McCain Statements on Cuba

Thursday, January 24, 2008

John McCain

The Candidate submitted the following statement to the Cuban American National Foundation in lieu of questionnaire.

John McCain supports the Cuban people’s quest to be free and the U.S. economic embargo on the Cuban dictatorship to deny the Castro regime the resources to continue its repression.

We should increase support for the growing human rights, dissident, and civil society movement in Cuba to promote a peaceful transition to democracy.

We should reject concessions to the Castro dictatorship until democracy is restored, and Cubans are allowed to elect their own leaders and choose their own destiny.

The U.S. should continue to pressure the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally and to hold free and fair elections. Unless these conditions are met, lifting the economic embargo would only serve to strengthen the Castro dictatorship and delay Cuba’s inevitable transition to democracy. John McCain favors U.S. Government funding for political prisoners and their families, human rights activists, and others seeking a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba.

*********************

Remarks by John McCain on Cuban Independence Day

By Press Office

May 20, 2008

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks as prepared for delivery in Miami, Florida, today at 11:00 a.m. EDT:

Today, on Cuba's Independence Day, we have occasion to celebrate the rich cultural heritage and deep-rooted traditions of the Cuban people. Cuban Americans, many of whom have ascended to the heights of business, government, and the arts, have enriched and enlivened our country. In every field, and in states across America, they bring to our communities their custom of hard work and personal initiative. And for many of these patriotic individuals, while their lives and work are here in the United States, a bit of Cuba will always endure in their hearts.

So must it be for all Americans who cherish those freedoms we so often take for granted at home. For today is not a cause for celebration alone. Those inspired freedom fighters who secured Cuba's independence over 100 years ago could hardly know that their descendants would be engaged in a struggle for freedom and democracy a century later. And yet today, the Cuban people continue to live under tyranny, and their struggle goes on.

It is not a fruitless struggle, not by any means. One day, America will again have warm relations with a Cuban government that represents the sovereign will of its people, one that respects their fundamental human and political rights. One day, Cuba will be an important ally in advancing democracy throughout our hemisphere. Make no mistake: Cuba is destined to be free.

Today, as so many of you know too well, the situation is very different. Fidel Castro has passed the titles of power to his brother in a fashion suited more for a personal fiefdom than to a government purporting to represent that proud and dynamic people. A few recent news articles have labeled as "reforms" the smattering of small changes that have taken place since Raul Castro has formally taken charge. Such characterizations must sound quite cynical to the political prisoners that fill Cuban jails, to the millions who suffer under poverty and repression, and to all those who wish to choose their leaders, not suffer under them. The Castro regime enforces strict limits against freedom of expression, of association, of assembly, of movement, of speech. Last year, as many as 5,000 citizens served sentences for the vague crime of "dangerousness."

Yet tyranny will not forever endure, and as President, I will not passively await the day when the Cuban people enjoy the blessings of freedom and democracy. It is in our national interest to support their aspirations and oppose those of the Castro regime, one that harbors fugitives from U.S. justice, expresses unrelenting hostility to America, and shoots down unarmed civilian aircraft. I wish the other presidential candidates felt similarly. Just a few years ago, Senator Obama had a very clear view on Cuba. When asked in a questionnaire about his policy toward Cuba, he answered: "I believe that normalization of relations with Cuba would help the oppressed and poverty-stricken Cuban people while setting the stage for a more democratic government once Castro inevitably leaves the scene." Now Senator Obama has shifted positions and says he only favors easing the embargo, not lifting it. He also wants to sit down unconditionally for a presidential meeting with Raul Castro. These steps would send the worst possible signal to Cuba's dictators – there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms, they can simply wait for a unilateral change in US policy. I believe we should give hope to the Cuban people, not to the Castro regime. My administration will press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, to legalize all political parties, labor unions, and free media, and to schedule internationally monitored elections. The embargo must stay in place until these basic elements of democratic society are met.

Maintaining the embargo is, however, just one element of a broader approach my administration would make to the people of Cuba. I would provide more material assistance and moral support to the courageous human rights activists who bravely defy the regime every day, and increase Radio and TV Marti and other means to communicate directly with the Cuban people. My Justice Department would vigorously prosecute Cuban officials implicated in the murder of Americans, drug trafficking, and other crimes. While our Cuba policy will not always be in accord with that of our hemispheric and European partners, my administration will begin an active dialogue with them to develop a plan for post-Castro Cuba, a plan that will spark rapid change and a new awakening in that country. The Cuban people have waited long enough.

