|
|
 |
|
|
The Prez can’t seem to catch a break anywhere. The Washington Post is out with an editorial (12.20.14) saying that Obama should have demanded more concessions on democracy as a condition for normalizing relations:
|
|
|
|
PRESIDENT OBAMA said he decided to normalize relations with Cuba because “we can do more to support the Cuban people and promote our values through engagement.” So it’s important to know the reaction of those Cubans who have put their lives on the line to fight for democracy and human rights. Many have supported engagement and opposed the U.S. embargo. But they are now pretty much unanimous in saying that the way Mr.Obama has gone about this is a mistake. (THE LINK)
|
|
|
|
The Washington Post editorial, while worthy of being considered, misses a lot of points. It compares Cuba to Vietnam and China, saying that those countries did not become more free with normal relations and trade with the US. Those countries aren’t 90 miles from our shores, are they? Those countries don’t have a long history of close association with America and Americans, do they? This point also ignores whether it is America’s responsibility to “set the world straight” about democracy and freedom and, further, whether that was, in fact, the real reason behind the standoff with Cuba in the first instance. Were they not also being punished for throwing out the American mob and taking the property of Cuban citizens, many of whom then fled here in anger?
To a major degree, Cuba is a failed state that has managed to cobble an existence out of foreign support (USSR, then Venezuela) and trapping its people on the island. The new era is likely to allow those failures to be seen more starkly and, at the same time, new contacts with America are likely to increase pressure on the Cuban government for more freedom. ANY increased freedom for the people will lead to demands for more. The administration here might also have received some private assurances in regard to more freedom, including details about opening the Internet to the Cuban people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In one of the boldest moves of his presidency, Obama is ending the half century long stand off with Cuba, a cold war with a neighbor island that has produced little movement in Cuba toward human rights or anything else the US had demanded. Fifty years of hostility and isolation, Obama said, had produced little except an excuse for the regime of the Castros to use as a prop to keep themselves in power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
screen grab from PostTV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Alan Gross, newly released from Cuba, spoke to reporters in DC, saying that the Cuban people, most of them, are kind and generous. He said he supports President Obama’s decision to open new relations with the Cuban government but he would not want to be in the Presidents place over his own life. Although Cuba has excellent medical treatment for its citizens, Dr. Gross’ teeth appeared to have been horribly neglected during his time in a Cuban prison where he was placed as a spy because he was distributing electronic equipment to help Cubans get news and information from the outside world.
|
|
|
This is one of the most interesting takes on Obama’s action, published in the NY Times:
|
|
|
|
Obama Steps Away From Six Years of Caution (open link)
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR 2:34 PM ET
President Obama seems to be putting Republican critics on notice that he will use his last two years in office to pursue his earlier campaign promises.
|
|
|
|
Here’s a clip from the Times piece:
|
|
|
The president’s unilateral action on Cuba fits a pattern that Mr. Obama has established in the twilight of his presidency. Frustrated by congressional inaction and Republican efforts to block legislation, the president has increasingly pushed the limits of his executive authority in domestic and international policy making.
|
|
|
|
TERRYREPORT COMMENT:
Put another way, after six years of acting very cautiously, Obama finally has discovered there are levers of power he has as president he can use without saying, “May I” or “Pretty please?”. When Nixon opened relations with China in the early 1970s, no one called it “unilateral action”. Many called it brilliant exercise of presidential prerogative and a decisive move. Presidents make foreign policy, just like they command the military. This often leaves those in Congress sputtering in their wake. The Times used the word “hesitancy” to describe the earlier years of the Obama administration. An interesting, telling word. I would apply the word “tentative” to what we have seen in the earlier years, a hesitancy to act and assert the powers of the presidency that bordered on being fearful. Trying to be a good guy, trying to find some common ground where none exists with the Republicans, Obama has appeared at times to almost cripple himself. Weakness is one quality that the public will not abide in a president and some of Obama’s failures to act have, indeed, made him appear weak.
Additionally, as a correction to the above Times article, Obama is not “frustrated by Congressional inaction”, but rather by Republicans and their decision to block everything possible. That is not “inaction”, it is action blocking any legislation and, what’s more, blocking any potential for compromise. This is not a matter of partisan interpretation, the gridblocking of Congress by the Republicans is being done in the open, on the public record. No mystery. It is just the fearful national media that do not report the simple facts because “facts” have become a matter of dispute. By disputing facts, no matter how obvious, the Republicans cause the major media to back up and obfuscate rather than tell the truth. Our democracy is harmed in the process.
Doug Terry, 12.18.14
|
|
