Castro Stepping Down

[JayB]

Failing a stepwise approach, my second option would be to drop the embargo immediately and watch economic liberty work its magic on the regime, who could no longer blame the US for the suffering endured by its people.

 

Yeah, then they can blame the multinationals. Can't wait to get me some of those magic boneless buffalo wings! And TruckNutz are going to look great on those decaying '57 Chevys.

 

The horror. I'm sure that they'd rather keep the repression, poverty, etc if they knew that Boneless Buffalo Wings were waiting for them on the other side of Communism.

[JayB]

If I were in charge of policy I'd make trade relations and embargo easing contingent upon the regime taking concrete steps to enhance the liberty of Cuban citizens.

 

E.g. - drop the detention of political dissidents, and we'll drop the embargo in X area. Allow unrestricted access to all broadcasts, and we'll drop Y. Pass a law guaranteeing freedom of speech or allowing for the formation of opposition parties, and we'll drop the demands that you compensate US companies that had their assets seized, etc.

 

In the end - if there's a regime in Cuba that wants to continue playing dress-up and calling itself Communist that doesn't repress its citizens, allows them freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc - I can live with that.

 

Failing a stepwise approach, my second option would be to drop the embargo immediately and watch economic liberty work its magic on the regime, who could no longer blame the US for the suffering endured by its people.

 

 

 

We don't do this w/r/t China.

 

I'd say that we have more leverage with Cuba, but if it turns out that I'm wrong - unilaterally dropping all sanctions would ultimately have the same effect, but it would just take longer to arrive at the same end.

 

Give people enough economic freedom and ultimately the state depends on the people for it's existence, rather than the converse.

[sexual_chocolate]

If I were in charge of policy I'd make trade relations and embargo easing contingent upon the regime taking concrete steps to enhance the liberty of Cuban citizens.

 

E.g. - drop the detention of political dissidents, and we'll drop the embargo in X area. Allow unrestricted access to all broadcasts, and we'll drop Y. Pass a law guaranteeing freedom of speech or allowing for the formation of opposition parties, and we'll drop the demands that you compensate US companies that had their assets seized, etc.

 

In the end - if there's a regime in Cuba that wants to continue playing dress-up and calling itself Communist that doesn't repress its citizens, allows them freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc - I can live with that.

 

Failing a stepwise approach, my second option would be to drop the embargo immediately and watch economic liberty work its magic on the regime, who could no longer blame the US for the suffering endured by its people.

 

 

for the sake of moral consistency, i assume you would support this approach with saudi arabia, kuwait, pakistan, jordan, etc etc? or do you only see it being morally applicable to small powerless impoverished countries?

[sexual_chocolate]

by the way, it's "its", when its possessive qualities are in question.

[JayB]

Wow, Jay. You really think we should be in the business of telling other countries how to run their internal affairs? You're hard core. I'm sure lots of right wing nut jobs will agree with the sentiment - those bastards are no good and we are good and they should be like us - but I doubt such a foreign policy agenda would turn out well.

 

Are you serious?

 

We'd be making them an offer, which they'd be free to reject if they saw fit, which I suspect they would - since they seem to have a keener sense of their vulnerabilities than the average American leftist. Where is the coercion here? What is the moral and/or practical downside of using the prospect leveraging trade benefits that will lift the standard of living of all Cuban citizens in exchange for alleviating the many forms of repression that the Cuban government inflicts upon its citizens.

 

I would also make sure that we used all of the broadcast technologies at our disposal to insure that the Cuban people knew what was on the table.

[JayB]

If I were in charge of policy I'd make trade relations and embargo easing contingent upon the regime taking concrete steps to enhance the liberty of Cuban citizens.

 

E.g. - drop the detention of political dissidents, and we'll drop the embargo in X area. Allow unrestricted access to all broadcasts, and we'll drop Y. Pass a law guaranteeing freedom of speech or allowing for the formation of opposition parties, and we'll drop the demands that you compensate US companies that had their assets seized, etc.