As we work with our hemispheric partners, we must be clear about the kind of leadership America seeks to provide. For decades, in Republican and Democratic administrations alike, the United States has treated Latin America as a junior partner rather than as a neighbor, like a little brother rather than as an equal. As a resident of a state that borders Mexico, I am acutely aware of the extraordinary contributions that our neighbors make to the United States – from trade to culture to a commitment to democracy and human rights. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States, and Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny. It is time to embrace this destiny for the benefit of all our peoples.

We have made progress toward this vision by expanding the benefits of free commerce, through NAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and our free trade agreements with Peru and Chile. But the progress has stalled; our longstanding bipartisan commitment to hemispheric prosperity is crumbling. We see this most vividly in Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia. The failure of the Congress to take up and approve this agreement is a reminder why 80 percent of Americans think we are on the wrong track. Congress can find time to pass a pork-filled farm bill, but it cannot stir itself to support a key ally and further American prosperity.

The Colombia FTA would benefit American workers and consumers – the U.S. International Trade Administration estimates that over $1 billion in tariffs have been imposed on U.S. exports to Colombia since the FTA was signed, tariffs that would be eliminated once the agreement takes effect. Here in Florida, trade has created new markets for the Sunshine State's world-class produce, manufactured goods, and professional services. Florida's exports to Canada and Mexico rose by some 208 percent since NAFTA was enacted, and its exports to Chile grew 99 percent in the first four years of its free trade agreement. Colombia today stands as Florida's fifth largest export market – Florida exported $2.1 billion worth of goods there last year – and now the Colombians are offering to drop their barriers to American goods. Yet Senators Obama and Clinton oppose the agreement, wishing to retreat behind protectionist walls and undermine a key hemispheric ally.

The strategic implications of rejecting this agreement are profound. Colombia is a beacon of hope in a region where the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, and others are actively seeking to thwart economic progress and democracy. Delaying approval of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement will not create one American job or start one American business, but it will divide us from our Colombian partners at a time when they are battling the FARC terrorists and their allied drug cartels. It will undercut America's standing with our allies in a critical region and across the world, at a moment when rebuilding these relationships has never been more important. It will set back the goal of deepening relations with our neighbors to the south and enhancing the stability, peace, and prosperity of our hemisphere.

If I am elected president, the United States will not bow to the special interests seeking to block progress. Instead, we will forge a new policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean Basin, one founded on peace and security, shared prosperity, democracy and freedom, and mutual respect. We will work to prevent Venezuela and Bolivia from taking the same road to failure Castro has paved for Cuba, and we will broaden and strengthen ties with key states like Brazil, Peru, and Chile. We will make clear to all countries in the region that if they share our values of freedom and openness, they can count on us as a friend. We will not abandon our partners to demagogues, drug lords, and despair, but expand the benefits of security, trade and prosperity to all.

My vision embodies the interests and the values of America and seeks the betterment of all people, everywhere in our hemisphere. And it is a vision that includes the people of Cuba.

Courageous men found their calling at the beginning of the last century in winning for Cuba its independence. And those brave men and women who stand up for their rights today will, one day soon, win for Cuba its freedom. When they do, they will enjoy not only the fruits of their own liberation, but also the firm and fast friendship of all Americans who have stood with them throughout the years of struggle. On this Cuban Independence Day, let us take a moment to pray that Cubans everywhere can one day soon enjoy the liberty for which their forefathers fought.

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/Speeches/c6208dbe-e868-4917-b4e6-f56c363d20c7.htm

Wasserman Schultz opposes Florida revote

March 07, 2008

FL's Schultz Says Primary Redo Is "Totally Unworkable"

FL Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said on a press call with other Hillary Clinton supporters that a revote in Florida is "far too expensive" and "totally unworkable."

"A do-over in this case is absolutely inappropriate," she said, adding, "You don't rerun an election until you get the result you want."

(JENNIFER SKALKA)

My online comment:

Maybe Wasserman Schultz is concerned that a real contest in Florida would expose the close similarity of HRC's position on Cuba to that of George Bush, and mobilize Cuban American Democrats who want to be able to visit family more often than once every three years.

