Related videos:
By Rubén Blades (taken from his personal Facebook page) The apparent astonishment and the exaggerated statements coming from the extremes of the international political spectrum regarding the announcement of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States are merely a reflection of how obtuse some positions can be. These stances, which seem more emotional, opportunistic, or self-serving than political, are hard to understand at this point in the twenty-first century. It is absurd to think that these extremist views didn't anticipate that this would happen sooner or later. What occurred a few days ago is simply the official acknowledgment by the U.S. government of the failure of its public policy toward Cuba, which has been unequivocally negative, absurd, and contradictory. In light of the multiple statements from right-wing figures across the continent, I cannot help but ask: Do they not realize that the United States maintains diplomatic relations with China, a government that is communist to the core, despite the Tiananmen Square massacre and its invasion of Tibet? What arguments does the United States use to justify its diplomatic break with Cuba, while it has official relations with other countries where political freedoms do not exist and human rights are also not respected? Furthermore, the U.S. has maintained relationships with all the right-wing dictatorships in Latin America that have been even more murderous, corrupt, and violative of human rights. The validity of human rights has never been a deterrent for American politicians, from Eisenhower to Obama, promoting official recognition of regimes they considered useful to their perception of national interest. To any clear-minded individual free from complex preconceptions and vested interests, it would be easy to conclude that for these politicians, the red of communist China has been transformed, due to international economic "color blindness," into the green dollar that symbolizes a society's consumption potential. This, combined with the powerful persuasion represented by their atomic arsenal in "realpolitik," is a sufficient argument for the United States to accept China's integration into the club of democratic First World nations as guests, without requiring the previous application of democratic standards as preconditions for membership—something they insistently demanded for five decades in the case of Fidel Castro's Cuba. On the island, people reacted with joy at the prospect of finally removing, after 53 years, one of the two fingers that, without their consent, have been forced into the national sphincter by outsiders. It is an event that heralds, and couldn't be clearer, a radical change for that abused country. It is very likely that soon they will be able to remove the other finger, that of the Castro dictatorship, perhaps due to an inevitable natural factor: aging. Cuban politicians and the people, with the maturity and prudence that suffering and consequential attitudes bestow, understand and philosophically accept these realities, despite the challenges. In the United States, a country that prides itself on knowing everything, Republicans continue to cling to the 19th century, rejecting the historic step taken by President Obama. And not all Republicans share this view. Representatives from two specific states, Florida and New Jersey, have stubbornly upheld for decades the mistaken notion that the embargo against Cuba would create the political pressure necessary to introduce democracy there. The votes from constituents in these states, particularly Florida, have proven crucial in instances like the fraud of 2000, defining the ability for Republican candidates to be elected, re-elected, or rejected. For decades, election results in these communities have depended on the allure of anti-Castro rhetoric rather than rational public administration arguments. Hoping that reason will return to their thoughts seems impossible, but I imagine that now those politicians will be compelled to evaluate the impact that Barack Obama's declaration has had on their electorate. Fortunately, the population of Florida has gradually regained critical judgment, and the issue of Cuba is no longer discussed with the irrational fervor that characterized conversations and discourse on the subject in the 1970s and 1980s. Additionally, we must not overlook the benefits that the embargo has produced and continues to produce for these states. It cannot be ignored that the policy of the embargo created the anti-Castro industry, which has provided benefits over the past forty years to many media and commentators—radio, television, newspapers, and various publications—as well as professional politicians and opportunistic political operatives. If relations are indeed normalized, the effect will generate a wave that will sweep away many jobs along the entire East Coast of the United States. Who even considers Elián news today? What will happen when Fidel is no longer the target of these adults? What will justify their existence when the Castros and their form of Marxism disappear? It is undeniable that the embargo also succeeded in hurting and harming the Cuban people, the direct recipients of the pain caused by the measure. It did not affect the supposed target of the attack, the Castro dictatorship. On the contrary, shielded by the excuse of the embargo, anti-democratic measures and repression multiplied, preventing
Filed under: