« Muzzling Yoani? | Babalu Blog - Main Page | If we say it enough, it must be true! »

Val,

There is an argument that lifting remittance and travel restrictions will help foster political change in Cuba. This is an argument or theory. It is not patently false, nor is it patently true. I'm not sure that the truth or falsity of this proposition could be satisfactorily proven because there are too many variables.

Likewise, there is a theory that maintaining and even increasing the restrictions will somehow foster change in Cuba. This too is a theory, which is neither patently false nor patently true. What we can say is that this theory has been in place for 50 years and has not yet worked. It used to be castro who denied ordinary Cubans aid from abroad. Now, we from this shore also have a hand in that.

There are those on this shore that would "selflessly" deny ordinary Cubans in the vain hope that this will lead to political change. As you can tell, I don't find this argument very convincing. Such an approach has never worked. (Witness North Korea where the communist system's inefficiency has led to hundreds of thousands dead from starvation, and that short guy with the funny hair is still firmly in control.)

There are those who believe that helping ordinary Cuban (yes, mostly family members, but also others)helps ease their burden, fills their bellies and salves their wounds, until political change does occur. We help even while we acknowledge that eventually the assistance, if in the form of cash, ends in the government's coffers. Your argument, by the way, ignores the fact that much of the assistance provided is in the form of medicine, clothing, personal care items, eye glasses, pens, pencils, etc. things that do not end up in the government's hands.

These are the two basic philosophies concerning remittances and family visits. It appears that where one stands on this issue has much to do with whether or not one has family in Cuba. Those who don't have family there sometimes purport to justify their pro-restriction position by proclaiming some higher principle. But, in reality, they are just advocating a cold and calculating political position popular with an ever decreasing segment of the exile community. This position is no more principled" than the position of those who are adamantly opposed to the dictatorship, but will not refuse ordinary Cubans money for food, medicine, shoes, underwear and all the other items which are needed over there.

So it is not me, me, me, me, me. For those of us who seek to help our family members (and others who aren't family members), it is all about them, them, them, them and them.

Anyway, one day you may wake up, and suddenly realize you've been wrong on this all along. I hope you'll post about it.

LG,

There is an argument that lifting remittance and travel restrictions will help foster political change in Cuba. This is an argument or theory. It is not patently false, nor is it patently true. I'm not sure that the truth or falsity of this proposition could be satisfactorily proven because there are too many variables

Just how many more years shall we wait to see the fruits of the argument? 1979 to 2008 is 29 years of people to people family to family contacts. Still waiting for all that change there, bro.

Likewise, there is a theory that maintaining and even increasing the restrictions will somehow foster change in Cuba. This too is a theory, which is neither patently false nor patently true. What we can say is that this theory has been in place for 50 years and has not yet worked. It used to be castro who denied ordinary Cubans aid from abroad. Now, we from this shore also have a hand in that.

First, lets stipulate that food and medicine have never been included in the embargo. Now, lets all agree that this embargo really isnt an embargo. There's so many holes in it its like swiss cheese. The only way for an embargo to work in the manner you describe is to isolate that country entirely. Put some fucking teeth into it and economically punish every single entity, every single country and person that does business with cuba and watch as Biscet turns into the Mandela of the 21st century. You do remember the eighties right? if an embargo worked for old nelson, well...you get the picture.

There are those on this shore that would "selflessly" deny ordinary Cubans in the vain hope that this will lead to political change. As you can tell, I don't find this argument very convincing. Such an approach has never worked. (Witness North Korea where the communist system's inefficiency has led to hundreds of thousands dead from starvation, and that short guy with the funny hair is still firmly in control.)

dude, If I lived in Lala land, youre argument might tug at the old heartstrings as is your intention. fact is there are almost 12 million cubans in Cuban and close to two million in exile. lets say that, and ill give you a really, really conservative number, half of the cubans in exile sent cash to family in cuba. that's about one tenth give or take, of the popuplation of cuba that would be recieving money from abroad to "salve their wounds" Wounds, I MIGHT ADD, THAT FOR MANY ARE SELF-INFLICTED. Well, what about the other 10 or so million cubans, dude? Who cries for them? whop salves their wounds?