 

In the end - if there's a regime in Cuba that wants to continue playing dress-up and calling itself Communist that doesn't repress its citizens, allows them freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc - I can live with that.

 

Failing a stepwise approach, my second option would be to drop the embargo immediately and watch economic liberty work its magic on the regime, who could no longer blame the US for the suffering endured by its people.

 

 

for the sake of moral consistency, i assume you would support this approach with saudi arabia, kuwait, pakistan, jordan, etc etc? or do you only see it being morally applicable to small powerless impoverished countries?

 

Morally applicable, no. Practically applicable, yes. Do you find this morally objectionable? If so, why?

 

A second question concerning the support that the Cuban regime enjoys amongst Cubans. Given the difficulty that you or I have discerning the convictions of the average Cuban, I'd agree that it's difficult to tell where they stand from a distance.

 

However, I'd venture that the Cuban regime is laboring under no such disadvantage, and knows full well where it stands. Given that the Cuban government has a much more accurate understanding of popular sentiments than you or I possibly could - what do you make of their decision to maintain their repression of the Cuban people by denying them freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc? If the regime knew that it had the undying loyalty and affection of its citizens, would there be any need for it to imprison dissidents, execute potential rivals like Ochoa, etc?

[mattp]

I think it'd be a better idea to unilaterally drop all sanctions. In cases of genocide we have some responsibility to intervene but where the complaint is that the State controls the TV or even some of the more egregious offenses on Jay's list I generally don't think we should try to tell other countries how to run their affairs. You can certainly convince me this should not be a hard and fast rule, but in general it just doesn't seem to serve us well.

 

My comment about the elections that sent you guys into a tizzy the other day was based in part on this idea: there is an obvious hypocrisy inherent in Bush's telling other countries how they need to run fair elections when his own elections have at best been controversial even if you guys bristle at the suggestion, and by ALL accounts our elections are far from perfect. We insist on full access for our observers to monitor foreign elections while denying or allowing only selective access for foreign observers to monitor ours. How obviously bogus is that?

 

If you really believe that free market trading will reshape any country into a democracy resembling our idea of what it should be, why WOULDN'T you let let the free market do its thing and thereby prove to the world just how great capitalism really is?

[JayB]

by the way, it's "its", when its possessive qualities are in question.

 

Yes.

[mattp]

By the way, if you agree that we should tell other countries who to put in jail, where exactly do you draw the line? I agree that nobody should be jailing political dissidents but in the case of some of our middle eastern friends they jail women who won't wear the burka. Do we tell them that is not OK? What if our friends in Europe try to tell us that it is barbaric to use the death penalty? OR to have such a huge percentage of our population in jail for minor drug offenses?

[JayB]

I think it'd be a better idea to unilaterally drop all sanctions. In cases of genocide we have some responsibility to intervene but where the complaint is that the State controls the TV or even some of the more egregious offenses on Jay's list I generally don't think we should try to tell other countries how to run their affairs.

 

My comment about the elections that sent you guys into a tizzy the other day was based in part on this idea: there is an obvious hypocrisy inherent in Bush's telling other countries how they need to run fair elections when his own elections have at best been controversial even if you guys bristle at the suggestion, and by ALL accounts our elections are far from perfect. We insist on full access for our observers to monitor foreign elections while denying or allowing only selective access for foreign observers to monitor ours. How obviously bogus is that?

 

If you really believe that free market trading will reshape any country into a democracy resembling our idea of what it should be, why WOULDN'T you let let the free market do its thing and thereby prove to the world just how great capitalism really is?

 

So I presume that you also objected to interfering in, say, in Serbia's internal affairs? How about Rwanda's internal affairs? If not, what's the difference here?

 

As far as Cuba is concerned, you still haven't answered the questions. What are the concrete negative moral or practical consequences that will result from using our leverage with Cuba to entice them to sign voluntary agreements which relax the repression of Cuban citizens? The reason to use leverage to promote more rapid adoption of basic human rights in Cuba should require no argumentation, but if necessary - the main argument I'd put forward is that it would be more likely to vastly accelerate the changes that would naturally occur if the embargo was abandoned.

