Mr. Kerry said at the embassy that while “Cuba’s future is for Cubans to decide” and the choice of how they would be governed was solely their responsibility, the United States “remained convinced that the people of Cuba would be best served by a genuine democracy, where people are free to choose their leaders, express their ideas, and practice their faith; where the commitment to economic and social justice is realized more fully; where institutions are answerable to those they serve; and where civil society is independent and allowed to flourish.”
१४ ऑगस्ट, २०१५
John Kerry in Cuba, raising the flag at the reopening American embassy.
The NYT reports:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७८ टिप्पण्या:
...for Castro to decide.
Sure but only Nixon could go to China.
When Johnny Cash appeared at prisons, at least he put on an entertaining show. The poor inmates of Castro's Caribbean Alcatraz get a droning John Kerry mouthing empty platitudes. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Do you think he could get them to stop shooting at the free citizens of Cuba as they try to flee for Guantanamo?
Do people risk gunfire to flee the police state that is "Amerika"? Probably, but they corporate owned press won't tell us.
If The Obama Administration declares that a tail is now a leg, a dog still has only 4 legs.
Some thoughts...
Does this mean that Hyman Roth can re-open his casino?
Refugees can now begin swimming/floating toward Cuba.
We need Crack here to run Castro's Reparations hustle. Fidel gets what's left after Cuban exiles collect on *their* claims.
So much poverty in Cuba. They need the green leafy that America could offer. At least get them set up. Trump ??
Kerry has always been comfortable with treason.
If Obama had requested/demanded Castro to free his imprisoned dissidents, I would be more receptive to the deal on the merits. But, the stark truth is, Obama/Kerry/Clinton support the rise of Cuba (and Iran), because they honestly believe that US power should be curbed.
" . . . where institutions are answerable to those they serve; and where civil society is independent and allowed to flourish.”
Wandering off the reservation. Who is Obama answerable to these days? Potus gonna have to have a talk with that man.
Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
If Obama had requested/demanded Castro to free his imprisoned dissidents, I would be more receptive to the deal on the merits
Oh, Obama identifies much more with Castro than the dissidents. The dissidents are gusanos. They should drown in water or dry up in the sun.
Exactly what did Obama negotiate for the people of Cuba?
Dont forget. Hundreds of countries had free trade with Cuba. The needle of freedom for the Cuban people never wavered with Obama's single handed lifting of sanctions. Obama never even asked for the release of some, political prisoners. Obama asked for nothing that would aid even a single Cuban citizen.
Doesn't Kerry usually grab the flag and run for cover? I mean, if you've got one hand on the flag, you can't be accused of treason or cowardice, right? Even if you're running away, and especially not if you are an Andover man. Right?
Maybe some of Cuba's much vaunted army of doctors could take a little time off from selling hot dogs at beach resorts or working as prostitutes to attend the ceremony? I am sure it is open to all the free citizens of that worker's paradise.
"Democracy is best but if if you want to continue with a brutal and repressive dictatorship, be our guests."
Coconuss Network said...
So much poverty in Cuba. They need the green leafy that America could offer. At least get them set up. Trump ??
It will change nothing for the average Cuban. Keep in mind that literally half the population is watching the other half. If a relative sends them 100 US dollars 92 of those dollars goes to the regime. Actually all of them do. The recipient gets about 5 dollars in a special currency that allows them to shop at stores just for the Cuban nomencultura. But the left is going to eat this up.
With the infrastructure to destroy Israel firmly in place, the only thing left to do is pull the troops out of S. Korea, and have the N. Korean flag raised over Seoul.
mission accomplished..
So the question of the day is, will Cuba become a democracy, with the Castro brothers hanging from lamp posts, before or after Iran detonates a nuclear weapon?
I'm going with after, but only because the Iranians seem more motivated.
The American gays are already hot for Havana.
tits
What exactly did this do for the US or the Cuban dissidents?
I do debate whether or not strong-arm diplomacy (sanctions, etc.) could have alleviated the Cuban issue, or whether or not free trade and American pop culture is a more effective solution.