What about them, them, them, them?

There are those who believe that helping ordinary Cuban (yes, mostly family members, but also others)helps ease their burden, fills their bellies and salves their wounds, until political change does occur. We help even while we acknowledge that eventually the assistance, if in the form of cash, ends in the government's coffers. Your argument, by the way, ignores the fact that much of the assistance provided is in the form of medicine, clothing, personal care items, eye glasses, pens, pencils, etc. things that do not end up in the government's hands.

There's been a lot of wound salving for almost thirty years. Just how much more salving are we to do? Whats the point of salving a wound if the knife is still stuck to their backs?

And please dont pull that bullshit holier than thou crap anymore. medicines, eyeglasses and other hygeine items have never been blocked by the emabrgo or restrictions.

These are the two basic philosophies concerning remittances and family visits. It appears that where one stands on this issue has much to do with whether or not one has family in Cuba. Those who don't have family there sometimes purport to justify their pro-restriction position by proclaiming some higher principle. But, in reality, they are just advocating a cold and calculating political position popular with an ever decreasing segment of the exile community. This position is no more principled" than the position of those who are adamantly opposed to the dictatorship, but will not refuse ordinary Cubans money for food, medicine, shoes, underwear and all the other items which are needed over there.

Would that be the same cold and calculating political position every cuban takes when applying foor asylum here in the states, and being granted same? UNLIKE EVERY OTHER IMMIGRANT THAT TRIES TO COME TO THE US? Im curious as to what makes you think its morally and ethically correct to leave a country for political purposes only to travel back to that same country for a wedding in 366 days? Moreover to fund that country's government economically via remittances. Because that;s a fact you have to face, my brother. if honesty is the name of the game here, then it should be across the board, no?

Take a drive down from Broward county one of these days and take a little walk through the streets of Miami with me. You will definitely learn a lot and perhaps, maybe, just be able to pull your head from out your idealist ass and see what the reality of the "travel and remittances" is.

Maybe I can introduce you to the Mulas my parents have as neighbors.

They want to got to a wedding?

Well I wanted to meet my grandfather in a free Cuba before he died just 90 miles away.

Thats what really pisses me off as well, Henry. Como si estos comemierdas fueran los unicos que "sufren". Imagine that, they cant "afford" to call cuba so they sue the government - im sure some castroite law firm is doing this pro-bono - so they can travel to Cuba and have a fucking wedding. meanwhile, when my parents missed their family members they couldnt call Cuba AT ALL. And salting the wound is that to these people what our families faced, what they suffered is irrelevant and immaterial. "Fuck em'I miss my mommie" seems to be the attitude.

Val,

1)Fifty years is a lot longer than 29 years. In any event, lifting the restrictions may or may not lead to political change; but, it will help ordinary Cubans who receive assistance. By the way, I've stated it here before, money sent over does not immediately flow to the government. It circulates among ordinary Cubans including in the black market first. It helps fuel the underground economy on which many depend. This underground economy robs the state (in more ways than one), and helps give some Cubans a degree of independence from Big Brother.

2) I agree with you that there is no real embargo. There hasn't been one in a long time. Lets also agree that (1) a South African style embargo will never be applied to Cuba, and (2) the embargo has done nothing to bring freedom and democracry to Cuba. So, then why keep it? The top leadership over aren't affected by it. They have access to anything they want, best food, goods, etc. The embargo, such as it is, only serves as an excuse for the government and to deprive ordinary Cubans of whatever additional goods they would get if it did not exist. It also deprives ordinary Cubans of jobs they would have if the economy grew (initially mainly in tourism, but other sectors of the economy as well). So, why keep something that has outlasted whatever value it may have had, when there is only a downside and no upside?

3) I won't argue numbers of those who get assistance in Cuba because I have no hard data. Neither do you. But your argument here is not a good one. You are saying that no one should get help, unless everyone gets help. Sounds kind of "socialistic" to me.

