Althouse: Marco Rubio vows to "make every effort to block this dangerous and desperate attempt by the President to burnish his legacy at the Cuban people’s expense."

December 17, 2014

Marco Rubio vows to "make every effort to block this dangerous and desperate attempt by the President to burnish his legacy at the Cuban people’s expense."

"Appeasing the Castro brothers will only cause other tyrants from Caracas to Tehran to Pyongyang to see that they can take advantage of President Obama’s naiveté during his final two years in office,” he said. “As a result, America will be less safe as a result of the President’s change in policy. When America is unwilling to advocate for individual liberty and freedom of political expression 90 miles from our shores, it represents a terrible setback for the hopes of all oppressed people around the globe.”

ADDED: "This expression by President Barack Obama deserves the respect and recognition by all the people and I want to thank and recognize support from the Vatican and especially from Pope Francis for the improvement of relations between Cuba and the United States," said Cuban President Raul Castro.

220 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 220 of 220

chickelit said...: My question is very simple. What is the argument for maintaining diplomatic isolation and a trade embargo? What would you hope to accomplish with such a policy?

Simple answer:

(1) To maintain de facto sanctions on nation which impoverishes its own people.

(2) To not give tacit approval to the regime still in power.

If you're arguing that trading with Cuba will enrich its people and will lead to change, you may have a point. If it in turn simply enriches the Castros and beatifies Che, you are on the wrong side.; 12/18/14, 9:11 AM
Paul said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/18/14, 9:14 AM
Paul said...: We have no deed for Cuba. Cuba will not benefit the US in any shape or form.
We have no need to prop up a dying communist country, not unlike Russia was when it was communist USSR.

So why now? Why the prisoner swap (it was a swap.. Don't let the Gruber-in-Chief tell you otherwise.)

Why prop up a gasping, dying country not unlike Russia when it was the USSR?

Oh, so Gruber can say he was a statesman, and that Libya, Egypt, the Crimea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... bungles were just, you know, bygones; 12/18/14, 9:16 AM
J. Farmer said...: @chickelit:

So why not argue for diplomatic isolation and trade embargoes against the awful regimes we are cozy with?; 12/18/14, 9:25 AM
chickelit said...: So why not argue for diplomatic isolation and trade embargoes against the awful regimes we are cozy with?

Who's on your short list, Farmer?; 12/18/14, 9:28 AM
Rusty said...: My question is very simple. What is the argument for maintaining diplomatic isolation and a trade embargo? What would you hope to accomplish with such a policy?

We have nothing to gain by ending it. Cuba is, in every sense of the word, a shithole. The Cuban people have nothing to gain unless they can freely be allowed to leave their country. Which the regime will not let happen.
The only people who win are the Castro family. They win both monetarily and with the propaganda coup.; 12/18/14, 9:30 AM
J. Farmer said...: I have nobody on my list. I think diplomatic isolation and sanctions, for the most part, are a waste of time. But it seems that the only argument people here can seem to muster for maintaining these antediluvian policies is to say that the Castro regime is authoritarian. I agree. It is. So why isolate them but be extremely close allies of the al Saud, Qatari, and Bahraini royal families? Many of the central Asian regimes have human rights records on par with the Taliban. Why is it okay to have an embassy in Ashgabat but not Havana?; 12/18/14, 9:36 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Rusty:

Trade is not just about what you can get from a country. It's about what you can give. US producers lose tons of money by not being able to sell their products to Cuba.; 12/18/14, 9:38 AM
chickelit said...: I don't think you do political optics well, Farmer. Obama may have just lost Florida for Dems for the time being.

Don't you guys need Florida?

OTOH, if the doddering regime teeters and falls, it was a win-win. Time will tell.; 12/18/14, 9:43 AM
J. Farmer said...: When I consider what I believe the US should do with its foreign policy, "optics" is never something I think about. The electoral fortunes of the Democratic and Republican parties is utterly irrelevant to me. But if you want to make this another boring partisan argument, what would you have said to George Schultz regarding his criticism of the embargo?; 12/18/14, 9:48 AM
Michael said...: J Farmer

You continue to call Cuba isolated when they are not. They have the whole free world to trade with with the exception of the U.S. They enjoy excellent relations, for example, with at least one major Latin American oil producer.

Their glorious system should work on its own and its people should be free and happy and prosperous even if prosperous is a relative term. Their system does not work. Their people are not free or happy or prosperous by any definition.

We have decided that we would not reward a system of government that oppresses its people and have decided that their glorious system should be allowed to flourish on its own.

Why would you want to interfere with the transformation of Cuba on its own terms, using its own pristine economic system? They have only been liberated from Batista for sixty years. These things take time and should not be monkeyed with by outsiders.; 12/18/14, 9:51 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Michael:

You are really grasping. I am talking about US foreign policy. We do not maintain normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. That is the isolation I am talking about and have been talking about for a number of comments at this point. Is your only strategy to assume that anyone who favors normal diplomatic relations with Cuba and an end to the embargo is a supporter of the regime or an apologist for Castroism? If you find diplomatic relations with Cuba so offensive, why are you not arguing for us to sever our relations with a dozen or so other countries with authoritarian regimes and awful human rights records? Why do you believe the US government should use the threat of violence to prevent US producers from selling their goods to Cuba?; 12/18/14, 10:00 AM
Michael said...: J Farmer

There is a difference between severing diplomatic relations and creating new ones.

There is a difference too between communications with a country and exchanging ambassadors. Surely you know this.

Perhaps you would like to hie off to North Korea as our ambassador?; 12/18/14, 10:05 AM
Michael said...: J Farmer

The average income of a Cuban is the equivalent of $20. What kind of "market" for US goods does that represent to you?; 12/18/14, 10:09 AM
J. Farmer said...: Cuba spends over $2 billion a year on food imports. I wouldn't mind US agriculture getting a piece of that action.

If lifting the embargo would be as futile and meaningless a course of action as you seem to think it would be, then why keep it?; 12/18/14, 10:14 AM
Revenant said...: So what you're saying is; Why not support another dictator and fuck the Cuban people

The last fifty years have made it crystal clear that it makes exactly no difference whether we "support" the Castro regime or "oppose" the Castro regime.

If anything, their persistent survival in the face of our determined opposition just makes us look silly.; 12/18/14, 12:33 PM
Robert Cook said...: J.Farmer,

Your comments are eminently sensible. However, that will you get you nowhere with the cadre of xenophobes and latter-day John Birchers who are among the most vocal of the Althouse commentariat.; 12/18/14, 6:07 PM
Annie said...: The Castros have a long history of murder and torture under their belt. I thought you lefties were against torture? Or it doesn't count when it comes to torturing and imprisoning those who disagree with your beloved ideology. That is acceptable and forgivable unlike waterboarding known terrorists who have caused death and destruction to innocents.; 12/18/14, 11:55 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Annie:

Was your comment intended to be a parody? Do you honestly believe it is only "lefties" who believe diplomatic engagement and an end to the embargo are good policies? What would you say to George Schultz's criticisms of the embargo? The Cato Institute? Do you want us to close our embassies in Beijing and Riyadh and impose trade embargoes on China and Saudi Arabia because of those regimes' awful human rights records? Have you even considered the argument (whether you agree with it or not) that diplomatic engagement and trade may help to actually improve conditions inside of Cuba? I think you need to broaden your horizons a bit beyond the AM channel.; 12/19/14, 8:11 AM
Robert Cook said...: See what I mean?; 12/19/14, 12:11 PM