Is it sound policy for an entire country to have its foreign policy dictated for at least the past quarter-century (since the fall of the Berlin Wall) by the Cuban expatriate community in Florida? There are still more restrictions on US travel to Cuba than there are to North Korea. Think that about one for a sec.
I am having trouble seeing the downside on this one. And there is reason to hope that a normal relationship with Cuba will help to end its isolation and change its political and economic future. Besides, we need more Cuban baseball players for our fantasy league--Mike has snatched most of the available ones ...

theshrizzz wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Isn't the point about the Cuban people? If their situation is not improved and all we accomplish is ensuring the continuation of the dictatorship, is this a prudent move?

I think their situation will likely improve as a result of this, and other changes in Cuba, but of course only time will tell.

Kind of a big roll of the dice. Why not ensure we get something?

On its face, this looks like a win for the Chamber of Commerce and the Castros. Who else benefits? We may some day be able to buy "made in Cuba" instead of "made in China," so at least the slave labor will be in our hemisphere. Is that worth gambling on?

Doctor Fate wrote:On a second front, when you hear Senator Menendez (D-NJ) say the deal has been in the works for a year, does it concern you that the Administration consulted with no one in Congress?

Again, no, not really. In principle, maybe, but not now, not with what might be the most dysfunctional Congress in history.

Ah yes, the "Congress won't act so I must clause." That it sounds more like the words of a dictator than anything in the Constitution means . . . ?

The good news is, I suspect, the President will have a hard time selling changes to Congress apart from getting some concessions. I can't believe something like this will get through the Senate without some kind of human rights breakthrough--freedom of speech, etc.

Doctor Fate wrote:

theshrizzz wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Isn't the point about the Cuban people? If their situation is not improved and all we accomplish is ensuring the continuation of the dictatorship, is this a prudent move?

I think their situation will likely improve as a result of this, and other changes in Cuba, but of course only time will tell.

Kind of a big roll of the dice. Why not ensure we get something?

Because not every single move has to be political or "winning" a deal in some way.

On its face, this looks like a win for the Chamber of Commerce and the Castros. Who else benefits?

American tourists? There's a lot of people who have wanted to visit for Cuba for years but haven't wanted to take the risk.

Doctor Fate wrote:On a second front, when you hear Senator Menendez (D-NJ) say the deal has been in the works for a year, does it concern you that the Administration consulted with no one in Congress?

Again, no, not really. In principle, maybe, but not now, not with what might be the most dysfunctional Congress in history.

Ah yes, the "Congress won't act so I must clause." That it sounds more like the words of a dictator than anything in the Constitution means . . . ?

It's definitely not the first time in American history that a President has gone over Congress' head to do something he thinks is right. You might not agree with this one, I do. Lincoln acted like a dictator in many ways, the result was the abolishment of slavery.

Our policy towards Cuba appears anachronistic...a relic of the Cold War. Isolation is usually a good thing for Communist countries . American tourists bringing dollars , maybe to be followed by American investment. All those Cuban players getting rich playing baseball... I think we will probably see a lot of changes in the coming years. A communist Cuba may not out- last the Castros...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hip-castro

This is an interesting piece from one of the most left-wing, anti-American writers in the UK. A sign of things to come perhaps. The Castros will find it much harder to justify maintaining their dictatorship when the US embargo is lifted. Pressure to liberalise is going to come from all sides.

fate

Kind of a big roll of the dice

What dice are those?
Exactly what is being risked? The continuation of an embargo that has not achieved any of its goals in the last 50 years?

As part of this deal, there is a US CIA agent being returned home who has been in a Cuban prison for 20 years... Little has been said about this person. That is an interesting story i'm sure.

I visited Cuba back in 82. Stayed in an ex Mob hotel on the Isle of Pines and scuba dived for a week. Our small group of 7 had to be escorted everywhere by a tourist "guide". Spent a night in Havana and a week in a tourist all inclusive, at which time our guide said goodbye. . Had dinner at the Dupont mansion...It was the beginnings of tourism down there I guess. Cubans had to have special passports to live and work in the tourist region. As tourism expanded I'm sure this changed.