4) I don't speak for anyone who leaves the country and goes back in 366 days. It is not my situation. So you'll have to ask someone else about he morality of that. But, I do recall that in the 60's and 70's it was castro who kept families apart. Now, it is patriots on this side of the Straits who have built a political strategy out of the continued separation and deprivation of the Cuban family. As I have stated many times, the worst thing castro has done, beyond the hunger, beyond the misery, beyond the fear, is the estrangement of family members. So, I don't begrudge a new arrival the opportunity to visit family.

Finally, I'd treat you to a cafecito any time if I thought it would help convince you how wrong you are. But, I fear you are stuck in the old mentality. The analogy you like to use of the hostage with a "gun to the head" shows it. In your paradigm attacking the victimizer is paramount and acceptable, even if it results in collateral damage to the victims ad infinitum.

Val -

You argue that lifting the travel/remittances restrictions will not foster the changes we all want for Cuba. You are probably right. The U.S. government, and the rest of the world, needs to put more pressure on the dictatorship to implement the changes that are needed and to quit its own enabling of the regime, i.e. the sale of U.S. farm products to Havana. The U.S. needs to tighten other parts of the so-called embargo. Lifting the restrictions probably won't cut it.

However, let me turn it around:

How exactly have the restrictions enacted by the Bush administration brought about those changes? The regime has not suffered because of the restrictions. But the limits have caused hardships for Cubans, on the island and in the United States. I grant you that some of the "suffering" may not be sincere, but I find it hard to believe that they are all frauds. The humanitarian benefits — and that's why I favor lifting the limits, and not because I think increasing contacts will change the nature of the dictatorship — outweigh the value of any economic gains for the dictatorship.

(As a side note, I found it disheartening your suggestion that Cuban Americans unhappy about the restrictions travel via a third country. Which I am sure you know is against the law.)

Lifting the limits is a way for some Cubans in America to help some Cubans on the island. It's a not a perfect policy or practice, but then so much about the U.S. has said and done for 50 years, has been far from perfect.

Lifting the limits will not help political prisoners and it will not keep the Cuban police from harassing and arresting dissidents.Cuban. That will take other methods — methods that an American government willing to punish Cuban families has for too long been unwilling to use.

When I was studying in Cuba, I interviewed the head of the U.S. Interests Section – Michael Parmly – and his associates, who believe that the embargo actually *helps* Castro because it gives him a great big excuse and an enemy with which to unite the Cuban people.

Castro portrays the embargo as a constantly-occurring 9/11, so as to foster nationalism and keep dissidence mitigated. Val, I think your concerns are very valid, but as LG pointed out, neither of your arguments are truth, but theory.

My view of remittances is that Cubans, more than anything (yes, even political freedoms), want the 3rd world to 1st gap bridged. As long as the government fails to do this, its legitimacy in the visage of the people will decrease. Since remittances also fail to supplement this gap, they are insignificant in the grand scheme of bringing freedom to Cuba.

Change has to come from within, and the more dissatisfied the people are with the government, the more likely such change is to occur.

Marc,

You are a voice crying in the wilderness.

Lets keep trying . . . if only because we are right on this.

Well said Marc,
I have intentionally stayed quiet on this topic as it was obviously emotionally started as well as emotionally challenged by some. But once again I need to say what needs to be said. We are in a trap with the remittance issue as it is a lose lose situation. We lose in a sense as castro will profit somewhat by remittances and TRULY needy people lose by suffering needlessly to only prove a point. The bottom line is that remittances and visits will never change anything. I am not making a statement for or against by saying that. But the bottom line is that 50 more years of the same will only give us 50 MORE years of the same. My fellow Cuban Americans are free to hang their hats on every four year promises and as was stated a "swiss cheese" embargo and Cuba will not be free. Unless someone from the outside frees Cuba which is unlikely as US laws prohibit that the only thing that will ever free Cuba will be Cubans on the island. They must desire freedom en mass. If their desire for freedom is only for economic reasons such as depravation of remittances or emotional ties due to visits then they do not truly want freedom. Nor do they deserve it. We can all play armchair quarterbacks without it costing us anything. But the reality is that all this heated debate is about policies that only carry moral value at best while contributing nothing to bringing freedom to Cuba.
As I stated I am not saying to drop or keep the policies as my position has been stated before. It is to try to get people to realize that we are fighting amongst ourselves over something that is irrelavent to the freedom of Cuba.