(See also Vietnam, Hong Kong, Shanghai)
the choice of how they would be governed was solely their responsibility
Might be nice if they ... had a choice, Mr. Kerry.
What the representative of a free people might say on the occasion of Kerry's ceremonial boot licking:
When free men force the government of a slave state into extinction everyone benefits. Free men have no obligation to do so, but they need not consider whether the slave state was freely chosen if they do. Remember this going forward.
“Cuba’s future is for Cubans to decide”
Not if the Castros have anything to say about it.
James Taylor wasn't available to play You've Got a Friend like he did with Kerry in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo attacks?
John Kerry in Cuba, raising the flag at the reopening American embassy.
I'm guessing it was a white flag?
Have the hammer and sickle replaced the stars and bars yet?
"The American gays are already hot for Havana."
This is creepy. They have been putting guys like this in jail in the Phils. for years.
I remember when the Maoists would denounce the government for letting this sort in.
When I try to teach my kids about American values and history, I use this example when talking about the Communists:
Country A allows any person to move away, if they don't like how the country is being run.
Country B does not allow its people to leave, even if they want to.
Both countries have some problems, but which country is probably the better to live in?
I would ask this similar simple question to our adult Left of Center friends -- if Castro and Cuba are so good, Why don't they let Cubans freely emigrate?
The American gays are already hot for Havana
Paedophilia and mojitos Fidel-style, eh Titus?
While I think that recognition of Cuba was long overdue (we've recognized worse), I can't help but think that if there's a way to make things worse, Obama and Kerry will find it.
...if Castro and Cuba are so good, Why don't they let Cubans freely emigrate?
Didn't you know? Once you're in Saint Peter locks the Pearly Gates behind you.
I assume, Michael K, the treason claim is "aid and comfort," which is cited as an element of treason in Article 8 of the Constitution.
That presumes that the Castros are an enemy, which may be true in sentiment, but I'm not scholarly to assess the charge constitutionally. I have not heard it raised.
I think the Castros will suck on the US teat for all they can get.
I'm not persuaded Obama will get the Cuban expat vote with all the Castro haters, but some Cuban Americans have family who might now be able to join them other than by a fishing boat at night.
U.S elite East coast fags met and decided Havana is the next South Beach/Key West/Ptown/Fire Island/Ogunquit/Rehoboth
tits.
Did Fidel's have his KGB shoot a 21 gun salute with tjeot
extra Manlicher Carcano sniper rifles left over from a 1963 mission to Dallas.
"some Cuban Americans have family who might now be able to join them other than by a fishing boat at night."
We'll see. I doubt it. I'm waiting to see if Obama gives them Guantanamo.
Meanwhile, for your entertainment, here is the reality of Cuba from Michael Totten.
For more of reality, look here.
The only reason Trinidad is still free of automobiles, electronic stores, satellite dishes, cell phone towers, and so on, is because it’s governed by a totalitarian state. Preventing those things from transforming the city requires extraordinary repression and violence. Trinidad doesn’t look oppressive—no one is getting shot in the streets—but no one who affixes a satellite dish to their roof will last very long either, so they know better than to even make the attempt. The population is thoroughly cowed.
Nothing will change.
Titus said...
U.S elite East coast fags met and decided Havana is the next South Beach/Key West/Ptown/Fire Island/Ogunquit/Rehoboth
Yo Titus. I have a gay real estate question.
The wife went to law school in Boston 35 years ago. At that point, she said that Ogunquit was a gay place. We were there last week and she described it now as much more family oriented.
I postulated that now that more Boston gays are out, they don't need to get out of town on the weekends to meet.
Your thoughts?
Tell that to the "Ladies in White" Mr. Kerry, you bitch.
The fluffy collective-liberation pope during his stop in Cuba will say "there, there, little ladies, just pray and all will be okay" (as he winks to Obama) and their persecution will increase.
Castro's henchmen still "keep the peace" in Venezuela.
American media still call it "socialism"...and who's not for that!?
