Sen. Obama, hitting the right notes on Cuba

In an Op-ed in the Miami Herald (h/t Steve Clemons at The Washington Note), Sen. Obama argues that the Bush administration's policy of "restricting the ability of Cuban Americans to visit and send money to their relatives in Cuba" has failed and that it is time for change. The title of the piece is "Our main goal: Freedom in Cuba." There Sen. Obama begins by talking about his father and his journey to the US. He does this as a means of demonstrating the powerful draw that America's freedom and opportunity (our soft power) have exerted on people the world over and how we can use it as an asset in bringing change to Cuba. He essentially argues for engagement with the island and its leadership, looking forward to the Post-Fidel era.

Drawing on lessons from the Clinton administration, Sen. Obama points to how during that period Cubans and dissidents had more political space than at any other time since the Cuban revolution. He credits the policies that allowed travel to the island by Cuban Americans as an extremely important component of what he dubs, the "Cuban Spring." While acknowledging the fact that the Castro regime put an end to that brief opening with the jailing of dissidents in 2003, Sen. Obama argues that we need to reestablish that connection, because it is pivotal in fostering reforms, and eventually grass roots democracy on the island. Finally, he states that if the post-Castro regime shows a willingness to embrace democratic change, his administration (in bilateral talks) will commit the US to normalizing relations and easing the embargo that has been in place for the last five decades.

He is not the first to stake out such a position. Sen. Dodd recently guest-posted at the Washington Note on this topic. Laying out the case for change more clearly, Sen Dodd argued that

the United States' most potent weapon against totalitarianism is the influence of ordinary American citizens. They are some of the best ambassadors we have, and the free exchange of ideas and the interaction between Americans and Cubans are important ways to encourage democracy in Cuba.

For more than forty-six years, the United States has maintained an isolationist policy toward Cuba, which I believe has not achieved its intended objectives, namely to hasten a peaceful and democratic transition on the Island of Cuba. Rather, it has solidified the authoritarian control of Fidel Castro, and has adversely affected the already miserable living conditions of 11 million innocent men, women, and children on the Island.

In an earlier post, I wrote about this and noted Raul Castro's attempt to reach out to the US in a speech commemorating the Cuban Revolution. There he stated as follows:

"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."

While not optimal bargaining positions, these comments, by at least two Presidential candidates and the presumptive head of Cuba, show a willingness to improve relations between the two countries. In my post, I commented that a change from the old policy of containment that had entrenched Fidel in power was unlikely to change due to the pressures of election time, and the importance of winning the Cuban-American vote in Florida. I'm glad to be proven wrong. Still, as Clemons notes in his piece, Sen. Obama does not go far enough, since we should be throwing out the old policy and starting anew. Raul so far, seems to be more of a pragmatist than his brother, more willing to tolerate dissent and embrace reform. Still, while the elder Castro continues to live, the younger will be constrained in what he can do. A shift in American policy would go a long way to increasing the prospects for change within Cuba. That said, it is unlikely that Cuba or the post-Castro regime will be democratic any time soon. The more likely outcome will be more along the lines of what Barnett has described in his blog; economic reforms now leading to social and political reforms in the future.

As Clemson notes, however, this proposal is likely to play well only among a segment of the Cuban-American population that consistently votes Democrat. Any talk of an opening or a change from the current policy will not play well with the rest of the Cuban-American population. Given the importance of Florida in the general election, we may see some back-tracking from Sen. Obama (I hope not) should he become the Democratic candidate for President.

Sen. Obama is certainly trying to increase his image as the candidate of change and this helps him a lot. However, the inexperience will likely continue to hurt him as we move forward. Still, it is refreshing to hear a major candidate talking about a change in policy toward the Cuban regime, even if limited in scope.

Follow-up

As I indicated when I first posted this entry, Sen. Obama's op-ed on Cuba was probably not going to be welcomed by many Cuban-Americans in Florida. Already, we get this from Gateway Pundit's less than biased assesment:

Cuban Americans were not happy with Barak Obamas comments this week on "surrendering" to the Castro regime. Today they let him know itat his campaign stop in Miami.

One sign reads- "Obama You Surrender to Castro"

Yet, the policy they've supported and advocated for the last fifty years is the one responsible for keeping Castro in power.