Since then for Canadians Cuba has become a low cost alternative to the rest of the Caribbean with a reputation for everything being a little lower quality. US tourists won't change much although the Cubans will have to adjust to them....

theshrizzz wrote:It's definitely not the first time in American history that a President has gone over Congress' head to do something he thinks is right. You might not agree with this one, I do. Lincoln acted like a dictator in many ways, the result was the abolishment of slavery.

Actually, I do agree: Lincoln did violate the Constitution. However, the nation's existence was at stake. Would you care to make the same argument now? Is Obama saving the nation?

It seems you all are high-fiving and rejoicing. Freedom is about to break out in Cuba!

Okay.

In Obama we trust.

The guy with the "Russian reset," missile-defense removal, Iranian nuclear weapon program negotiating that will give Iran nukes, who gave up terrorist leaders for Bergdahl, etc.

Great negotiator. Great leader.

Doctor Fate wrote:

theshrizzz wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Isn't the point about the Cuban people? If their situation is not improved and all we accomplish is ensuring the continuation of the dictatorship, is this a prudent move?

I think their situation will likely improve as a result of this, and other changes in Cuba, but of course only time will tell.

Kind of a big roll of the dice. Why not ensure we get something?

Sorry, but would you care to fill me in on how successful the policy of emnity and isolation has been over the last 55 years?

At last someone is trying something new. Maybe it won't work, but is that going to be worse than the status quo?

On its face, this looks like a win for the Chamber of Commerce and the Castros. Who else benefits? We may some day be able to buy "made in Cuba" instead of "made in China," so at least the slave labor will be in our hemisphere. Is that worth gambling on?

You already have it in Mexico. And don't pretend there are not sweatshops in the USA

The Chamber of Commerce is not a noteably left wing organisation, and they are about trade and successful business.

Suddenly conservatives are opposed to opening up free trade and dealing with a dodgy regime. You trade with Vietnam, China, Saudi Arabia.. etc. But oh, no, we can't treat with Cuba.

You did get something: Gross and another American were released. Perhaps you'd prefer they stayed in Cuban prisons.

Doctor Fate wrote:

theshrizzz wrote:It's definitely not the first time in American history that a President has gone over Congress' head to do something he thinks is right. You might not agree with this one, I do. Lincoln acted like a dictator in many ways, the result was the abolishment of slavery.

Actually, I do agree: Lincoln did violate the Constitution. However, the nation's existence was at stake. Would you care to make the same argument now? Is Obama saving the nation?

Of course not. The stakes are obviously a lot lower here. That doesn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do.

theshrizzz wrote:Of course not. The stakes are obviously a lot lower here. That doesn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do.

On general principle, violating the Constitution is never the right thing to do.

I bet Reagan never did anything like that. And Republicans never spoke up to tell us that the President is ''the sole person to whom our Constitution gives the responsibility for conducting foreign relations.''

REAGAN'S DEFENDERS ARGUING HE CAN DEFY CONGRESS'S BAN

But of course that was just arranging to sell arms to terrorists who wanted to restore a dictator (sorry - "freedom fighters opposing communism")...

[yes, that is "whataboutery"]

A much earlier President took this approach:

"The Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did. I put the agreement into effect, and I continued its execution for two years before the Senate acted; and I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress. But it was far preferable that there should be action by Congress, so that we might be proceeding under a treaty which was the law of the land and not merely by a direction of the Chief Executive which would lapse when that particular executive left office. I therefore did my best to get the Senate to ratify what I had done."

[Theodore Roosevelt, as quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause]

Indeed:

wikipedia wrote:Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements. Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties.[1] Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.

There are precedents...

danivon wrote:Sorry, but would you care to fill me in on how successful the policy of emnity and isolation has been over the last 55 years?

At last someone is trying something new. Maybe it won't work, but is that going to be worse than the status quo?

