As expected, Castro’s response to the unilateral easing of restrictions on travel and remittances was: “not enough.” Not surprising. President Obama took the unwise step of putting more money in the communist regime’s pockets without asking for anything in return, essentially putting Castro’s interests above U.S. interests. Heckuva chief of state we have. Sure that Obama claims that it helps U.S. interests/citizens, but I do not see how sending money to a hostile regime is in America’s best interest. What’s the return we get on that money? There’s no free enterprise in Cuba, there’s no transaction that doesn’t eventually make its way to the government treasury, and worst of all there it makes the communist repressive machine more efficient. At the very least Obama could have asked for a “thank you,” but no; the liberals are content with helping prop up a regime that embodies what they preach: wholesale redistribution of wealth (or whatever can be considered “wealth” after they’re through with their war on free enterprise).

So far, the new administration has not decided to lift the embargo… but if we are not careful Castro’s lobbying efforts might finally prove more effective than the Cuban-American community’s, possibly because one of the most prominent exile groups has softened their position (see previous post) and decided that opposing and containing communism is not the best strategy. Our very own congressmen and women are lobbying on Castro’s behalf. In the meantime, political prisoners languish in Cuban jails simply for asking for freedom… why not lobby for Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet (25-year sentence for discussing human rights)? Why not lobby for the rights of political prisoners languishing in jail for organizing petitions calling for democratic reforms?

Reading the Miami Herald, one would think that they are being subsidized by Castro-apologists… well at least one columnist: Carl Hiaasen . His recent article about CANF’s about-face, stinks of revisionist history and head-in-the-sand analysis. He claims that the U.S. has been pursuing a “fruitless course of trying to isolate Cuba.” Fruitless? Name one other full blown communist country in Latin America. Can’t do it can you? The best that Castro can do is inspire a would-be dictator who still needs to work through a democratic process (albeit a seriously compromised one) in Venezuela. Hiaasen can’t be that ignorant of our current world, so I chalk this statement up to him being a mouthpiece for the communist regime or at least of subscribing to their dystopian worldview. Hiaasen goes further in pointing out U.S. hypocrisy with respect to other dictatorships such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Libya… wow… one needs only to read my earlier posts to realize the folly of this assertion:

Some “Benefits” of Trade with Hostile Regimes:

China- involved in extensive cyber espionage, defends North Korea against sanctions in the U.N., steals U.S. nuclear secrets, violent/deadly suppression of Tibetan protests during the Olympics, largest holder of U.S. treasury securities, etc.

Russia- extensive arms sales to anti-American countries, threatened to restart arms race (over the proposed missile shield), shuts down energy flow to allied countries, defends Iranian nuclear development, bribing countries to shut down U.S. bases, etc. (see previous post)

Saudi Arabia- home to all 911 hijackers, large holder of U.S. treasury securities, etc. (see previous post for more complete analysis)

With regards to Libya, the used to be a sponsor of terrorism and finally surrendered to international pressure in renouncing terrorism, paying reparations to victims, and halting WMD programs. These concessions on the part of Libya came after many years of international pressure and unilateral U.S. air strikes that ended up killing the dictator’s daughter. While they still violate human rights, the combined carrot and stick strategy has produced results. What Hiaasen is advocating with Cuba is that easing trade restrictions will by itself cause freedom to magically spring up. In general, all of the countries that Hiaasen mentioned are current threats to national security… and Cuba, which has limited trade with us, is NOT a substantial threat. Point well taken, Carl, if we trade with Cuba then they become like these other countries. I think I’ll pass. It’s incredibly naive to think that with more funds, the communist regime will come to its senses and bring democracy to the people.

Go back to writing children’s books, Carl, because it looks like these fairy tales are getting to your head.

There you have it: Castro’s tentacles reaching into the Oval Office, Congress, and the media. This is only the beginning of Fidel Castro’s influence over Washington… We must resist the idea that we can negotiate with tyranny. America has never been fooled by it before, why start now?

-AG