Groups that own hotels in Cuba pay the. Government $300 per worker per month. The govt. pays the workers $15. Cool, eh?
Viva la revolution
@Michael,
We have just established diplomatic relations with what is essentially an island slave plantation.
True Drill. Isn't Ogunquit beautiful? Did you do the Marginal Way.
Ptown and Ogunquit are now almost 50/50 straightie/fag
We went to The Front Porch in Ogunquit this summer and 1/2 the patrons were straighties. My straight friend always comes with us because he always picks up hot chicks.
tits.
The Bos/Wash gay corridor is humming about Havana!
"some Cuban Americans have family who might now be able to join them other than by a fishing boat at night."
Only if ou can afford to and the Castros only take gold or US dollars. My wifes ex mother in law brought over nearly her whole family for ten grand a pop. She worked in a laundry in Queens and after work sold jewelry door to door. It took her 30 years , but she did it.
Gay Bars and Gay Ghettos are now extinct.
We fixed the areas up all nice, and the straighties came in, and we left.
Notice how quickly Castro is now demanding that we pay him millions of dollars. I wouldn't be surprised if Castro does in fact get paid by this administration and asks for literally nothing in return for such largesse.
Citing his role as commander and chief, Obama will withdraw all US personnel from the Guantanamo US Naval Base after the 2016 presidential elections. Once all US forces have left Gitmo, Cuba will retake Gitmo. Obama will protest, but he will effectively and purposely given Gitmo to Cuba.
About time. Castro and his cronies are going to die soon and I'd like the US to have some hand in where the future lies with Cuba.
A piecemeal approach will only work to the Castro regime's advantage. If we are going to normalize relations it should be all or nothing.... full and complete free trade and travel. Flood the island with dollars, Levis, I-Phones, and tourists of all kinds; and thereby overwhelm the regime's ability to monitor or control it.
We fixed the areas up all nice, and the straighties came in, and we left.
And sold at a profit I expect. The wife walked Marginal Way. I teleworked at the B&B.
Had dinner at Angelina's and at Mike's Clam Shack in Wells. Then we headed up to bar Harbor
I think Mr. Kerry meant "Democratic" with a capital D.
Titus: "We fixed the areas up all nice..."
BS.
You didn't build that. Your messiah said so.
Some enterprising hipster may flood the island with Che shirts.
Don't worry, Obama and Kerry have got this.
New bulletin: it's a dictatorship. The Cuban people don't get to decide the direction of their government.
Re Obama: I agree. Among his last acts will be to close Gitmo and abandon it.
Well, now that this White House is friendly with Castro and Khamenei, they can now focus on the real enemy, the real disrupter of the international order.
Benjamin Netanyahu.
This is another one of the few bright spots in Obama's generally disappointing foreign policy. Normalization with Cuba is a long overdue policy change. The arguments against it boil down to the usual interventionist freakout over "credibility." The notion that a nations' credibility is maintained by pursuing stupid, dead end policies is a poisonous one.
@SMGalbraith:
"New bulletin: it's a dictatorship. The Cuban people don't get to decide the direction of their government."
You could make a tenuous argument that even people in authoritarian systems tacitly support the system by refusing to fight against it. Of course, this is typically driven by an entirely rational desire to not end up dead or in a cage. That said, I don't see how Cuba's oppressive political system is a coherent argument for maintaining our policy. If anything, it provides a perpetual enemy for the regime to scapegoat for internal problems.
How many people shopping at Walmart care about the fact that they are ultimately funding illiberal Chinese oligarchs? How many people worry about the money they pay for gasoline funding authoritarian regimes all over the globe? Our relationship with Vietnam thawed mostly because they started to abandon centralized planning and liberalize their economy. Their political system is still quite repressive. I tend to think that if Cuba liberalized its economy, we'd hear much less about the Castro family's oppressive governance.
@SMGalbraith:
"Well, now that this White House is friendly with Castro and Khamenei, they can now focus on the real enemy, the real disrupter of the international order.
Benjamin Netanyahu."