 

As far as the elections are concerned, I've dealt with your statements before. No objective, sane deliberative body has found any of your accusations against Bush credible in the least. As far as the larger process is concerned, what aspects of formal election process that brought Bush into office differ in any respect from those in operation since George Washington was voted in? This notion that the operation of the electoral college should render any sitting president mute when observing the likes of the election that kept Mugabe in office are difficult to reconcile with any precept of logic, morality, or rationality that I am familiar with.

[sexual_chocolate]

 

A second question concerning the support that the Cuban regime enjoys amongst Cubans. Given the difficulty that you or I have discerning the convictions of the average Cuban, I'd agree that it's difficult to tell where they stand from a distance.

 

However, I'd venture that the Cuban regime is laboring under no such disadvantage, and knows full well where it stands. Given that the Cuban government has a much more accurate understanding of popular sentiments than you or I possibly could - what do you make of their decision to maintain their repression of the Cuban people by denying them freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc? If the regime knew that it had the undying loyalty and affection of its citizens, would there be any need for it to imprison dissidents, execute potential rivals like Ochoa, etc?

 

if some were to foment rebellion in the US, and work for the overthrow of the US government, what do you think the ramifications for the perpetrators would be? just curious....

 

but, here's an interesting factoid which you probably recall:

 

boris yeltsin barely won an election against a communist in the '90's. the soviet establishment was every bit as repressive as castro's has been, was it not? yet the representative of this establishment would have probably won a free election, were it not for large cash infusions from the west for his opponent (and now witness putin's popularity!).

 

it would be truly interesting for me to witness a free election in cuba, with fidel as one of the candidates.

 

oh, another interesting one: our old friend daniel ortega won a free and fair election in nicaragua.

 

 

when we think we can speak for the people of another country, we only show our ignorance and arrogance.

 

[JayB]

By the way, if you agree that we should tell other countries who to put in jail, where exactly do you draw the line? I agree that nobody should be jailing political dissidents but in the case of some of our middle eastern friends they jail women who won't wear the burka. Do we tell them that is not OK? What if our friends in Europe try to tell us that it is barbaric to use the death penalty? OR to have such a huge percentage of our population in jail for minor drug offenses?

 

1)When it serves to promote a basic human liberty.

 

2)Yes and yes.

[mattp]

? I can't really figure out what you are saying in either of your last two posts that appear to be directed at me.

 

In the last one, are you suggesting that anybody who doesn't have and maintain a bill of rights like ours - or whatever exactly you list as the fundamental liberties that should be protected - should face economic sanction?

 

Is the freedom to be healthy a basic liberty?

Education?

Or are you just thinking about being able to watch tv, surf the internet, and say bad things about the government.

[TREETOAD]

Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, lets not for get the never ending effects of agent orange, throw in a couple of test nukes in Japan and you have the makings of a real sweet rap sheet. Castro was no angel, but not so bad in the scheme of things. Humans decide to do bad shit everywhere they go, but nothing compares what they do to the non human species of the earth. We are greedy, consumptive dinosaurs.

[Crux]

Economic freedom depends upon the state for its existence, although Friedman economic theory is based on the contrary and false premise that free markets exist in the absence of the state and the legal framework and distributions it provides. The American system provides a state that depends upon the people, and through the state the people have opportunity to provide an economic framework whereby individuals are at once empowered and protected. (Not just protected.) Friedman theory, your theory, posits that capitalism is the prime mover of liberty. We disagree with you, and we will continue to press forward with the time tested notion that democracy is our key to freedom, and that it's by democracy that we must determine our way, rather than surrender to unrestrained capitalism and the cancerous outcomes it invariably presents.

[TREETOAD]

uh huh thats what I meant to say.

[JayB]

 

A second question concerning the support that the Cuban regime enjoys amongst Cubans. Given the difficulty that you or I have discerning the convictions of the average Cuban, I'd agree that it's difficult to tell where they stand from a distance.

