A FAVORITE hobbyhorse of the international left, and therefore of the Houston Chronicle, is Cuba. Some at the fringe would remake America in Fidel's image. Free health care! Education! Good baseball teams! Stir a bit of common sense into the mix, however -- it doesn't take much -- and the passions cool, leaving behind . . .
. . . the one thing that unites all on the left: unremitting antagonism toward the U.S. trade embargo of the island.
Let's postulate that the pros and cons of using a trade embargo -- as distinct from diplomacy, alliance-building, violence, or other tools -- to change the behavior of a geopolitical rival is a fair subject for debate.
But it is worth taking note that the sainted JFK originally imposed sanctions in October 1960 in retaliation for a bit of economic warfare by the Cubans -- the nationalization of U.S.-owned properties on the island. And that ten successive presidents, including the sainted Barack Obama, have kept sanctions in place in one form or another. Which is pretty much as close to a bipartisan consensus as it is possible to get, to the effect that continued sanctions are in the best interest of the United States.
"No so!" declaims the Chronicle. Year after year, the foreign policy gurus on our local editorial board huff and puff about blowing the embargo down. A variety of arguments are used.
In 2008 it was the "retirement," such as it was, of dictator Fidel Castro. (The Chronicle, of course, avoided the dread "D" word and referred to him as "president." The editors even mocked the Bush administration's reference to younger brother Raul as "dictator-lite" -- "Cold War name-calling," you know.)
The Chronicle's arguments were based on diplomatic and economic pragmatism (the old policy has failed; a new one might nudge the government toward economic liberalization) and morality (a new policy might help "ease the oppression of Cubans and the suffering of their family members in the United States").
As is so often the case in Chronicle editorials, however, there was a smidge of unintended humor.
Forward-thinking members of Congress have pushed to take advantage of this moment. According to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee . . . .
(Editorial, "Not fade away: Fidel Castro's retirement likely will mean small improvements in Cuba, but U.S. [read United States] can amplify them," Houston Chronicle, February 20, 2008)
(Forty lashes with a lightly oiled Stratocaster "G" string for misappropriating a Buddy Holly song title for such odious use. "I'm gonna tell you how it's gonna be.")
Fourteen months later, things were going the Chronicle's way, but not fast enough, so the editors weighed in again. The angle this time: Our great new foreign policy president is leading us in the right direction. But faster, please!
In lifting travel and remittance restrictions to allow Cuban-Americans to visit and financially support relatives in Cuba, President Barack Obama has admitted that the effort to isolate Cuba has failed and has taken the first minimal steps to reverse it. Minimal because a ban on travel to Cuba by most Americans remains in place, even though it is easily evaded by U.S. tourists who travel to and from Cuba via Mexico.
(Editorial, "Halting steps: The time is right for Obama to press an opening with Cuba," Houston Chronicle, April 19, 2009)
The arguments this time were primarily political (Cuban exile groups have softened their opposition; a bipartisan group of senators backs a bill to lift all travel restrictions) and diplomatic wishful thinking (the Cubans "offered to enter into talks").
President Obama has apparently not heeded the Chronicle's advice, so Tuesday the editors appealed, not to morality, politics, or diplomatic opportunity, but to economic pragmatism: good old economic self-interest or, in the language of those who know nothing about Adam Smith and regard property as theft, "greed."
If you need a reason to support dropping the remaining ban against travel to Cuba by American tourists, Texas rice farmers and cattle ranchers are happy to oblige.
(Editorial, "A fair trade: Opening Cuba to Texas rice, beef seems sensible," Houston Chronicle, September 7, 2010)
The trigger for the Chronicle's sudden and unexpected interest in the welfare of actual Texans is legislation to open the door to more travel and more trade in agricultural products.
The humor this time came from the editors' risible dabble in trade theory: that the reason it makes sense to send more American rice and steak to Havana is to feed all the hungry gringo tourists who will show up there.
Note to the Chronicle: Tourists are not the ones in Cuba who have trouble getting three squares a day. And it's not the United States that keeps cubanos on the edge of hunger; it's their own sorry government, which the newspaper rarely criticizes, and certainly not with the same fervor reserved for the manifold transgressions of Houston and Texas.
The cynic in me says the Chronicle cares far more about Cuba than it does about farmers and ranchers in its own state.
But let's end on a positive note: At least our editors this time managed to sputter these words: "communist dictatorship that has choked Cuba for half a century."
Now that Bush is gone, it seems, Cold War name-calling is back in style.
But at least Fidel has finally had an epiphany and realized that the Cuban Communist model doesn't work, never did work, and never could have worked. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of Cubans he and his cohorts have killed and/or imprisoned over the years who tried to tell him that will finally forgive him... or not. http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2010/09/paging-captain-obvious.html. Quick, someone tell Hugo Chavez he has picked the wrong horse to ride.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 9, 2010 at 09:26 AM