Cuba and "Nixon Goes to China"... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14591710
Since the United States and Cuba have renewed diplomatic ties, I was thinking about the phrase "Nixon Goes to China". It's a term to describe a course of action a politician takes that would be seen as controversial if taken by someone without certain credentials. For example, Richard Nixon was able to open relations with China because, not despite, his anti-Communist record.

If we don't lift the embargo by the time Obama leaves office, who should or will? Would Rubio or Cruz do so? After all, they're the children of Cuban exiles.
#14591764
Indeed. They defected to America precisely because they hate Cuba and it's people. They preferred it as an American colony than a free nation.
#14591768
It is laughable that the Americans still maintain their embargo on Cuba. Did anyone not realise that it is 2015 and not 1965? Instead Cuba is still treated like some sort of pariah state. Lifting the embargo would actually be in America's economic and strategic interest because it would mean Washington could develop a productive relationship with Havana.
#14592341
CentristVoice wrote:Since the United States and Cuba have renewed diplomatic ties, I was thinking about the phrase "Nixon Goes to China". It's a term to describe a course of action a politician takes that would be seen as controversial if taken by someone without certain credentials. For example, Richard Nixon was able to open relations with China because, not despite, his anti-Communist record.


That's spot on. The only reason why Cuba is still that closed is the embargo. Even Vietnam opened up, introduced free market reforms in 1986 and restored relations with the US.

Cuba is pretty much the only country still living in the Cold War. And while the embargo is not responsible for the bad state of their economy, it definitely is responsible for the bad political situation.

Lift the embargo, and the Cuban dictatorship will probably be gone in a decade or so.

If we don't lift the embargo by the time Obama leaves office, who should or will? Would Rubio or Cruz do so? After all, they're the children of Cuban exiles.


It's highly unlikely the Republicans will win next year, though. They are too fragmented right now. But well, it's still possible.

mikema63 wrote:They wont, there is no group as anti-cuba as the children of cuban expats and refugees.


There is a huge difference between being anti-Cuba and being anti-Castro. Confusing politics with nationality is never a good idea.

Cuban-Americans are, in general, not anti-Cuba. While it is true that a significant number of them has assimilated into the mainstream American culture (which has happened to pretty much every ethnic group in the US after 3 generations), many preserve their original Cuban culture.

They are, however, anti-Castro, but the Castro brothers are not Cuba.

Decky wrote:Indeed. They defected to America precisely because they hate Cuba and it's people. They preferred it as an American colony than a free nation.



Because yeah, a country ruled by one party, in which most political positions beyond the local level is a "free" nation.

Cuba is classified as 'Not Free' by the Freedom House in their Freedom in the World report, scoring terribly in both civil liberties and political rights. Due to their highly undemocratic election system, they are also not even classified as an 'electoral democracy'.

Political Interest wrote:It is laughable that the Americans still maintain their embargo on Cuba. Did anyone not realise that it is 2015 and not 1965?


The Cuban regime seems to have not realized that yet.

Either way, the embargo doesn't help.

Instead Cuba is still treated like some sort of pariah state. Lifting the embargo would actually be in America's economic and strategic interest because it would mean Washington could develop a productive relationship with Havana.


Well, to be honest, I don't think that's really important in the 21st century anymore. Cuba was a serious issue when the Cold War was still going on. But after the Soviet Union collapsed, they tried to maintain their position, which only hurt them economically. Meanwhile, other communist countries, like China and Vietnam, opened their markets to investors and managed to keep their economies running smoothly. And keep in mind that there was also an embargo on Vietnam, which was lifted in 1994. But despite that, their economy thrived during the late 80s and early 90s thanks to the reforms.

So blaming the Cuban situation on the embargo alone is naïve. Especially because they can trade with pretty much every other country in the world — and they do.
#14592412
There is a huge difference between being anti-Cuba and being anti-Castro. Confusing politics with nationality is never a good idea.

Cuban-Americans are, in general, not anti-Cuba. While it is true that a significant number of them has assimilated into the mainstream American culture (which has happened to pretty much every ethnic group in the US after 3 generations), many preserve their original Cuban culture.

They are, however, anti-Castro, but the Castro brothers are not Cuba.


My step father is cuban, a lot of my extended family is Cuban. The GOP has been propagandizing cuban expats since they came telling them the democrats are communists. They are not anti-castro so much as they are blindly pro-republican. Sure they would be pro-cuban if Cuba got taken over completely and turned into a mini USA, but there is nothing more anti-Cuban than hoping Cuba loses it's national sovereignty.
#14592810
[quote]but there is nothing more anti-Cuban than hoping Cuba loses it's national sovereignty.[/quote

Hit the nail on the head Mike. The defectors can not claim to be pro Cuban in anyway shape or form. Their response to Cuba being liberated from American control was to fuck off and help the Yanks. They are Vichy Cubans.
#14592834
Decky wrote:Hit the nail on the head Mike. The defectors can not claim to be pro Cuban in anyway shape or form. Their response to Cuba being liberated from American control was to fuck off and help the Yanks. They are Vichy Cubans.
France suffered a massive drop in living standards under Nazi rule. Grenada and Panama on the other hand saw an increase in prosperity after liberation by America.

I went to East Berlin before the wall came down. I travelled through Yugoslavia shortly before the war broke out. I have seen with my own eyes the superiority of our western liberal system over decrepit Communism.
#14592836
Smertios wrote:Lift the embargo, and the Cuban dictatorship will probably be gone in a decade or so.