That's where I'm at. The current policy is a complete failure. If something's not working, try something else. 55 years is a very long time to wait for a policy to work.

I'm currently struggling to comprehend why this move is being portrayed as some kind of risk to the US. I don't see that tbh. The Cold War ended a long time ago and I don't really see how having normal relations with an insignificant neighbouring state represents any kind of risk. I suppose there's the 'risk' that it might cause the US government to be seen as tacitly supporting the Castro regime, but realistically that's not an issue. China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia all have abysmal human rights records, far worse than Cuba, but all have very good relations with the US and two of them are American allies. The whole world is fully aware of this so I really don't see that there's any reputational risk in normalising relations with Cuba.

Sassenach wrote:I'm currently struggling to comprehend why this move is being portrayed as some kind of risk to the US. I don't see that tbh. The Cold War ended a long time ago and I don't really see how having normal relations with an insignificant neighbouring state represents any kind of risk. I suppose there's the 'risk' that it might cause the US government to be seen as tacitly supporting the Castro regime, but realistically that's not an issue. China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia all have abysmal human rights records, far worse than Cuba, but all have very good relations with the US and two of them are American allies. The whole world is fully aware of this so I really don't see that there's any reputational risk in normalising relations with Cuba.

Yes, but the facts are:

1) Obama did it, so it must be evil (even if there is no real evidence it's any worse than dealing with some of the countries noted above)
2) Obama did it, so it must be Unconstitutional (even if there are precedents that say it really is not)
3) A vocal and active number of Cuban emigrés have been getting their way for years, and now are throwing their toys out of the pram, but as this includes some of the darlings of the right (Cruz and Rubio), it is the duty of all unthinking conservatives to parrot the lines.
4) Obama.

For compromising on bedrock U.S. values, we received zero commitments from the regime to change its ways, to hold free elections, permit dissent, halt censorship and free all political prisoners. We abandoned U.S. policy, while the Castro brothers' stranglehold on power just got tighter.

This swap sets an extremely dangerous precedent and invites dictatorial and rogue regimes to use Americans serving overseas as bargaining chips.

This guy thinks Obama is a weak negotiator and caves to our enemies. Must be Ted Cruz.

Most concerning is that the decision to open relations with Cuba fails to understand the nature of the Castro regime that has exerted its authoritarian control over the Cuban people for 55 years.

There is no reason that Cuba will reform just because the American president believes that, if he extends his hand in peace, the Castro brothers will suddenly unclench their fists.

The opposite is true.

The changes to U.S. policy are clearly intended to circumvent the intent and spirit of U.S. law and Congress. It presents a false narrative about Cuba, suggesting that the United States and not the regime is responsible for its failings.

Wow! He just mocked Obama's Cairo speech! Dude must hate Obama!

"Circumvent the intent and spirit" of the law? Isn't he accusing the President of lawlessness?

Cuba should not be taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism either. Cuba harbors American fugitive Joanne Chesimard, who is on the FBI's list of Most Wanted Terrorists for murdering New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. Cuba also colluded with North Korea to smuggle jets, missile batteries, and arms through the Panama Canal in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

These and other such actions are not the actions of a nation deserving of our engagement.

So, Cuba has been acting against American interests. Surely, they are renouncing that sort of thing, if we're cutting a deal with them, right? No?

This writer really seems to have a vendetta against Obama!

That is why the president's decision to attend the Summit of the Americas is extraordinarily disappointing. It violates our own principles, laid down in the Inter-American Democratic Charter in 2001, that the summit would be a forum for the hemisphere's democratically elected leaders.

In Cuba today, an untold number of ordinary people yearning for democracy remain imprisoned by the exact same tormentors who punished Alan Gross. They, along with all Cubans, deserve a free and liberated homeland.

That vision is less of a reality today than it was yesterday.

So, this guy thinks Obama is weak and is indifferent to the suffering of political prisoners! He's a hater!

Who is this guy?

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Oh, I see.

Maybe this Cuba thing isn't just about disliking Obama.