Cuba Politics

Who is more capable of lifting the US Embargo, George Bush or Raul Castro?

Posted January 24, 2007 by publisher in Cuba Politics.

I think this is a fair question. I used the word capable on purpose.

I don’t think George Bush is capable of lifting the Embargo. He certainly does not seem to have any interest in having it lifted first of all. Second of all, he is in bed politically with all the old exiles in Miami.

So, in my opinion, Raul is actually more capable of lifting the Embargo. He has implied that he would like to negotiate with the US. If he releases some political prisoners and schedules open elections for something like 2009, the Democrats just might make a decisive move to ease, lift and/or defund the Embargo.

I say Raul is more capable of lifting the Embargo than George Bush. 

Member Comments

On January 24, 2007, MiamiCuban wrote:

I also say Raul.  There’s no question as to who has more intelligence and plain common sense.  And he’s already taken the first step of offering to open up negotiations with the U.S.  But if the Democrats continue with the same old mentality as the Republicans of making demands and using every excuse in the book to sabotage progress, we’ll just continue the same debates that go nowhere.

On January 24, 2007, Cuban American wrote:

Raul, would definately be more capable of lifting the embargo.  However, the chance that we will hold open elections…. thats just not gonna happen.  Although its not Fidel, we are still talking about a Castro.

On January 24, 2007, Cuban American wrote:

Raul, would definately be more capable of lifting the embargo.  However, the chance that he will hold open elections…. thats just not gonna happen.  Although its not Fidel, we are still talking about a Castro.

On January 25, 2007, Pete Chavez wrote:

Dear Publisher,
I think neither Bush nor R.Castro are at all capable to lift the embargo.  Bush is an incompetant legacy president with already too full a plate, he’s outraged enough Americans in the last 7years I am sure he doesn’t want to now outrage his constituency down in South Florida and either way I think he could care less about Cuba (especially in his last term).  R. Castro is, well he has the same name as his insane brother.  He is too close to the old guard, he IS the old guard and too insecure for such a bold step that would cause an unmanagable avalanche of ideas and pressures.  I think once Fidel kicks it and little by little all his descendants including Raul’s start slipping out of the country and with oodles of money.  The cabal of generals that run things will start getting restless, bold and greedy.  They are going to want to appropriate themselves of key industries as did the Russians of the former USSR.  It’s much easier to do that in an uprooted dismantled command economy where the muddled confusing road to a freemarket leaves a great deal of room to hide and make a killing by heading major industries while in the conversion.  Holding elections might also prove to be a promising distraction from back room deals.  That is truly their model whether they know it yet or not and it’s going to be motivated by nothing other than greed.  This “New Guard” is about 20, 30, even 40 years the Castro’s juniors and they are distant enough in ideology and in historical diplomatic gripes that it would make it a much easier and more natural step for them to make than say anyone from Castro’s generation and I give it five to seven years after Fidels death.

On January 25, 2007, Varsi Padayachee wrote:

I suspect that it will be Raul Castro. There is much conversation in LATAM concerning Fidel’s successor, and I have heard from family and friends that plans to make some positive changes are in thepipeline. I also understand that that Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the famed Colomian writer is playing a prominent role in the plans. There is anther twist. Fernando Botero’s (World famous Colombian painter and sculptor) son heads the new regional TV channel called Telesur, which is funded primarily by Venezuela, Chile, Bolivia and Argentina. Tjis might not be significant but it will certainly provide a wider berth of opportunity for Cuba to enter the World stage.
My sense is that changes will be made that will please and garner the support of the EU. Right now the EU is split and does not have a definitive, unified posture. Spain, Russia, Italy, Greece, Holland, and a few others are for allowing Cuba back, However, there are the US lapdogs like England, Germany, Portugal, and the other Eatern European countries who wil follow their master. Given that the EU has a 6 month revolving Chairmanship, I suspect the pro-Cuban countries will have an extremely case to ake. Bush and his cabal still live in the dark ages, and will and cannot understand that this world is no longer riding on the “My way or the Highway” mentality. We alson need to be cognizant of the fact that the US role as the economic super power is fast diminishing. China, India, the Far East and Southern Africa will be the dominant players. We will see the UN Security Council expand to include India, South Africa, Japan and Brazil. Decisions will be made based on the majority vote rather than the veto. This will further dilute the US role. Japan, which has traditionally been a US puppet, will also vote with the majority. Japan needs to open new markets for its products, and when the majority rules, the YEN will sing. I can see S. Korea opening automotive plants on the Island; India establishing call center and R&D facilities, Japan building assembly lines, and China moving som of its manufacturing operations. Let us be honest, this is all abut being cost effective and a healthy return on Investment.
We have an ideal opportunity, all of us, to engage a support dialogue. Without that we will have another Iraq.

On January 25, 2007, J. Perez wrote:

It is the moral obligation of the U.S. to, unconditionally, end the blockade. They started it. Here are some historical facts.
On July 6, 1960, Eisenhower cut Cuban sugar imports by 700,000 tons, the balance of the Cuban quota for 1960. The quota was thereafter fixed at zero.

Previously, on June 7th, Standard Oil, Texaco, and Shell under pressure from the Administration, refused to refine Soviet petroleum in the island, the pressure came in the form of this directive by the State Dept. “a refusal to accede to the Cuban government’s request would be in accord with the policy of the United States government toward Cuba”.

Finally, on Octuber 13th, the United States directed an economic embargo on Cuba, a ban on all U.S. exports except medicines and some foostuffs. Ultimately, in January 1961, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Cuba.

These aggresive measures were undertaken less in reprisal against Fidel Castro than to remove him. North American efforts failed and in doing so actually contributed to the consolidation of the regime at home and enhanced its prestige among third world countries and socialist regimes abroad.

While these measures were being implemented, the C.I.A. was already planning and training the force for the invasion of the island.

The history is long and these are only a few examples but the behavior of the United States toward Cuba in the early days of the revolution was not worthy of a great nation.

On January 31, 2007, Varsi Padayachee wrote:

Devin T Stewart is director of the Global Policy Innovations program at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. He has an excellent article in today’s Asia Times titled, “US and the meaning of Fee Trade. For those interested it is worth the read.