Or maybe she is afraid that HRC might have to disavow DWS's refusal to support the Democratic candidates running against her political allies on Cuba (and big backers of John McCain), the Diaz-Ballarts and Ros-Lehtinen.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/03/fls_schultz_say.html

Wasserman Schultz Prefers McCain Supporting Republicans to Democrats

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_dade/story/449521.html

Posted on Sat, Mar. 08, 2008

Democrats torn between party, GOP friends

BY LESLEY CLARK

Party leaders have tapped Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz to raise money and coach candidates in a high-stakes, aggressive bid to expand the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

That wasn't the case just two years ago when the pair flouted a long-standing Florida delegation agreement to not campaign against colleagues and vigorously backed Ron Klein in his winning bid to oust veteran Republican Rep. Clay Shaw.

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

''At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant,'' Wasserman Schultz said.

The decision comes as Democrats believe they have their best shot in years to defeat at least one of the Cuban-American incumbents with a roster of Democrats that include former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, outgoing Miami-Dade Democratic party chair Joe Garcia and businesswoman Annette Taddeo.

But Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their ties to the three Republicans are personal as well as professional: Both served in the state Legislature with Mario Diaz-Balart and say they work in concert with all three on South Florida issues.

Wasserman Schultz has also played a leading role in persuading the new Democratic majority to sustain the economic embargo against Cuba and has established close ties to the staunchly pro-embargo U.S.-Cuba Democracy political action committee, which has contributed thousands to Wasserman Schultz and Meek's campaigns.

Both Democrats can be ultra-partisan: Meek, a member of Pelosi's 30-Something Working Group, is a familiar face late night on C-Span, hammering Republicans and the Bush administration. He has served as vice chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, traveling the country to raise money on behalf of Democratic candidates.

And Wasserman Schultz, for the second election cycle in a row, co-chairs the campaign committee's Red to Blue program, which raises money for and provides strategic advice to top Democratic House candidates.

The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.

''It needs to be somebody who can roll up their sleeves,'' Wasserman Schultz said. ``I'm just not that person; it's just too sensitive for me.''

She said the situation is not unprecedented. For years, members of Florida's Congressional delegation agreed to refrain from campaigning against each other -- a pact that serves to foster goodwill among lawmakers and potentially bring more federal dollars to Florida. It also can provide incumbents with a measure of protection against challengers.

''It's quite a quandary for Debbie,'' said Miami-Dade Commissioner Sally Heyman, a former legislator who roomed with Wasserman Schultz in Tallahassee. ``They've developed this working relationship that has them entirely united on South Florida issues. But Debbie has to maintain or enhance the majority or she's no longer in a position to help us.''

Meek also has told national party leaders that he won't play a role in the races. He and his mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek, are close to Martinez, the former Hialeah mayor. But Meek said the ties between his family and the Diaz-Balarts are deeper.

''I wish Raul the best,'' Meek said. ``As a Democrat, I hope he succeeds. This is the only race I wouldn't get involved in. It's just something I can't do.''

Martinez, whose strained relations with the three GOP incumbents are legendary, played down the pair's decision, noting that politics creates odd allegiances.

''I understand the dilemma they have, and I respect it,'' Martinez said. ``Everyone has to do their own thing, and I'm going to do my own thing for my race.

''If they lived in the district,'' he quipped, ``I would only ask them to quietly vote for me.''

Joe Garcia notes such nonaggression pacts are ``part of why progress is so difficult in Washington. The status quo is hard to move. But when all of this is said and done, we're going to be elected by people who live in the disticts we're running in.''

The three challengers have all been endorsed by former Florida Gov. Bob Graham. Meek said he's confident they'll prosper without a boost from the House members.

However, Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, which tracks political campaigns, said the lack of support from top Democrats could make donors leery.

''Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a favorite of leadership, somebody on the move,'' Rothenberg said. ``When somebody like that doesn't want to be a major player in taking on a Republican, that's a signal.''

Yet Rothenberg says the situation is not without precedent: He noted several Republican and Democratic senators from the same states honor nonaggression pacts.

Both Meek and Wasserman Schultz have benefited from a close affiliation with the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which since its founding in 2003 has contributed $22,000 to Wasserman Schultz's campaign committee and $10,500 to Meek's.

Wasserman Schultz said the PAC support played no role in her decision, but she acknowledges she's closer to the Republican incumbents on Cuba issues than she is to the Democratic challengers, who favor easing restrictions on family travel to the island.

