Posted on 12/19/2014 2:53:51 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Libertarian icon Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) embarrassed himself on Friday when he took to Twitter to respond to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) who recently insisted that the junior senator from Kentucky “has no idea what he’s talking about” with regards to his support for lifting restrictions on bilateral relations with the Cuban government. By attempting to defend himself, Paul ably proved the Florida senator correct.
Paul began…
Hey @marcorubio if the embargo doesn't hurt Cuba, why do you want to keep it?
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 19, 2014
And this one got the libertarian supporters cheering in the stands:
Senator @marcorubio is acting like an isolationist who wants to retreat to our borders and perhaps build a moat. I reject this isolationism.
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 19, 2014
He continued:
The United States trades and engages with other communist nations, such as China and Vietnam. So @marcorubio why not Cuba?
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 19, 2014
And, finally, Paul closed:
.@marcorubio what about the majority of Cuban-Americans who now support normalizing relations between our countries? http://t.co/0qhSOeD9Va
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 19, 2014
Paul’s arguments above were summed in an op-ed released on Friday in Time Magazine.
Where to begin?
First, as The Federalist’s Sean Davis pointed out, the parallels between the extension of diplomatic relations to Cuba and similar overtures toward China and Vietnam are misguided. The American interest in “opening” China was primarily political; exacerbate Sino-Soviet tensions, bifurcate the communist world, and provide America with a freer hand to prosecute the Vietnam War.
China under Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping engaged in dramatic market-oriented economic reforms in the 1970s, and there was no “normalization” of relations between Beijing and Washington until 1979 – well after Kissinger and then Nixon had famously visited the reclusive communist giant in 1971 and 1972 respectively. Reforms first, normalization second.
Moreover, the suggestion that the opening of bilateral diplomatic ties and business relations between America and China helped to transform the People’s Republic into a human rights paragon overnight is complicated by the 1989 massacre of peaceful pro-Democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square. Even today, despite a booming and markedly capitalist economy, China remains one of the world’s leading human rights abusers.
Since bilateral trade relations alone cannot be counted on to spark internal democratic reforms, it must be – and traditionally has been — granted only as a reward for reforms undertaken preemptively.
As for Vietnam, a shift in policy in that country also preceded the normalization of relations with America. The most notable of these was Hanoi’s decision to withdraw its troops from Cambodia in 1989 following years of requests.
“Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia has been, along with the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, one of the major East-West issues,” The New York Times reported at the time. “China had vowed not to improve relations with Moscow until the Vietnamese left Cambodia. And Vietnam’s own efforts to obtain aid and recognition from the United States in the aftermath of the Vietnam war were frustrated by Washington’s insistence that Hanoi withdraw its troops from Cambodia first.”
Reforms first, normalization second.
Paul has admitted, perhaps unwittingly, that he does not regard internal reforms as a necessary precursor to the normalization of Washington’s relations with communist nations; a break from previous American foreign policy upheld by all American presidents with the exception of Barack Obama.
In fact, Paul mirrored tired Obama’s rhetorical tactics when he erected the straw man of “isolationism” – a false equivalency that irritates both the junior Kentucky senator and his libertarian backers mightily – in order to slay it. He might as well have said that he “rejects this false choice.”
As for Paul’s contention that the majority of Cuban-Americans (as well as the majority of all Americans) support the normalization of relations with Cuba, he’s not wrong. But America is not a democracy. We elect the representatives with expertise in the fields of governance and international relations which are most qualified to manage America’s complicated foreign affairs. Should the American Congress decide that it is in the best interests of the United States to open relations with Cuba, it will reflect the will of the people. As it is, the president has unilaterally made that determination himself; an act well within his authority, but one so autocratic that it is shocking a self-professed supporter of limited executive power would support it so fervently.
Paul represents a libertarian wing of the GOP which provides the party with a critical infusion of youth and vitality. On the domestic front, libertarian policy prescriptions are often inspired and would if adopted produce the long-sought conservative goal of reduced governmental interference into American lives. Paul’s approach to foreign policy matters are, however, not nearly as well-founded as are his domestic reforms.
If Paul’s intention in this burst of tweets was to both reveal his ignorance of the history of normalizing relationships with communist countries and to almost perfectly echo the most liberal president in modern American history, mission accomplished. His judgment has, however, been exposed by this episode as rather questionable.
An earlier version of this article failed to note the premiership of Zhou Enlai.
AMERICANS BEWARE!
Pope Francis concocted Obama’s unconditional surrender to Cuba Stalinist regime.
Behind Obama’s unconditional surrender to the Castro’s brothers, is the plot to make the American taxpayers liable for whatever the American companies sell to Cuba. The end of the embargo is their goal. "Because of something called the Export-Import Bank there's no risk whatsoever in exporting to bankrupt, murderous and kleptocratic regimes- worse there' no incentive for the kleptocrats to clean up their act, as would happen under a genuine free-market. Also the World, financed 80% by the American taxpayers will open their vaults to be freely looted by the Castro brothers."
Castro helped to bankrupt the Soviet Union, Obama before leaving want to complete the destruction of United States.
In the commercial and political relations of the Cuban regime and the U.S. there are several priorities to be concerned with.
1st. Cuba has defaulted in all his international financial deals and Castro encourages other Third World nations to follow his example. Why are we going to sell to someone without the expectation to ever be pay. The American taxpayers should be aware that they are the targets of the scam by which the multinationals sell to Castro whatever he needs and we, the taxpayers, end footing the bill. Castro for 42 years has been with commercial ties with over 150 nations. Now when he has exhausted the patience of nations fool enough to have given him credit, Castro’s puppets in the media, the congress in cahoots with some greedy commercial circles are trying that the American taxpayers shoulder the heavy burden of subsidizing his regime to the tune of 9 billion dollars.
2nd. The American companies cannot made business legally with Cuba without violating several American laws.
A.- Trading with the Enemy Act.
B.- U.S. Commercial Embargo Against Cuba.
C.- Helms- Burton Law.
D.- Involvement in bribes in commercial dealings with another nation. :
E.- Involvement in slave labor of foreign workers in connivance with the local authorities.
3rd. Cuba is, and has been a terrorist state for 54 years, and counts with advanced chemical, biological and cyber warfare capabilities aimed against our country. The cooperation between the Cuban regime with Iraq and Iran in the chemical and biological research is well known. A few months before the September 11 attack Castro affirmed at the University of Tehran that their cooperation would put the U.S. down to its knees. Castro once tried to nuke our cities and he has the means and the will to fulfill his dream of destroying our country. If we are involved in a worldwide war against terrorism, Cuba at 90 miles from our coasts should be a prime target in that war; so, those involved in appeasement policies towards Castro and in the promotion of the lifting of the commercial embargo against Cuba are in fact aiding and abetting our worst enemy.
The British intelligence recently made public the relationship between Castro and the terrorist guerrillas of Colombia, IRA, and Chilean terrorists. The socialist administration in Chile has expressed their deepest concern to Castro. The Cuban dictator, as usual, disregarded Chile's official inquiry into the matter and denied that any of those Chilean terrorists had ever been in Cuba, although there are phone calls that were intercepted between them while in Cuba and their relatives in Chile.
We have to wonder why Obama unconditionally surrendered to the Cuban Communist thugs endangering the security of the U.S.?
the maximum should be mandatory
Do you recall the many Cubans who risked their lives on the open sea to escape communism and Castro?
Do you recall the many Cubans who risked their lives on the open sea to escape communism and Castro?
” What I hate is condoning law breaking. That is a slippery slope. Without adhering to laws, we become a lawless society. The illegals must go back and wait in line behind legal immigrants waiting in line. The only amnesty they can get is they will be allowed to apply legally.”
Are you saying that if a poor family broke into Rand Paul’s house and commandeered several rooms to live in and also hacked into his accounts to live off of his income that he could or should in any way feel beset apon? Why how illiberal can he get?
I agree. And the pope does too!
Fairly good review of the US China opening of relations and importantly recognizes that far from bringing freedom to China, the PRC remains one of the most repressive countries in the world.
There are some mistakes:
“First, as The Federalist’s Sean Davis pointed out, the parallels between the extension of diplomatic relations to Cuba and similar overtures toward China and Vietnam are misguided. The American interest in “opening” China was primarily political;”
Yes very true
“...exacerbate Sino-Soviet tensions, bifurcate the communist world, and provide America with a freer hand to prosecute the Vietnam War.”
This last one is partially accurate, but it was not to more freely prosecute the war but to end it with a Korea like solution where an independent South Vietnam would exist
“China under Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping engaged in dramatic market-oriented economic reforms in the 1970s”
Time frame is not right. Mao died in ‘76 and Deng did not consolidate power until 1978/1979. Market reforms did not begin until after this.
“and there was no “normalization” of relations between Beijing and Washington until 1979 – well after Kissinger and then Nixon had famously visited the reclusive communist giant in 1971 and 1972 respectively.”
Accurate In terms of official diplomatic relations.
“Reforms first, normalization second.”
Fully untrue. In fact Nixon and Kissinger went at the height of the insane Cultural Revolution which did not fully end until Mao’s death in 1976.
The contingent that went to Beijing later admitted they were unaware of the depths of the social instability and depravity of the Cultural Revolution at the time of their visits.
Another thing, Zhou Enlai died before Mao in 1976 and had nothing to do with Deng’s reforms. He was dead three year before Deng took power.
My 18yo daughter asked me if normalization with Cuba was a good idea. I told her Obama supported it. That was all she needed to know. I think perhaps I have taught her well.
That you, White House propagandist?
Well consistent with his other recent opinions, he (the pope) has shown himself to be not a very good leader. He has been known, in the past, to be very tolerant of liberation theology. So I guess it a birds of the feather thing.
I’m good with the idea of opening up Cuba.
Rand Paul just doubled down on Rubio on Megan Kelly’s show on Fox News (with Shannon Breen subing for Megan). Paul said that Rubio’s remarks directed at him were offensive and that he (Paul) would continue to respond in a similar manner to Rubio. Paul’s attitude was combative and he said, in response to a question, that differences were policy related and not related in any way to his (or Rubio’s) possible run for President in 2016.
Ann Barnhardt had him nailed when he was inaugurated.
What about Joanne Chesimard?
She’s a black radical who was convicted of first degree murdering a New Jersey state trooper. After escaping from prison in the US, she has been living in Cuba for years.
Do we get her back, Sen. Paul?
Rand Paul is an ass. Stay in Kentucky, Obamalover.
I do not understand your point.
The illegals coming is mostly fault of our own, not the illegals. It is the socialist community organizer from south side of Chicago who will not build border protection or enforce existing laws to deport them.
A better similarity is me leaving my garage open, no one in the garage, and place sandwiches on a table, and then blame someone who comes in and eats them.
Rubio thinks because of his background he is an expert on immigration and Cuba.
I don’t agree with Rand because there is nothing significant to gain there compared to what Nixon did with China.
Sounds like a difference of degree.
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.