Marc,

How exactly have the restrictions enacted by the Bush administration brought about those changes? The regime has not suffered because of the restrictions.

Marc, the loss of close to a billion a year in remittances has and does in fact hurt the regime. Why do you think raul and co felt compelled to make those superficial "changes" in allowing Cubans to purchase cellphones and microwaves, etc.. was it out of the goodness of raul's heart? of course not.

But the limits have caused hardships for Cubans, on the island and in the United States. I grant you that some of the "suffering" may not be sincere, but I find it hard to believe that they are all frauds.

Hardships like the ones Biscet and Antunez and all those on that list in your blog endure? I mean, there are hardships and then there are HARDSHIPS. Lets keep some kind of perspective. I hardly think that not being able to travel to Cuba for a wedding compares to the absolute nightmare dr. biscet and family live with.

The humanitarian benefits — and that's why I favor lifting the limits, and not because I think increasing contacts will change the nature of the dictatorship — outweigh the value of any economic gains for the dictatorship

Perhaps. But the humanitarian benefits would be exponential if the true culprit of the suffering of the Cuban people was eradicated. And you cant eradicate it if you keep FUNDING IT.

Prior to the restrictions, Cuba's number one money maker wasnt in tourism or nickel or rum exports. It was in remittances. Again, what impetus will that government have to ease any of its oppression or stop separating the Cuban family if its that which it needs for survival?

(As a side note, I found it disheartening your suggestion that Cuban Americans unhappy about the restrictions travel via a third country. Which I am sure you know is against the law.)

i wasnt suggesting anyone travel to Cuba illegally, just merely stating the obvious, which, if you loived here in Miami, youd realize just how ubiquitous it is.

Lifting the limits is a way for some Cubans in America to help some Cubans on the island. It's a not a perfect policy or practice, but then so much about the U.S. has said and done for 50 years, has been far from perfect.

Not "some," but a "tiny minority."

Lifting the limits will not help political prisoners and it will not keep the Cuban police from harassing and arresting dissidents.Cuban. That will take other methods — methods that an American government willing to punish Cuban families has for too long been unwilling to use.

exactly, lifting the restrictions will enrich the regime further and thus not only provide them the much needed economic relief to continue their repression of dissidents and others, but removes the only IMPETUS there is for change.

Oh and BTW, when those cellphones and microwaves and tvs and all that were finally opened for purchase in Cuba, the lines werent necessarily short. So, there's plenty of folks in Cuba with money to not only survive, but for luxuries that most others couldnt even think about. And, Im sure, you cant guarantee me that those able to purchase their new microwaves and cellphones werent able to do so without some cachete from abroad.

Again, we can salve the wounds or we can work to stop from getting the wounds altogether. The humanitarian difference between the two is infinite.

Val, as I have stated in your rant-post below, I know that by sending money I am not contributing to any political change whatsoever. However, the issue of sending money or not is not black and white.

I would like to know what you would have done in this situation (it happened to me some time ago): your grandfather toilet seat in Cuba broke, the only way to get one is thru the government obviously, and it cost $100, would you send the money? I sent the money and I glad I did, I want my grandfather to spend the few years he has left being able to seat on a toilet seat.

BTW: I don't know about statistics, but I have been able to help more than twenty family members from here, not to buy cell phones or computer, but cooking oil and soap bars.

- Ramon

Val, you are defending a policy that is not only immoral, it has not worked.

I agree, remittances and travel do not help the political prisoners and probably most Cuban dissidents. And neither have many other parts of American policy towards Cuba.

But that does not make the converse true.

The results show the travel/remittances restrictions have not helped the political prisoners and the dissidents. (Not to brag, but my own meager efforts on my blog that you mention have probably done more for the prisoners than any American policy.) And they have not changed the bad behavior of the castro dictatorship.

The greatest pain caused by the restrictions has been suffered by the Cuban people, not the castro dictatorship. It is abhorrant that that is because of American policy.