I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but this statement is actually closer to the truth than what you get from the typical talk radio cowboy or cable news clown (and that's regardless of the channel). Iran is a relatively weak country in the region. The Arab nations supported Iraq's attack on Iran (the longest conventional war of the 20th century), have spent the last few years fomenting and prolonging civil war in Syria at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, and are currently supporting a rather brutal attack against Yemen. Never mind the attack on Libya and the chaos that has resulted from that fiasco. So the notion that Iran is a major source of instability in the region does not seem to be represented by the facts on the ground.
The obstinate behavior of the Israeli right on issues like settlement development are a major impediment to resolution of the Palestinian issue. The Palestinians are obstinate on issues like the right of return. It's also worth remembering that Netanyahu was running to anybody with a newcomers in 2002 to scaremonger about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs and cheerlead for regime change against that country.
*news camera
Has there ever been a time before this that raising an American flag was a sign of American surrender?
Both countries have some problems, but which country is probably the better to live in?
In which direction are the refugees swimming?
"money they pay for gasoline funding authoritarian regimes all over the globe"
You mean in Brazil and Canada?
So at last, John F'n Kerry's testimony to the the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1971 makes sense - he was talking about the Castro brothers:
"They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside . . . "
J. Farmer said...
This is another one of the few bright spots in Obama's generally disappointing foreign policy. Normalization with Cuba is a long overdue policy change. The arguments against it boil down to the usual interventionist freakout over "credibility." The notion that a nations' credibility is maintained by pursuing stupid, dead end policies is a poisonous one.
No. It lends legitimacy to largest prison in the western hemisphere. The life of the average Cuban will not change one bit. Unless, of course, your goal is to improve the lot of a tyrant.
Then.
Win!
J. Farmer said:
That said, I don't see how Cuba's oppressive political system is a coherent argument for maintaining our policy.
Maybe not for maintaining the policy, but there doesn't appear to be the least interest in the Administration for pressuring the Castro regime to ease up on/release its political prisoners. There was a time when America could walk and chew gum regarding openings to repressive regimes -- during the '70s (Detente, Jackson-Vannik, Solzhenitsyn). The Castro regime is dealing from nowhere near the Soviets' position of strength...just like the Mullahcracy in Iran, come to think of it.
@furious_a:
"There was a time when America could walk and chew gum regarding openings to repressive regimes -- during the '70s (Detente, Jackson-Vannik, Solzhenitsyn)."
Sure, and to the degree that America can influence liberalization of the political system, fine. But a policy of severing diplomatic relations with a country actually impedes our ability to influence it. More normal relations with Cuba will open avenues for the kind of influence that could potentially be beneficial to the Cuban people. Of course the regime will not be transformed by this change in policy, but that's not a reason to oppose it. If anything, historically, the US has preferred relations with stable, authoritarian countries whose leaders could efficiently make good on promises to the US. Regimes that are more constricted by domestic populist concerns to be create headaches for the US. Does anyone honestly believe that if the US adopted a policy of confrontation, covert sabotage, and diplomatic and financial isolation against China, the outcome would be a more open, liberal political system. Again, authoritarian regimes tend to benefit by confrontation with a great power because it provides them with a convenient scapegoat. The Maduro regime in Venezuela's incessant blaming of "western saboteurs" and "oligarchs" for the consequences of the country's horrible economic management has reached comically absurd proportions. And even as the regime's delusions are crumbling before its eyes, the US idiotically handed them a domestic political gift by slapping sanctions on higher ups for human rights abuses. Making a self-righteous appeal to human rights is always going to come across as a bit disingenuous and self-serving when the US makes no qualms about its willingness to work with serial human rights abusers in numerous arenas.
@Rusty:
"Unless, of course, your goal is to improve the lot of a tyrant."
This makes no sense when the US regularly works with and supports authoritarian states all over the planet. A majority of even Cuban-Americans, the group most traditionally supportive of a confrontational policy with Castroism, support normal diplomatic relations. This is not driven out of a love affair with Castro. And yes, Cuba's economic problems are a result of bad economic management, not the US embargo. But removing the embargo also reduces the propaganda benefit it provides as a scapegoat for internal problems.