Wasserman Schultz has courted the Cuban-American community since she came to Washington: As a freshman legislator, she helped found the Cuba Democracy Caucus, a bipartisan group of pro-embargo legislators that works to thwart efforts to ease the embargo. She worked last year, Ros-Lehtinen says, ''like a tiger'' to help quash a push to ease travel and trade restrictions, delivering pro-travel advocates one of their biggest losses.

''When she and [Rep. Albio Sires, a Cuban-American Democrat from New Jersey] work within their party and get 65-66 votes to join us, that has made all the difference,'' Lincoln Diaz-Balart told a group of Cuban-American exiles at a recent press conference. His brother, Mario, introduced Wasserman Schultz as ``an incredible advocate who has taken the cause of a free Cuba as her own.''

A day later, Wasserman Schultz and Ros-Lehtinen lavished compliments on each other at a Washington luncheon with visiting Miami-Dade commissioners. ''I can't say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office,'' Wasserman Schultz said, noting that she relied on Ros-Lehtinen's advice to help her balance the demands of elected office and motherhood.

''She's cultivated this enormous political capital, and that's a lot to risk embracing those not entirely in line with her views,'' suggests Mauricio Claver-Carone, a director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC.

The Democratic trio is unlikely to count on another lawmaker: Sires, who like Martinez and Garcia, is a Cuban-American Democrat.

''I'm concentrating on my own race,'' said Sires, who acknowledged close ties to the three Republicans. ``What binds us together is this issue of Cuba. I respect how they have fought for Cuba all these years.''

McCain, Obama trade fire over Cuba

Posted on Sat, Feb. 23, 2008 Kansas City Stat
http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/502235.html#recent_comm


By LESLEY CLARK
McClatchy Newspapers

http://www.herald.com/
Barack Obama's offer to meet face to face with Fidel Castro's successor is "dangerously naive," Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday, testing out a potential fall campaign strategy to cast the Democratic presidential candidate as too inexperienced for the world stage.

Obama, who made the comment at a Thursday night debate with rival Hillary Clinton, rapidly returned fire, saying McCain "would give us four more years of the same Bush-McCain policies that have failed U.S. interests and the Cuban people for the last 50 years."

Though neither man has wrapped up his party's nomination, the volleys over Cuba policy provide a glimpse into what is shaping up to be their lines of attack: McCain will present himself as an experienced, steady hand and criticize Obama's lack of foreign policy experience; Obama, if the Democratic nominee, will present himself as a fresh start and McCain as a return to the Bush years.

"This is the thrust and parry we'll hear throughout the campaign," said David Johnson, former executive director of the Republican Party of Florida. "Obama's going to try to tie McCain to the less popular parts of the Bush administration ... and McCain is going to say, `This is most important job in the world and he doesn't have the relevant experience to do it.' "

Asked at Thursday's debate in Texas whether he'd meet with Raul Castro, his brother's likely successor, Obama said he would. "I do think that it's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies," he said. "That's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference."

Though Obama said he would be willing to meet with the Cuban leader "without preconditions," he added that the encounter would happen only after both sides came up with an agenda that included human rights, the release of political prisoners and freedom of the press.

Clinton took a more cautious approach, saying she wouldn't meet with Fidel Castro's successor without "evidence that change was happening."

McCain noted Friday that Obama, as a U.S. Senate candidate in 2003, supported the "normalization of relations with Fidel Castro." Obama said Thursday night he supports "the eventual normalization."

"Obama said that as president he'd meet with the imprisoned island's new leader `without preconditions,"' McCain said. "So Raul Castro gets an audience with an American president, and all the prestige such a meeting confers, without having to release political prisoners, allow free media, political parties, and labor unions, or schedule internationally monitored free elections."

"Meet, talk and hope may be a sound approach in a state legislature," McCain said in a dig at Obama's experience as a state senator before his 2004 Senate election. "But it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy where the oppressed look to America for hope and adversaries wish us ill."

A McCain adviser said his campaign didn't criticize Clinton's remarks because she didn't say she'd meet with Castro with no restrictions.

Obama didn't retreat Friday, saying in an e-mail that he'd call for an "immediate change in policy to allow for unlimited family travel and remittances to the island." President Bush tightened restrictions on family travel and remittances in 2004, limiting Cuban-Americans to visiting their relatives on the island once every three years and capping remittances at $100 per month.

"In November, the American people will have a clear choice: a new direction versus more war in Iraq, more not talking to leaders we don't like and more of a Cuba policy that has failed to achieve freedom for the Cuban people," Obama said. "I am confident that the American people will choose the promise of the future over the failed policies and predictable political attacks of the past."

The remarks on meeting with Castro could be troublesome for Cuban Democrats, many of whom support lifting restrictions on travel and remittances but stop short of advocating talks with Cuban leaders unless democratic changes occur on the island.

The state Republican Party used the remarks to fire a broadside at the three Democrats challenging South Florida's three Republican Cuban-American members of Congress.

One of the challengers, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, who wants to unseat Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, said he disagrees with Obama.

"Unless the Castros show a willingness to change the way they conduct business, release political prisoners, allow more participation of the Cuban people, we should not sit down with them," said Martinez, who has endorsed Clinton.

"If Obama becomes the official nominee I'm pretty sure he will have modifications to some of his positions," Martinez said.


My comment:

Actually if Obama is the nominee, Raul Martinez will no longer be bound to support Hillary Clinton's position which is very similar to the Bush Administration's.

Obama needs to also speak out for non-tourist travel. At a time when Cuba is engaged in wide ranging discussions of economic and social reform, world affairs councils, religious and humanitarian organizations, short term study programs, cultural groups, sports teams, etc. should be going to Cuba as they did before 2004.

It doesn't mean much economically, but it does mean a diversity of Americans can make their own judgment about the process underway in Cuba, as well as help create a bilateral atmosphere favorable to reform. Of course that is exactly what the hard liners in Miami are afraid of.

Clinton vs. Obama on Cuba in Austin Debate

Univision’s Jorge RAMOS: Thank you very much (SPEAKING IN SPANISH). Thank you so much for being with us, and let me start with a little news. After nearly half a century in office, Fidel Castro resigned as the head of the Cuban government. Ninety miles off the coast of the United States, we might have a new opportunity. The question for you, Senator Clinton: Would you be willing to sit down with Raul Castro, or whoever leads the Cuban dictatorship when you take office at least just once, to get a measure of the man?

CLINTON: Well, Jorge, I hope we have an opportunity. The people of Cuba deserve to have a democracy. And this gives the Cuban government, under Raul Castro, a chance to change direction from the one that was set for 50 years by his brother.

I’m going to be looking for some of those changes: releasing political prisoner, ending some of the oppressive practices on the press, opening up the economy. Of course the United States stands ready. And, as president, I would be ready to reach out and work with a new Cuban government, once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change that direction.

I want to bring the region together, our European allies who have influence with Cuba, to try to push for some of those changes, and to make it very clear that, if Cuba moves toward democracy and freedom for its people, the United States will welcome that.

And as president, I would look for opportunities to try to make that happen and to create the momentum that might eventually lead to a presidential visit. But there has to be evidence that indeed the changes are real; that they are taking place; and that the Cuban people will finally be given an opportunity to have their future determined by themselves.

RAMOS: Very simply, would you meet with him or not, with Raul Castro?

CLINTON: I would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening, because I think it’s important that they demonstrate clearly that they are committed to change the direction. Then I think, you know, something like diplomatic encounters and negotiations over specifics could take place.

But we’ve had this conversation before, Senator Obama and myself, and I believe that we should have full diplomatic engagement where appropriate. But a presidential visit should not be offered and given without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest, and in this case, in the interests of the Cuban people.

BROWN: Senator Obama, just to follow up, you had said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuban, Iran, North Korea, among others, so presumably you would be willing to meet with the new leader of Cuba.

OBAMA: That’s correct. Now, keep in mind that the starting point for our policy in Cuba should be the liberty of the Cuban people. And I think we recognize that that liberty has not existed throughout the Castro regime. And we now have an opportunity to potentially change the relationship between the United States and Cuba after over half a century.

I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda, and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time. But I do think that it’s important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that’s where diplomacy makes the biggest difference. (APPLAUSE)

One other thing that I’ve said, as a show of good faith that we’re interested in pursuing potentially a new relationship, what I’ve called for is a loosening of the restrictions on remittances from family members to the people of Cuba, as well as travel restrictions for family members who want to visit their family members in Cuba. And I think that initiating that change in policy as a start and then suggesting that an agenda get set up is something that could be useful, but I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some of the progress that Senator Clinton was talking about.