You earlier mentioned Vietnam.
How are you certain that the Cuban Communist Party can't replicate what the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Laotian "Communists" do and maintain power in conjunction with a capitalist economy?
#14593096
mikema63 wrote:My step father is cuban, a lot of my extended family is Cuban. The GOP has been propagandizing cuban expats since they came telling them the democrats are communists.


That's true, but I think it's beside the point. I'm not arguing that Cuban-Americans aren't mostly Republican supporters. And of course, there are plenty of reasons for that, including what you mentioned. But being anti-democrat (and I mean the party here) doesn't make one anti-Cuban.

They are not anti-castro so much as they are blindly pro-republican.


Why can't they be both? Even democrats are usually anti-Castro. I would find it really strange if most Americans were pro-Castro after the whole missile crisis in 1962. It's hard cheering for a country when they threatened to bomb you once in the past.

Though to be honest, I'd say that most people in both the US and Latin America (myself included) are probably not as much anti-Castro as they are pro-democracy. I think most people would be happy with letting the PCC remain as a legal political party in Cuba, if there were free elections in all levels of government, with other parties and independent candidates allowed to stand them. That will probably happen sooner or later, anyway.

Sure they would be pro-cuban if Cuba got taken over completely and turned into a mini USA


Is Chile a mini-USA? Or Uruguay? Or even Peru? Heck, is Brazil a not-so-mini-USA as well? Those are all Latin American democracies. Except for Peru, they all have been democracies for quite a while (around 30 years now). Even Peru has been a democracy ever since Fujimori. And they all ruled by leftist governments right now, with a strong rightist opposition.

I don't see any reason to believe that a democratic Cuba would be any different from other democracies in Latin America and/or the Caribbean. Perhaps if we were talking about the 1970s, this would be a different situation, but we are not. Latin America has grown enough to the point where it is no longer a fighting ground for dictatorships and guerrillas sponsored by the US and the Soviet Union.

As for Cuban-Americans (sorry, but I have to get back to this), I'm still not seeing any evidence that they dislike Cuba as a whole, rather than its government. In the US, 51% of the population disapprove the current Obama administration. Does that mean that 51% of Americans are anti-American? In Brazil, 71% of the population disapprove the current Rousseff government, and 66% want her impeached for all the corruption that took place in Petrobras when she was its chairperson, and for irregularities in her campaign funding last year. Only 8% of the Brazilian population approves the current government. Does that mean that 92% of Brazilians are anti-Brazilian? It doesn't make much sense, does it?

but there is nothing more anti-Cuban than hoping Cuba loses it's national sovereignty.


That argument is kind of a double-edged sword, though. If being a liberal democracy makes a country lose its national sovereignty to the US, one could just as easily argue that being a communist dictatorship prior to the early1990s made Cuba lose its national sovereignty to the Soviet Union. Which would mean that Cuba has only been a sovereign nation since 1991, which is, of course, a bit silly. China is already the biggest trade partner of Brazil (both for imports and exports), and the largest trade partner of Mexico for imports. Most projections say that China will take over as the largest trading partner of Latin America, as a whole, next year. And trade with the EU is also growing fast. And of course, trade with India is growing quite fast as well. Both China and India have an economy of over a billion people. The EU has an economy of over 500 million people. The US simply can't compete with that. So, it's probably more accurate to say that Latin America is in more danger of losing its national sovereignty to China than to the US.

Decky wrote:Hit the nail on the head Mike. The defectors can not claim to be pro Cuban in anyway shape or form.


They don't claim to be anti-Cuban either...

Their response to Cuba being liberated from American control was to fuck off and help the Yanks. They are Vichy Cubans.


That's a stupid comparison. Cuba, like most of the world, had only two choices: liberalism under American influence, or communism under Soviet influence. It was the Cold War, after all. "Freedom" was not a choice. The Cuban government's response from being "liberated" from American control was placing itself under Soviet control. Dissidents didn't agree with that and left.

The comparison with Vichy France is simply ridiculous. The French didn't have to choose between two world powers during WW2. There was only Germany trying to conquer it, and then there were the Allies fighting Germany. It's a completely different scenario.

Gletkin wrote:You earlier mentioned Vietnam.
How are you certain that the Cuban Communist Party can't replicate what the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Laotian "Communists" do and maintain power in conjunction with a capitalist economy?


Because Cuba isn't in Asia. They are a western nation with a western mentality. And none of the other Latin American dictatorships survived the Cold War. Unlike pretty much any Asian country, an open Cuba would be surrounded by liberal democracies in the Caribbean, Latin America and Northern America. Sooner or later, those ideas would enter the country.

In Asia, it's quite different. They have a bunch of one-party dictatorships right by their side: China, North Korea, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Mianmar, Vietnam itself, etc. Even in democracies, like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia, Malaysia etc, things are much different than they are in the West: except for brief period of time, power has been in the hands of a single political group in those nations. Of course, there are some exceptions to that rule (like the Philippines), but the pattern is still there.

I simply don't think a political dictatorship would survive an open market in Cuba.
EU-BREXIT

I probably won't be able to find clear statemen[…]

No, it's biologically hardwired, because people h[…]

Atheism is Evil

And on your planet, that might be relevant to the[…]

People get banned from Pofo for violating rule 2.[…]