 

However, I'd venture that the Cuban regime is laboring under no such disadvantage, and knows full well where it stands. Given that the Cuban government has a much more accurate understanding of popular sentiments than you or I possibly could - what do you make of their decision to maintain their repression of the Cuban people by denying them freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc? If the regime knew that it had the undying loyalty and affection of its citizens, would there be any need for it to imprison dissidents, execute potential rivals like Ochoa, etc?

 

if some were to foment rebellion in the US, and work for the overthrow of the US government, what do you think the ramifications for the perpetrators would be? just curious....

 

but, here's an interesting factoid which you probably recall:

 

boris yeltsin barely won an election against a communist in the '90's. the soviet establishment was every bit as repressive as castro's has been, was it not? yet the representative of this establishment would have probably won a free election, were it not for large cash infusions from the west for his opponent (and now witness putin's popularity!).

 

it would be truly interesting for me to witness a free election in cuba, with fidel as one of the candidates.

 

oh, another interesting one: our old friend daniel ortega won a free and fair election in nicaragua.

 

 

when we think we can speak for the people of another country, we only show our ignorance and arrogance.

 

You seem to be conflating those who might wish to venture a critical opinion of the government with those who advocate overthrowing it. There is quite a distinction there, no? So far as I know, we are free to advocate for an overthrow of the government so long as we don't engage in any violent plots to do so. You are also equating the violent overthrow of a totalitarian regime that relies on repression to remain in power, for the purposes of alleviating the said repression - with a violent overthrow of a liberal government established and maintained by the action of the voters. What could be the purpose of a violent overthrow in the later case? Would there be no moral difference between the two?

 

As far as Russia is concerned, the former regime may have won the first election - but if they permitted free speech, free association, and the like - they'd have to earn that right every election. Had that been the case, fine. Had it not - the government would have had to rely on other means to secure its power, which is largely what Putin has done since that time.

 

As far as Cuba is concerned, Fidel may well have won every open election since 1959. If he himself was confident of that fact - why has he not permitted free elections at any point since that time, nor has he allowed the citizens the basic freedoms necessary to make an informed decision? But in the end - I agree - let them speak for themselves through their free votes. That their doing so will always promote liberal ends is demonstrably untrue - but that leads to a larger discussion about whether democracy is valuable as an end in itself or as a means of perpetuating an institutional framework within which liberty is preserved. I don't personally think that the democracy is best understood, nor is its chief virtue that sometimes it serves as, an institutional framework in which the majority is free to do everything to everyone else, but here we may disagree.

[JayB]

Economic freedom depends upon the state for its existence, although Friedman economic theory is based on the contrary and false premise that free markets exist in the absence of the state and the legal framework and distributions it provides. The American system provides a state that depends upon the people, and through the state the people have opportunity to provide an economic framework whereby individuals are at once empowered and protected. (Not just protected.) Friedman theory, your theory, posits that capitalism is the prime mover of liberty. We disagree with you, and we will continue to press forward with the time tested notion that democracy is our key to freedom, and that it's by democracy that we must determine our way, rather than surrender to unrestrained capitalism and the cancerous outcomes it invariably presents.

 

See the final portion of my last post for a reply to your statement here.

[JayB]

? I can't really figure out what you are saying in either of your last two posts that appear to be directed at me.

 

In the last one, are you suggesting that anybody who doesn't have and maintain a bill of rights like ours - or whatever exactly you list as the fundamental liberties that should be protected - should face economic sanction?

 

Is the freedom to be healthy a basic liberty?

Education?

Or are you just thinking about being able to watch tv, surf the internet, and say bad things about the government.

 

 

1) No - but this is a massive distortion of the case of Cuba. Feel free to explain the moral and practical downsides of doing what I suggested at your leisure.

 

2)What *exactly* do you mean by "the freedom to be healthy?" Is there any necessary contradiction between enjoying basic human liberties and health, between exercising free speech and health and/or literacy? If not - then what is your point here? If you want to argue that free speech and the like have to be sacrificed in order to promote health-care and literacy, or that health care and literacy are ends that justify depriving people of their rights to vote in free elections, own property, speak freely, etc - then have at it.

