Published Tuesday, July 25, 2000, in the Miami Herald
Is this it? Are we finally witnessing the oft-announced but never consummated turning point in U.S. policy toward Cuba and in the balance of power within the Cuban-American community? Or is this another instance of wishful thinking on the part of Cuba doves whose moves once more will be
effectively checked by hardliners?
That's the question posed by a set of surprising new developments:
A new, Republican-led congressional consensus for softening the embargo.
Early steps toward a new, moderate Cuban-American organization.
Efforts by the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) to bring in new blood and resources to salvage the hardline policy and maintain its dominant position in the policy debate and in the exile community in the wake of the Elián fiasco.
The most important new wrinkle is that in Congress for the soft underbelly of the embargo -- restrictions on travel and trade in food and medicine -- has all but collapsed. It's amazing to see GOP from conservative states leading the charge. Only the GOP House leadership remained
loyal to the hardline program.
To beat back the revolt, the leadership used parliamentary sleight of hand to prevent a floor vote that would have shown the breadth of sentiment for a change in policy. But, alas, GOP rebels had one up their sleeve, too: an amendment denying funds to enforce the objectionable parts of the
embargo. That move effectively frustrated the leadership's efforts to prevent a democratic vote. When the amendment ed overwhelmingly, it meant that even the U.S. House now repudiates significant components of the embargo.
The Elián controversy, which cast exile hardliners in a starkly unfavorable light before a national audience, may have been a catalyst. But for the embargo was eroding before Elián, mainly because powerful new players, namely business and farm organizations, had entered the
debate for the first time.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. for a hardline policy was built through lobbying and campaign contributions. As long as the CANF was pitted against liberal academics, religious and humanitarian groups and the Cuban-American moderate minority, it was no contest. Business and
agricultural lobbies are another matter. They have the money, the knowledge and the will to play the kind of hardball politics the CANF has employed so successfully. The failure of the embargo to bring any positive results after almost four decades adds the force of logic to the case being made by
anti-sanction forces through sheer power politics.
In the face of this challenge, the CANF has countered with plenty of new faces but scant new thinking. In fact, Joe Garcia, the young, new executive director, seems more bent on establishing his hardline bona fides through inflated, ridiculous rhetoric than setting a new path for the
organization and the exile community. According to a Herald profile, Garcia ``casually characterized a U.S.-licensed Miami-Cuba charter airline operator as `Mengele,' for the Nazi-era concentration camp doctor nicknamed The Angel of Death . . .'' To equate the Cuba travel business with Nazi crimes
against humanity is to engage precisely in the kind of thinking that leads sensible people to conclude that exile hardliners lack any sense of perspective or proportion.
In light of CANF's failure to rethink the new realities, challenges are looming. Carlos Saladrigas, a top business executive, has been leading efforts to create a new, high-powered and, reportedly, more centrist Cuban-American organization. That could be a significant development for Miami and
for Cuban Americans. But can the new group put itself ahead of the rapidly moving curve on Cuba while withstanding the hardline backlash, or merely be a new vehicle for old ideas?
[email protected]
Max J. Castro, Ph.D., is a senior research associate at the University of Miami's Dante B. Fascell North-South Center.
Copyright 2000 Miami Herald |