BROWN: But that’s different from your position back in 2003. You called U.S. policy toward Cuba a miserable failure, and you supported normalizing relations. So you’ve backtracked now…

OBAMA: I support the eventual normalization. And it’s absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. I mean, the fact is, is that during my entire lifetime, and Senator Clinton’s entire lifetime, you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba. So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. But that’s going to happen in steps. And the first step, as I said, is changing our rules with respect to remittances and with respect to travel.

And then I think it is important for us to have the direct contact, not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally. I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. And this moment, this opportunity when Fidel Castro has finally stepped down, I think, is one that we should try to take advantage of. (APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Senator Clinton, do you want a quick response?

CLINTON: Well, I agree, absolutely, that we should be willing to have diplomatic negotiations and processes with anyone. I’ve been a strong advocate of opening up such a diplomatic process with Iran, for a number of years. Because I think we should look for ways that we can possibly move countries that are adversarial to us, you know, toward the world community. It’s in our interests. It’s in the interests of the people in countries that, frankly, are oppressed, like Cuba, like Iran.

But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting, without preconditions, with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And it should be part of a process, but I don’t think it should be offered in the beginning. Because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of somebody like Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad and others.

And, as President Kennedy said, he wouldn’t be afraid to negotiate, but he would expect there to be a lot of preparatory work done, to find out exactly what we would get out of it. And therefore, I do think we should be eliminating the policy of the Bush administration, which has been very narrowly defined, and frankly against our interests, because we have failed to reach out to countries, we have alienated our friends, and we have emboldened our enemies.

So I would get back to very vigorous diplomacy, and I would use bipartisan diplomacy. I would ask emissaries from both political parties to represent me and our country, because I want to send a very clear message to the rest of the world that the era of unilateralism, preemption and arrogance of the Bush administration is over and we’re going to… (APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Very briefly and then we’re going to move on. (APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: I think, as I said before, preparation is actually absolutely critical in any meeting. And I think it is absolutely true that either of us would step back from some of the Bush unilateralism that’s caused so much damage. But I do think it is important precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago.

Because the problem is, if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it’s important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.

That is the kind of step that I would like to take as president of the United States. (APPLAUSE)

http://polstate.com/?p=5254

Obama on Latin America

Senator Barack Obama
TC Williams High School
Alexandria, VA
Feb 10, 2008

Transcript:

I don't actually agree with Chavez's policies and how he's dealing with his people. I think he has consolidated power. I think he has strong despotic tendencies. I think that he has been using oil revenue to stir up trouble against the United States. So, he is not a leader that I admire.
But we can't, our Latin America policy can not just be "I oppose Castro" and "I oppose Chavez" and that's the end of it. Because we've been neglecting, (applause) we've been neglecting Latin America even in our own back yard. We've been so obssessed with Iraq and so obsessed with the Middle East.

In the meantime, China has been sending diplomats and economic development specialists and building roads all throughout, all throughout, Latin America. They are securing trade agreements and contracts. And we ignore Latin America at our own peril.

So, I intend to visit the countries of Latin America. I intend to put together a alliance for progress in the 21st century. We are going to strengthen trade ties. We are going to talk about human rights. (applause) We are going to talk about human rights and we are going to talk about freedom of the press and we are going to talk about political prisoners in Cuba.

But we're also going to recognize that over time what we want to develop is the kind of relationship of mutual dignity, mutual respect. We don't have, the notion that Latin American countries are a junior partner to the United States, that is outmoded. We need to be full partners with those countries, show them the respect that they deserve.

Thanks to Center for Democracy in the Americas. See video here.

Fareed Zakaria Compares Candidates on Cuba; McAuliff response

Fareed Zakaria

The Wrong Experience

Clinton has immense experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs.

Feb 11, 2008 Issue of Newsweek

The Democratic Party's two remaining candidates have become so cordial toward one another that you could easily believe there are few substantive differences between them. At last Thursday's debate, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton heartily agreed on most issues and added that they were having a wonderful time chatting with one another. The Republican race, by contrast, is bubbling over with tensions and personal animosities. Watch any encounter between John McCain and Mitt Romney and you can almost see the smoke steaming out of each one's ears.

