Cuba: Differences in Approach
by psericks, Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST
This week we had the unusual opportunity to see the candidates respond to two crisis situations: Kosovo's declaration of independence and Castro's resignation in Cuba. I believe the two events provide a look at just how differently the candidates might approach foreign policy once in the White House.
Earlier this week, I wrote in detail about the striking differences between Obama's and Clinton's responses to Kosovo. Obama stressed, first and foremost, that Kosovo should be viewed as a unique situation, not as a new precedent --- a crucial position given an impending argument with Russia about the future of the Caucasus.
Obama also took a more even-handed approach, acknowledging the suffering of the Serbian people, blaming Milosevic and not Serbia for the loss of Kosovo, and even more importantly praising the recent, narrow re-election of pro-Western president Boris Tadic.
What I find most striking is that one candidate is using the opportunity to pander to a domestic audience, and the other is aware that he is speaking to the world community. One is presidential and diplomatic, the other not so much. Obama is conscious that he is already a presence on the world stage, as witnessed by his willingness to play a role in limiting the violence in Kenya. Clinton still seems to need to learn that the world is listening when she speaks, as witnessed by her ridiculous and pointless name-calling exchange with Putin.
The Castro resignation offered us another display of more of the same. In her rush to express her enthusiasm for Castro's resignation, the Clinton campaign clumsily overstated the number of years he had been in power. Ready on day one?
Emblematic of Clinton's embrace of failed American policy towards Cuba is Clinton's support of continued funding for Radio Marti, a $200 million pet project that does not actually do much of anything at all. Year after year, we broadcast the signal, and year after year Cuba blocks the signal. Nevertheless, out of spite, Congress continues to approve the funding.
Back in August, Obama spoke out for an easing of relations with Cuba, becoming the first to raise the topic in the Democratic primary. As Obama wrote in an Op-Ed for the Miami Herald, addressing the Cuban-American community directly:
The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has made grand gestures to that end while strategically blundering when it comes to actually advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in Cuba.
Enough with some of the grand gestures and failed policy that have for fifty years accomplished nothing. Enough with the DC insider consensus that hasn't brought Cuba any closer to democracy. Obama proposed easing restrictions on family visits and remittances to Cuba, as a first step. And he has insisted that he would be willing to reopen bilateral talks, even with Castro, as a way to break the deadlock.
A month ago, bothcandidates filled out a questionnaire from the Cuban-American group CNAF that asked the direct question: "Do you believe that the United States should negotiate with Raul Castro once it is announced that Fidel Castro has died?"
The Clinton campaign answered "No" and left no explanation. The Obama campaign meanwhile answered "Yes" and wrote:
A crucial component of the Obama plan to promote freedom and democratic change in Cuba will be aggressive and principled bilateral diplomacy. I will send an important message: if a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That would be the best means of promoting Cuban freedom.
Under the next question --- "Should the United States require a new Cuban government to make concessions such as freeing political prisoners or allowing a free press before the United States moves to negotiate with them?" --- the Clinton campaign answered "Yes" and Obama answered "No." In other words, Obama would not require preconditions before opening negotiations, indicating that he would be willing to leverage easing the embargo in exchange for democratic reforms.
In his statement welcoming Castro's resignation, Obama signals that he's ready to ease restrictions further in exchange for meaningful reforms:
If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades.
While neither candidate's Cuba policy is particularly inspiring, we can at least see a willingness towards movement in Obama and a willingness to break with orthodoxy.
Instead of using this statements as an opportunity to look tough before the American electorate, Obama is already looking ahead, aware of the impact his statements can have abroad. For all of Clinton's supposed experience in crafting foreign policy, we haven't seen much of it on display lately.
Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, president, Primaries (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
94 Comments