportunity and give the Cuban people a chance at a better life.