Tag: Cuban-American relations

Mr. Obama has engaged in yet another radical departure in U.S. foreign policy with his opening of relations with Cuba for the first time since 1961.

Two vital questions remain unanswered.

Why has the White House chosen this peculiar point in time to engage with Havana, and

what benefit does the U.S., other than public relations praise from several Latin America leaders, stand to gain from the move?

The President is, once again, using Executive Authority rather than consultation with Congress in this matter, resulting in both those questions remaining insufficiently answered.

Mr. Obama’s penchant for ignoring long-standing and unresolved issues in dealing with nations at odds with America was again on display as he maintained, in a well-publicized recent quote about his stance on Cuban-U.S. relations, “The United States will not be imprisoned by the past — we’re looking to the future. I’m not interested in having battles that frankly started before I was born… The Cold War has been over for a long time.” The Cold War remark is rather strange, in light of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, dramatic arms buildup, threatening actions towards Europe, and nuclear patrols off U.S. coastlines.

There have been debates concerning a softening of relations with Havana for years.  However, the Castro leadership’s continued intransigence in refusing to provide basic human rights to its people, support of terrorism, and continuing military threats to other nations including the United States prevented any progress.  Those factors have not improved, and, in terms of its willingness to allow Moscow to use Cuba as a military base for actions compromising the national security of the United States, their actions have in fact recently worsened.

Under the terms of the new relationship, Cuba will be removed from the list of states sponsoring terrorism, despite the fact that it continues to do so. Example includes continuing support for Basque terrorists and sheltering Joanne Chesimard and Charles Hill, who murdered U.S. police officers, and Guillermo Morales,  an explosives expert/bomb maker for the FALN (Fuerzas Armadas Liberacion Nacional), an extremist organization advocating for Puerto Rican independence through acts of violence. The group, active in the 1970s and early 1980s, is credited with committing more than 100 bombings that caused several deaths, multiple injuries, and millions of dollars in damage.

The two nations will exchange embassies, and engage in some prisoner exchanges. Some restrictions on commerce will be eased, but the embargo will not be completely removed unless Congress approves. The move would allow U.S. residents to send funds to family members in Cuba, and ends most travel restrictions. This should substantially assist Havana’s economy. There is no substantial benefit to the U.S. economy, or a resolution of the confiscation of American property by the Castro regime.

There is no indication that Havana will ease its extreme suppression of human rights on the island following the normalization of relations. Indeed, even during the discussions leading to the new relationship, Cuba imprisoned 140 additional people for political reasons. Freedom House noted that “In 2014, the Cuban government increased its systematic use of short-term “preventive” detentions—along with harassment, beatings, and ‘acts of repudiation’—to intimidate the political opposition, isolate dissidents from the rest of the population, and maintain political control of all public spaces. A record number of politically motivated detentions were recorded in 2014, and crackdowns on activists continued. For example, an attempted performance that addressed social and political issues, orchestrated by artist Tania Bruguera, was met with harsh repression in December.” Freedom House also reported that “Cuba is the only country in the Americas that consistently makes Freedom House’s list of the Worst of the Worst: the World’s Most Repressive Societies for widespread abuses of political rights and civil liberties.”

Considering that the United States is receiving no substantive financial incentive from Obama’s initiative, and human rights considerations are essentially ignored, why has the White House chosen to aid the Castro regime at a time when Havana is assisting Moscow’s expanding military presence in Latin America?
It is required that the patients also follow the sale viagra dosage plans to stay safe and avoid the side effects of Oral Steroids. You need a minimum time (months) to resume the erection process after encouraging the blood circulation and curing the muscle tissues of the genital areas. levitra de prescription The power, dose, strength of medicine and valsonindia.com cheapest levitra the cost of which is lower than the other medicine. Both these type of buy female viagra a male perform throughout sexual experience.
Last July, The Guardian reported that “Russia has quietly reached an agreement with Cuba to reopen a Soviet-era spy base on America’s doorstep, …The deal to reopen the signals intelligence facility in Lourdes, south of Havana.”

The move is part of a larger Russian effort to expand militarily throughout Latin America. The authoritative Jamestown Foundation  has reported:

“Nobody should think that Moscow’s aggressive campaign to restore its former status as a global great power or its fundamentally anti-American policy is currently confined to Ukraine. Indeed, while the invasion, occupation and annexation of Crimea—not to mention the threats to eastern Ukraine—continue, Moscow is also seeking to expand its military, political and economic footprint in Latin America. Russia seeks to establish permanent bases in the Western Hemisphere to challenge the U.S.  With Brazil, Moscow is trying to generate interest in joint development of combat aircraft and surface-to-air missile systems. If successful, this would mark a step toward creating a group of industrialized countries that employ Russian designs and design bureaus for creating their own military hardware, thereby making the Russian defense sector more secure, pervasive and particularly significant in high-tech areas. Meanwhile, Moscow will sell entire weapons systems to less-developed countries endowed with cash, as it has done with Venezuela he United States’ policies as well as to try to peel away US allies from Washington’s influence. … But arms sales hardly exhaust Russia’s repertoire here. Perhaps the most significant move was revealed on February 26 by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu when he described a global plan of potential bases for the Russian Navy. These targets for bases also include countries in Asia like the Seychelles Islands and Singapore (RIA Novosti, February 26). In Latin America, Russia is seeking bases in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, all of whom are Moscow’s allies. Yet, significantly, two of these states—Cuba and Venezuela—could face a change of leadership or even regime in the near future. These proposed naval bases represent an effort to undermine the US and its allies in Latin America (ITAR-TASS March 5; lignet.com, March 18). Indeed, the Russian military is also seeking equatorial bases for refueling its Long-Range Aircraft, suggesting combat missions for them in the vicinity of either Latin America or North America (ITAR-TASS, March 5). Nicaraguan media reports, meanwhile, pointed to the expansionist logic behind Russia’s bases and Moscow’s desire to challenge the United States in its “backyard.” These reports also noted that the Barack Obama Administration has done little or nothing to counter the expansion of Russian and Chinese influence into Latin America (La Prensa, March 3, 4).”

Moscow has helped create and foster anti-U.S. activities in Latin America that go far beyond the usual verbal expressions of disdain for the United States.

As previously reported in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government  “With the assistance of China, Russia, and Iran, a number of Latin American and Caribbean nations are developing a new, hostile military structure. The Strategy Center’s study on the Advance of Radical Populist Doctrine in Latin America describes how Venezuela has utilized its vast income from oil sales to develop an anti-U.S. movement in the western hemisphere. Entitled ALBA (also known as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) it was initially formed by the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in 2004 and includes Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Dominica, Ecuador, Antigua & Barbuda, and Saint Vincent & the Grenadines.

“The organization espouses an overtly anti-capitalist agenda.

“According to a Bolivian diplomatic document reviewed by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, the organization seeks to develop a number of cooperative economic initiatives, and most importantly, a “new military doctrine.”  This alliance is clearly anti-U.S….

“Gen. John Kelly, in charge of the U.S. Southern Command which has responsibility for Latin American security matters, is deeply worried that the slashed American defense budget has been deeply detrimental to our interests in Latin America and is ‘significantly degrading our ability to defend the southern approaches to the United States.”

Clearly, America gains very little from normalizing relations with Cuba. The White House has failed to explain its motive for doing so, other than the President’s dislike for continuing policies that predate his administration.

Providing unreciprocated concessions to a regime that continues to violate human rights, supports terrorism, and has recently welcomed military threats against America onto its soil renders both the existence and timing of Mr. Obama’s actions deeply troubling.