As for allowing Cubans to buy cell phones and microwave ovens, that was more a political /propganda maneuver designed to shore up castro 2.0 than it was an act of economic survival. It does not prove that there is burgeoning Cuban middle class on the island.

Potato and LG are right: In many ways, this is a pointless debate. However it is resolved, the situation in Cuba will be the same. Remittances will not bring down the dictatorship nor set the Cuban people free.

Maybe it is a tie and if it is, the advantage must go with what is best for the Cuban people, and not for some political talking point.

Ramon,

I cant blame you for wanting your grandfather to be comfortable and sending him a new toilet seat. And, surely, the cost of one toilet seat wont make or break the regime. But currently, you could send that money for that toilet seat without repercussion. You can send up to $100 a month if Im not mistaken.

Which is why I find all these arguments about remittance restrictions to be somewhat disingenuous. In a country where the average person makes due with $12 a month, a crisp 100 goes a long way.

Marc,

Val, you are defending a policy that is not only immoral, it has not worked.

BULLSHIT. The immorality here is to continue to fund - without any restriction whatsoever - a regime that uses said funding to incarcerate those with dissenting opinions. THAT is immoral.

there is no way in FUCKING HELL that you can convince me that every fucking family in Cuba absolutely NEEDS more than $100 a month to survive. There's no way to fucking prove it either, because the rest of the fucking population in Cuba without relatives abroad survives.

So dont give me any holier than thou "OMG thats Imoral" bullshit becuase it doesnt fucking cut it.

As far as Im concerned, it is those who oppose the restriuctions on remittances who are acting not only disingenuously, but unethically and immorally. It is those fucking dollars that pay for the beatings and actos de repudio and incarcerations that the regime systematically forces upon its people.

You gotta have some fucking balls to call me immoral because I think that sending money to Cuba for a quinces dress is wrong while calling out for a restriction - that just limits money being sent to Cuban and not prevent it - to be lifted.

Sorry, my brother.

The way I see it the only ay this regime can be toppled is by:

A) An armed intervention from abroad

B) Actions from within, a coup d'etat or popular uprising

C) International pressure

Since option A has been off the table and will continue to be off the table unless the regime were to make the gravest of miscalculations we need to look at options B and C as the most achievable scenarios with a combination of both being the most likely to have the desired effect.

Given all of that we need to understand that what we do either helps or hurts the likelihood of B and C happening. I'm only concerned about doing things that help.

Just because the United States and the exile community has failed to rally the international community and the world's media to date does not mean that it's a wrong strategy it just means we haven't been able to execute it. That's the whole purpose of this blog and things like Cuba solidarity day.

For the first time SOME of the media is reporting honest facts about Cuba. For the first time we are seeing massive expressions of international solidarity with the Cuban people. For the first time we are seeing a dissident movement that is being recognized internationally. From a public relations standpoint the regime is on the run.

I understand the desire to aid one's relatives but if your father were in prison for a crime he didn't commit would you spend your energy and resources trying to get justice and remedy that situation or lobbying the warden to serve ice cream and cookies so that your Dad might have a couple of comforts?

There can be NO DOUBT that remittances from Cubans living abroad are one of the top sources of operating revenue for castro, inc. I thought we were trying to put castro, inc. out of business not find new revenue streams for it. Pardon my ignorance.

The excuse given is humanitarian reasons (because receiving 5 times the castro, inc. wage in remittances is not enough) but what about the millions of Cubans who have no relatives to send them money, or no relatives that want to send them money or no relatives that can afford to send them money?

So rather than solving the problem for all Cubans we just want to provide some salve? Pardon my incredulity.

"Incredulity."

Henry,

the word falls way short of what Im feeling right now.

Henry -

So you punish the Cubans who have family members in the US because not all Cubans have family members in the US? That is almost as illogical, and immoral, as the suggestion that the best way to starve the dictatorship is to starve the people.

By your logic, and Val's, the correct American policy would be to ban all remittances, all the time.

If you were to be consistent, wouldn't that be the policy you should support?

