The Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF) was founded in 1981 by Jorge Mas Canosa and for the purpose of advancing freedom and democracy in Cuba, a communist controlled island 90 miles south of the United States. The group, under Mas Canosa’s direction, pushed for a strategy of isolating the regime while helping the Cuban people generate change on the island. The strategy included policies such as the embargo and programs such as Radio Marti and TV Marti that transmitted pro-democracy messages directly to the people of Cuba, bypassing the official censored communist media. Mas Canosa’s leadership helped shape U.S. foreign policy to Cuba and contributed in isolating communism to this island during a critical time in the Cold War and after. He passed away on November 23, 1997 due to lung cancer.

Today, CANF is a very different organization. Since the death of Mas Canosa, there has been what some describe as a softening of their positions and what other describe as a more pragmatic approach. In general, I have hoped that this group would take a stronger stance and hold policy-makers in Washington more accountable to their promises of helping Cuba rid itself of totalitarian communism. For too long, both Republicans and Democrats would travel to Miami promising to stand up to Castro and to help bring democracy to the island while sipping Cuban coffee and yelling “Cuba Libre,” all without the intention of doing anything of significance. Unfortunately, the organization seems to have lost the fire in its belly and I can cite no constructive policy coming out of Washington with their stamp. Even Bush’s restrictions did not directly bring Cuba significantly closer to freedom. Worse, a few days ago the Cuban-American National Foundation released recommendations on US-Cuba Policy that explicitly calls for ending direct confrontation with the communist regime, to engage in limited bilateral/multilateral diplomacy, and to relax our policy of containment. In other words, CANF has put forward a plan that agrees to everything Fidel Castro wants: normalization of relations, though in an incremental fashion.

In this proposal to the current administration, called the White [flag] Paper, they say that the US policy since the Cold War has been ineffective at promoting our own interests and the interests of the Cuban people. I, as well as many others, disagree. The policy of containment has limited communism to Cuba only. Imagine a western hemisphere with a communist Mexico on our border, or a communist bloc in South America reporting directly to Moscow during the Cold War… it would have been a recipe for disaster and a threat to freedom on this side of the world. The Cuban Missile crisis showed us how dangerous communism could be when brought to our doorstep. Furthermore, the strategy could have been more successful if we actually contained Cuba, but we did no such thing. The embargo only prevented trade between the United States and Cuba, the rest of the world was open for business. Regardless, the communist regime would pilfer the nation’s resources selling them on the world market, denying Cuba citizens the fruits of their labor, and creating a society of haves (the Castro cartel) and have-nots (everyone else). With the Soviet Union in their corner providing them with an immense amount of aid, “containment” was incomplete at best. So when CANF insists that we take a new direction, I would agree if what they advocate is a dual strategy of actual containment coupled with grassroots empowerment. The policy would be simple: weaken the oppressors while strengthening the oppressed. Instead, CANF insists on a strategy that doesn’t put more pressure on the communist rulers but pins its hope on the rationality/understanding of the dictator(s), and I quote: “It requires Cuba’s present rulers, or their successors, to understand that… the incorporation of grassroots reforms demanded by the Cuban people, are absolutely essential to the nation’s future prosperity and stability.” Naive and dangerous.

I understand the spirit of these proposals which insists on supporting the non-violent, pro-democracy dissident movement that is constantly threatened, harassed, beaten, and arbitrarily arrested, but when it comes to US policy towards Cuba, we should not start increasing the prestige, power, and wealth of these dictators. In one form or another, the proposals in this White [flag] Paper give the communist government in Cuba more international legitimacy and more direct funding. I might be willing to accept a little bit of funding to trickle into government coffers if it asymmetrically made the democratic activists stronger… but for this to happen, the communist regime must be under pressure, it must be contained, and it must be challenged at every turn. You cannot do one without the other. This has been the failure of US-Cuba policy, it only pursued quasi-containment and did not assist the resistance on the ground.

Now, a few old battle-weary warriors and young, kumbaya idealists are beating the drums of defeat and leading us down the road to appeasement. As a whole, I reject the White [flag] Paper and only hope that America do the same, particularly the Cuban-American community. As for CANF, I used to proudly carry around my membership card, but since I am foremost a member of a group of free people throughout history who never surrendered, like George Washington and Antonio Maceo, I offer this gesture:

-AG