When an abusive, authoritarian strongman was toppled in Egypt, popular democracy swept in candidates with traditionally conservative Islamic views, much to the chagrin of Cairo's cosmopolitan educated class. Now everyone seems to be wiping their brows in relief that a dictatorial strongman has returned who promises to stretch human rights in a manner we find worthwhile. George Kennan made the same basic argument when he practically invented containment in the late 1940s. Making vague, poorly defined concepts of political philosophy like "democracy" and "human rights" a major plank of your foreign policy is often a recipe for disaster.
Kerry's remarks were hypocrisy's salute to virtue. Kerry will be waiting a long time for the salute to be returned.
I did'nt say that farmer. I said that the only people who are going to benefit are the people running Cuba, not the average Cuban citizen. Cuba is an island prison. Cuba isn't going to change until the Castro regime is removed. All we're doing is lending legitimacy to a criminal family.
Cuba is a shithole.
Now it's a shithole with an American embassy.
Angelina's is my fave drill! The fag owner can be a dick though.
tits.
But no ambassador, and they won't get one from this Congress.
Titus: Great idea! The gays should all go there instead of Key West. Key West is just a faint imitation anyway. Havana will be much better for them.
@Rusty:
How do you reconcile diplomatic isolation of Cuba over human rights abuses with broad diplomatic and financial support of other regimes with atrocious human rights records?
Severing diplomatic ties with a country and pursuing an aggressive, confrontational stance against a country as an effort to change a regime's internal behavior as an abysmal historical track record.
J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:
How do you reconcile diplomatic isolation of Cuba over human rights abuses with broad diplomatic and financial support of other regimes with atrocious human rights records?
You mean like our embassys in N Kprea and Iran? How do you excuse Obama's completely ignoring Irans "green revolution"? Or Madeline Albrights disasterous diplomacy with N Korea?
Severing diplomatic ties with a country and pursuing an aggressive, confrontational stance against a country as an effort to change a regime's internal behavior as an abysmal historical track record.
Wrong. At least Cubans had some place to run to. Now we're going to have to return them.
You seem more concerned with the political (seeming) triumphs (Libia) of this administartion than the actual lives of the people being oppressed.
And then there's this.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/cuba-says-wont-move-one-millimeter-placate-enemies-224243055.html
J. Farmer sticking up for a Communist dictatorship...who would have thunk it?
@Rusty:
"You mean like our embassys in N Kprea and Iran? How do you excuse Obama's completely ignoring Irans "green revolution"? Or Madeline Albrights disasterous diplomacy with N Korea?
Human rights abuses aren't why we don't have diplomatic relations with 2 out of 190-something countries. Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Belarus, Burma, Equatorial Guinea...all horribly repressive societies with authoritarian governments. Should we close embassies and sever diplomatic relations with those countries? If you say no, does that mean you support tyrants.
As for the Green Movement, what exactly did you want Obama to do that would have made any actual difference in the real world? Even if he had cheerleaded the movement, the Iranian government would have reacted to it in exactly the same manner. It would actually have created a propaganda victory for the regime and defeat for the United States if a movement it loudly championed was put down by force (as it would have been). There was also legitimate concern that if the US was seen as vocal supporters for the movement, it would allow the regime to deflect from real domestic concerns and to depict the movement as a bunch of foreign-supported agitators. And thanks to our history with Iran, that is an argument that a lot of Iranians give weight to.
"You seem more concerned with the political (seeming) triumphs (Libia) of this administartion than the actual lives of the people being oppressed."
Oh please. I've supported normalizations with Cuba since before Obama was even known, and I have bashed the Libyan war repeatedly in the comments section to this very blog.
I support the policy for the exact reasons I say I do, and I don't care if the President who pursues as a "D" or an "R" next to his name. I'm not a big fan of Charles Krauthammer, but I definitely thought he was on to something when he coined "Bush Derangement Syndrome" as the "acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush." Do you think there's a bit of this same phenomenon on the other side?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा