Posted on 05/16/2003 12:05:34 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
My travel companion's mugging in a desolate Havana neighborhood summed up Cuba's plight. A boy, perhaps 13, had tried to snatch her money belt. He failed, but she was badly bruised and scraped.
At a hospital, she received immediate attention. The visit was free, of course.
But it took stops at two pharmacies to fill prescriptions for an antibiotic and ibuprofen. Even with its own biotechnology industry, Cuba still suffers from shortfalls of basic drugs.
The next day, as we waited for a cab, a man idling on a corner befriended us and asked my friend about her injuries. His concern seemed genuine. But when we got into a cab, he hopped in, too. He insisted on staying with us to make sure there would be no more trouble. It wouldn't cost much, he said.
When we declined his offer, he shrugged and exited the cab. It was worth a try.
Such constant asking must take a toll on the collective soul of Cubans. As neighbors of the United States, they are also reminded ad nauseam of Americans' voracious consumption of the luxuries they are denied by the embargo.
(Excerpt) Read more at sunspot.net ...
Before examining that, however, let's retire one particularly tired and self-contradictory "argument" against U.S. policy toward Cuba: The embargo is a convenient "excuse" for the Castro regime's failures.
At the minimal risk that a generalization like this creates, nobody who believes in (or at the very least understands) capitalism still holds that Cuba is an economic sinkhole because of U.S. foreign policy. As such, it is foolish to claim that the embargo is an "excuse" for the Castro regime's economic failure. This argument shifts blame to the Cuban people, for their implied stupidity. No émigré I've ever met believes their hardship resulted from U.S. policy. The embargo is an "excuse" only to the Left, for whose intellectual shortcomings I make no defense.
Everyone in Havana knows they receive one bar of soap per month because of decisions made by Castro, not Washington. To argue otherwise is to deny the Cuban people an "insight" most Americans take as common sense.
The most recent way to blame the United States for Castro's brutality is by criticizing the actions of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana. The argument goes that were it not for U.S. diplomats-invariably portrayed by the media and the Left (quibble, quibble) in C.I.A.-like terms-supporting pro-democracy forces in Cuba, Castro wouldn't have to hand out life sentences like candy.
This is an insidious form of blaming the victim, along the lines of a domestic abuse counselor inquiring, "Why didn't you stop complaining after your husband hit you the first time?"
If only those pesky Cubans didn't want freedom so badly and the U.S. government wasn't so willing to help them, Castro wouldn't have to play the stern father.
What appears to be an attack on American actions turns out to be a much harsher attack on those who support American values from abroad. Imagine blaming the Berlin Wall jumpers for forcing the guards to pick them off like tin ducks in a carnival.
Moral relativism is a valued tradition for the Left, but some on the Right also equate a principled policy decision with the type of restrictions on freedom implemented by Castro.***
Does Danny know this?
I recently heard a lady psychobabble expert on the radio describing Saddam Hussein (with all his murals, statues, and paintings) as a "malignant narcissist." Seems to me the description would just as easily fit Castro. It probably fits most evil dictators, in fact.
Of course it's the fault of the embargo. One should never mention the oppressive communism, nor Castro's confiscation and destruction of wealth. Saying such things could ruin one's reputation as an objective journalist.
As early as today, President George W. Bush will spell out what his administration plans to do. The wisest course would leave U.S. policy alone and concentrate diplomatic efforts on nations in Europe and Latin America that now trade with Cuba without regard to its dismal human-rights record.
Tightening the U.S. embargo by making family remittances or direct travel to Cuba illegal would only encourage people to go through third countries to reach family. Most Cuban-Americans want more family contacts, not less.
No, the best U.S. course is to focus on Mexico, Chile, Spain, France, Italy, Canada and all the other countries with businesses on the island. Most of their leaders, including Mexico's President Vicente Fox, already have given the dissidents credibility by meeting with them while visiting the island. European diplomats in Havana, particularly those from Spain, often invite dissidents to partake in their national celebrations. That has put Cuban officials on notice that creating a civil society that values diverse viewpoints is not a U.S.-manufactured plot but a universal goal, spelled out in the United Nations' own declaration of human rights.
If Bush focuses on what's best for the Cuban people, he would mount a diplomatic campaign for the European Union and the Organization of American States to put pressure on Cuba and free the dissidents.
Cuba's crackdown on dissent merits more than world condemnation, more than protests against the communist regime in Spain or France or, as are planned for this weekend, in New York and Washington. The Europeans and Latin Americans wield the big stick of trade if they care to use it. If not now, then when?***
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.