[mattp]

What is the massive distortion in the case of Cuba? Did I say anything about what freedoms Cuba does or does not maintain?

 

Is the freedom to carry guns or to maintain them in your home a "basic liberty? How about the freedom to choose who you sleep with?

 

In many nations, healthcare is seen as a fundamental right, not quite the same thing as a fundamental liberty I suppose but probably equally fundamental as compared to, say the right to private or commercial TV broadcasting. Should Europe consider imposing sanctions on us until we adopt universal health care?

 

Where do your views on abortion fit into this? Is it a "basic liberty" to be born? Or to control what happens to and in your own body?

 

Women's right to vote or ???? you name it. I'm sure you get the idea: one man's "fundamental liberties" are another man's "politically correct."

 

I understand your "they are perfectly free to take it or leave it" argument - but aren't you suggesting that we can and should seek to impose our values on - as Cocoa points out - poor nations?

[mattp]

The basic problem I see with your idea of broadly imposing economic sanctions when we don't like how a country runs their affairs is that they don't seem to work. Cuba, Iraq, and Burma come to mind. Any upside is offset by making ourselves look like we are trying to impose American values on the rest of the world, a loss of influence because we restrict our communication with these other nations in the process, a real expense in terms of lost trade if not enforcement costs, and a general damage to our prestige.

[JayB]

1)How about a simple, declarative statement every now and then instead of an evasive interrogative?

 

2)Guns in home. Yes.

3)Choosing who you sleep with. Yes.

3)If they wish, of course.

4)Clinton's formula. Safe, legal, and rare. Yes - including legalizing all currently illegal drugs, and legalizing organ sales from adults who can establish that they are mentally competent and understand fully the ramifications of their decision.

5)There's a difference between promoting values and imposing them. I am not opposed to using an exchange mechanism (dropping embargo's for establishing freedom of speech in places where it's currently restricted, on a take it or leave it basis) in those cases where such methods will be effective. In cases where we have no leverage, I'd be happy to substitute unconditional free trade. I think there cases - both rare and extreme - where the use of force is warranted as a last resort. Would military intervention in Rwanda count as an intolerable interference in the affairs of a sovereign state, or an unjustifiable imposition of values on a non-consenting populace (this being the hackers in this case, as the hackees would presumably not oppose such a move on principle).

[mattp]

1)How about a simple, declarative statement every now and then instead of an evasive interrogative?

 

For someone who rarely ever expresses their actual opinon, but habitually just harasses their opponent in an argument and, for example, still hasn't told us their opinion on the Iraq war despite promising to do so, you have a lot of nerve. I have been quite clear about my opinions here.

 

Have a good evening Sir.

[JayB]

The basic problem I see with your idea of broadly imposing economic sanctions when we don't like how a country runs their affairs is that they don't seem to work. Cuba, Iraq, and Burma come to mind. Any upside is offset by making ourselves look like we are trying to impose American values on the rest of the world, a loss of influence because we restrict our communication with these other nations in the process, a real expense in terms of lost trade if not enforcement costs, and a general damage to our prestige.

 

In this case, I' talking about the alleviation of sanctions, rather than their imposition.

 

Also - one could argue that full trading rights, etc are privileges that nations voluntarily extend to one another, rather than rights that all nations are automatically entitled to irrespective of their policies or conduct.

 

I agree that sanctions, embargoes, etc often miss their target and are innefective in bringing about the desired ends, but there's a distinction between applying punitive sanctions and extending privileges. If you disagree, do you consider the conditions that the EU demands that potential members meet before being accepted punitive sanctions? Unjustifiable impositions of their norms on other sovereign states, etc?

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

EVERYBODY SHUT THE FUCK UP! I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO LEGALLY BUY CUBAN SMOKES AND VISIT SOME PRISTINE CARIBEAN BEACHES, DRINK MOJITOS AND ENJOY THE PARADE OF MAMACITAS WALKING BY.

 

THANK YOU FOR ALLOW COMMIE HATER BUT MAKE EXCEPTION FOR CUBA TO POST.