This Democratic amity is not just about making up. The party is far more united than in the past. And yet there are important distinctions between Obama and Clinton—and not simply in the broad, almost gassy talk of inspiration versus experience. They come to today's challenges from very different places.

Consider Cuba policy. Almost anyone who is being honest will acknowledge that America's approach toward Cuba is brain dead. No one even remembers why we've imposed a total embargo on the country. A policy that was put into place at the height of the cold war, when fears of Soviet missiles and communist penetration were at their peak, has been maintained even though the threat that prompted it has collapsed. What exactly are we afraid this moth-eaten island will do to America today?

Our policy has the additional burden of having failed, by any measure. We've been trying to force regime change in Cuba for 45 years. Instead Fidel Castro is now the longest-lived head of government in the world. Every tightening of the Cuban embargo has resulted in further repression and isolation. And yet the only changes George W. Bush has made to our Cuba policy have been to impose more restrictions on travel and trade, a cruel and futile doubling down on a bad bet.

Obama has advocated easing the Bush-imposed ban on Cuban-Americans visiting the island and sending money to their relatives. He makes a broader case for a new Cuba policy, arguing that capitalism, trade and travel will help break the regime's stranglehold on the country and help open things up.

Clinton immediately disagreed, firmly supporting the current policy. This places her in the strange position of arguing, in effect, that her husband's Cuba policy was not hard-line enough. But this is really not the best way to understand Clinton's position. In all probability, she actually agrees with Obama's stand. She is just calculating that it would anger Cuban-Americans in Florida and New Jersey.

This is the problem with Hillary Clinton. She is highly intelligent, has real experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs. In fact, she seems so conditioned by what she sees as political constraints that one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end.

Partly, this is a generational difference. Bill and Hillary Clinton grew up in an era of Republican dominance. For much of the last 30 years, the Republican Party has been the party of ideas (a point made repeatedly by Daniel Patrick Moynihan), and Ronald Reagan was seen by much of the country to have rescued America from malaise and retreat. The Clintons' careers have been shaped by the belief that for a Democrat to succeed, he or she had to work within this conservative ideological framework. Otherwise one would be pilloried for being weak on national security, partial to taxes and big government and out of touch with Middle America's social values.

For 30 years this has been the right bet. It's why Bill Clinton was the only successful national Democratic politician in that period. But is it still the right wager? Obama has grown up in a different landscape—with vastly different geopolitics, economics and culture. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have been the defining political figures of the recent past. Conservatism has lost its monopoly role. As a result, the new generation is not defensive about its beliefs, nor does it feel trapped into the old categories like hawks versus doves and markets versus taxes.

This is not naiveté. Obama's position on Cuba is not all hope. Most of the older generation of Cuban-Americans are hard-line Republicans anyway, so it's probably pointless courting them. And the younger ones—under 45 or so—are far less wedded to the punitive approach and symbolic battles of the past. So Obama is taking a calculated risk that the time is right.

Cuba policy is a microcosm for this difference in attitudes. Obama has spoken in favor of a proposal—made by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn—that in order to get the world more serious about nuclear nonproliferation, the United States should begin to fulfill its end of the treaty and reduce its own nuclear arsenal. Again, for all I know, Hillary Clinton agrees with this approach. But she won't say so. Her long years of experience—in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s—warn her against such audacity. But the world has changed so much—the cold war is a distant memory, capitalism has spread across the world, new threats come not from states but small bands of people, unilateralism is discredited—that perhaps it is time for America to change as well.

*******************************

My comment

Finally someone noticed the big contradiction between Clinton and Obama on Cuba.

In a contest devoted to change and restoring America's standing in the world, more attention is deserved for a policy that is as damaging as Iraq in international opinion--as reflected for the sixteen year at the United Nations where the vote last October to condemn our unilateral embargo grew to 184 to 4.

Barack Obama has pledged unrestricted family travel and remittances, not just "easing" Bush restrictions of one visit every three years. He also has called for negotiations with Raul Castro without preconditions.

Hillary Clinton is Bush light on Cuba, seeming to take her cue from Sen. Bob Menendez and her Miami based Cuban American sister in law.Both candidates would do well to listen to the 2/3 of Americans who support normalization of relations and the right to travel to Cuba.

As a first step let's get back to the non-tourist people to people exchanges that Bill Clinton allowed and neither candidate has so far mentioned.

John McAuliff
Executive Director
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Dobbs Ferry, NY