Henry, your "incredulity" aside, I want to help all Cubans right now achieve the liberty they have been missing for 50 years. I hope I am helping do that with my own blog. That we disagree on remittances does not mean you care more about that than me. Or that you care more than someone who sends money to family on the island.

I don't want to help pay castro's bills, but the sentimental side of me wishes it were easier for someone like me, who doesn't have family on the island — thank God — to financially help other Cubans. I wish I could help a Cuban independent journalist buy pens and paper and computer memory sticks or help a political prisoner's family buy some food.

I am not suggesting that we change that particular part of American policy. It's probably an untenable position, considering the flak Cuban Americans get here for wanting to help family members on the island.

I am just asking that we all recognize that American policy has real consequences for the people we claim to stand for.

Val -

I did not call you "immoral." I wrote that you are defending an "immoral" policy.

Marc,

You can send a bevy of articles to Cuba without the need to send cash. There are plenty of organizations, even businesses, around that either dedicate themselves to do that or help in that way. Its stup[id to send a Cuba journalist moiney to buy a falsh drive when the same flash drive they would buy in Cuba for $100 you can get here in the states for $10. Youd be better off, and truly helping, by getting folks in your line of work that visit the island to carry a handful of those drives with them on their next trip there.

You say you want to help cubans economically? Then, I submit to you you are going about it the wrong way. Dont give them the proverbial fish via remittances, teach them how to fish by working to curtail the grip the Cuban regime has on them. Sending them cash is not going to do it as you know perfectly well the island is economically controlled by the government.

Again, it is not immoral to know that money sent to Cuba will and does end up in the coffers of the castro regime and thus refuse to send any. IT IS immoral to be aware of the consequences that each penny sent to Cuba may cause and just to feel all good inside, selfishly, send the cash anyway.

Do you think that my stance comes easy for me? Do you think it comes easy for henry? Or any of those that happen to understand the nature and reality of the regime?

Marc,

I wasn't saying that your contributions on the blogosphere don't help. Just the opposite. You could send thousands of dollars to Cuba and it wouldn't ANY damage to the regime. Yet each word you publish does incalculable damage.

What we are witnessing is the most cynical election year politics by trying to use remittances and family travel as a wedge issue. We know that remittance and travel money ends up financing the regime. Then it should be our goal to minimize it period. I could argue that it's immoral to send money to an immediate relative so he can live a little easier while his neighbor is comiendose tremendo cable because he has not relatives abroad.

You might feel good about helping your relative but you did nothing to end the nightmare.

Is this about assuaging our guilt or about ending a dictatorship.

I must be crazy then but to me the way to end a regime is not to give it money.

Question. So should we send any financial aid to dissidents? If so would we not helping the regime?
Obviously we would be eating fish and spitting out bones if we did. Whats the difference?

Dissidents are ostracized and not permitted to work, even for the meager wages offered by the cuban state. They should get some support from abroad and many do. This fact is used against them by the regime of course. It's a catch 22. That's the way the regime wants it. I wish it was easy. It's not. It's complicated and screwed up.

Val, Henry: You deserve medals. I don't know how you can put up with it, I would have popped a vein by now. Here's my bottom-line view of the above thread: Your opponents are 'hoping' for change, not working to actively achieve it. Travel and money did NOTHING to advance freedom in Cuba. All it did, and will continue to do, is to sustain/strengthen the opressors and keep the population passive. I think just about everyone agrees that the folks on the island must generate the change, well, lets push them to do it. It sounds harsh, and in certain respects it is, but those are the cold hard facts. (BTW, that's why money for the dissidents is well-spent - they are the ones fighting for change, not sitting back passively taking handouts.)

The whinners will complain about how cold-blooded that policy is and attack me personally for advocating it while sitting here safely in the US. Well, they have no logical solutions, only the same old candy-ass measures that have not, and will not ever work against such a brutal regime. Most can't see beyond the bridge of their nose, focusing and crying about their own personal 'hell'. The others are hand-wringers who are being exploited by the slimey bastards that run that system. Their policies are bankrupt when it comes to achieving freedom, especially with regards to Cuba. Val/Henry - Never, Ever, back down, keep up the good fight.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: