Welcome back from Spring Break! This week's blog post revisits a couple important stories
First, we are closing in on Venezuela's presidential elections. With that in mind we will (once again) look at the legacy of Hugo Chavez. But, this time I want to specifically examine how a country can go about engaging a previously marginalized/ignored sector of society in politics without creating a polarized society. Chavez has been credited with making political citizens out of the Venezuelan poor but he - and his allies - also demonized anyone who dared to support another leader, ideology or movement. These 'opposition' groups were labored as fascists, golpistas, nazis, and more. The first of the following two articles descries a recent case of this labeling while the second explores how Chavez's impact on the Venezuelan lower class exceeds economic outcomes.
Maduro Calls Venezuela Opposition 'Heirs of Hitler'
Chávez Transformed the Way Venezuelans View Themselves
Discussion question: considering 21st century Venezuela, as well as 1970s Chile, how can a society go about addressing historical inequalities and injustice without contributing to a deeply polarized society?
The next article looks at the Cuban dissident community and the recent visit of Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez to the Cuban-American areas of Miami. As we have discussed in class, the Cuban-American community has played an important role in shaping US policy towards Cuba. While she is being received as a hero in Miami, Yoani Sanchez is very different than your average Cuban dissident. First, she plans to return to Cuba shortly. Second, she opposes the US embargo. The video gives you a better idea of who she is and what she thinks.
New Breed of Cuban Dissident Finds Changed Miami
Video: Yoani Sanchez with NY Times
Discussion question: how will the Cuban populations new ability to travel internationally legally impact the sentiments and influence of the Cuban American community towards US-Cuba relations?
Enjoy!
How will the Cuban populations new ability to travel internationally legally impact the sentiments and influence of the Cuban American community towards US-Cuba relations?
ReplyDeleteIn response to this question, I think the breakdown of physical bounderies between Cuba and the U.S. will lead to the breakdown of other barriers between the two countries. As Yoani Sanchez pointed out in the article, for decades, Cubans have been indoctrinated to think of Cuban-Americans as the enemy, while Cuban-Americans have also held negative sentiments towards Cuba. However, I think both communties are starting to realize that times have changed and that relations between Cuba and the U.S. need to change. As the case of Sanchez' blog shows, technology and the internet is helping to connect the communities and has highlighted the commonalities between the two. The internet is breaking down old barriers between the two sides and is allowing both sides to see that they have many of the same goals (a freer and more democratic Cuba). Freer travel between the U.S. and Cuba is also allowing the two sides to experience the reality of the other side firsthand. In the article, Sanchez says she was surprised to have received such a warm welcome from the Cuban-American community and that they were preserving Cuban culture in the U.S. I think many other Cubans who come to visit relatives who live in the U.S. will also experience this.
I also think more Cuban-Americans may start to follow Sanchez' lead and oppose the embargo. I imagine that many members of the Cuban-American community who heard Sanchez speak have become more aware of the reality of the political economy of Cuba and how, as Sanchez said in the video, the Cuban government has blamed the embargo for all of its problems. As Sanchez said the video, the Cuban government needs to explain the economic setbacks and lack of freedoms that persist in Cuba today. I think both sides are in agreement that the Cuban government needs to be held more accountable for the problems associated with the political economy and level of freedom in Cuba. Thus, I think many Cuban-Americans might start to oppose the embargo in order to improve conditions in Cuba and relations between the U.S. and Cuba.
Overall, I think the Cuban population's ability to travel to the U.S. will sway the Cuban-American towards supporting and strengthening U.S.-Cuba relations by showing that both sides have common frustrations and common goals and that both sides are working to preserve Cuban culture.
While boundaries may be diminished between Cuba and the United States, it is not so certain this will have such a purely positive effect. Throughout its history, a characteristic factor of American society is the unfortunate marginalization of the most recent immigrant group, while Cubans recognizes as "refugees" were welcomed in America, an influx of Cubans personally choosing to travel (and perhaps immigrate) to the United States may cause this group to be less welcomed in America, especially considering remnant sentiments of opposition to the stereotypically "communist" Cuba. Reversely, the Cuban government may use increased access to the United States as a means of criticizing America by highlighting its flaws. However, I would agree with the broader notion that increase in awareness leads to increase in true democracy, and thus, increased freedom of travel for Cubans is beneficial.
DeleteI think that the notion that Cubans would become marginalized in our society is a fair assumption especially since the large majority of americans are raised to be anticommunism. In past articles we've read on Cuba there were examples of the Country being accepting to minorities(A Transgender Elected Official Reflects an Evolving Cuba)- but America on the other hand is lacking in this acceptance. I find it strange that in a communist country there is more acceptance to minority groups than in a democratic.
DeleteWhile I agree with you both that those immigrating to the United States often find themselves marginalized and unfairly treated, I do not think that Cuban travelers/immigrants will face these same conditions. Though many Americans are still firmly "anti-communist," these sensibilities will only act to INCREASE support for these individuals, as receiving them in America can be perceived more tolerably as "rescuing" them from the oppressive regime under which they have suffered (as opposed to them coming here to "exploit" our system). The caveat, however, lies simply in the fact that the number of future potential Cuban immigrants is rather limited. This is best illustrated by a simple comparison: There are, at present, 33.5 million Mexicans living legally in the United States, and an estimated 7 million more living here as undocumented immigrants. That's over 40 million individuals who have chosen to travel here, live here, work here, etc. Compare that to the number of Cubans living in the United States today - just over 1 million (with over 80% concentrated in Southern Florida). Further, consider that if the entire population of Cuba were to immigrate to the United States today, that would mean a mere 12 million Cubans would be living on U.S. soil. My point? Americans will "rescue" these people from the so-called evil Communists, and will do so happily - history shows us that a limit to our collective tolerance exists, though this threshold of indulgence will not be reached for the simple fact that the population of Cuba is relatively small (and shrinking in light of the declining birth rates).
DeleteThat said, I think that those Cubans who do travel here will likely follow the patterns of those who came before them. Specifically, they will be concentrated in the South Florida region, so as to be close to relatives both within Cuba and the United States. I think the Cuban-American voting block - which has shown its electoral might in past elections - will grow significantly (both in size and influence) as a result of this population flow, but also believe that the sentiment regarding the U.S. embargo will begin to change. As the Castros hand over the reigns of power and the Communist government transitions to a more democratic model, the Cuban-American position will shift toward favoring its removal. This process will further be accelerated as a greater flow of information passes between the two countries - as a result of eased travel restrictions - strengthening and reinforcing the push for democratization within Cuba. A great change has begun, and the brave actions of individuals like Yoani Sanchez perfectly capture the essence of this transformation. In the coming years, Cubans and Americans alike will call for an end to the embargo. Let us hope that the government will listen.
I think it is interesting to consider the question of marginality of Cuban-Americans in our current society. I agree with Corrigan's post that often immigrants are marginalized, but it is not that Cuban-Americans will experience this more harshly simply because of anti-communism sentiments. Yes, anti-communism still exists in American culture but Cuban-Americans and recent Cuban immigrants are fleeing the island for the purposes of getting away from this repressive government, certainly not because they support it.
DeleteI too think that the legal travel of Cubans will only strengthen anti-embargo attitudes and a demand for basic human rights for Cuban people by the government. This freedom to travel comes at an opportune moment as the repressive, authoritarian Castro regime is arguably on its way to the grave with Raul Castro.
Corrigan and Kimberly both make very persuasive arguments, though, as has been said many times in these posts, typically immigrants are faced with marginalization, when it comes to Cuban's coming to the states, it will not be for any communist beliefs because the people fleeing to the states most likely do not hold onto the communist views of their government, but actually quite the opposite. The ability for Cubans to legally travel to and from the states I believe will be able to bring understanding and cooperation to Cuban-U.S. relations. I think it will be able to show aspects of Cuban culture and people that before were isolated on the island. In the article about Yoani Sanchez, she explains that sentiments in Cuba towards Cuban exiles are that they are "traitors", however after she traveled to the states she was able to see the amount of culture and Cuba they have been able to bring and preserve across the sea. This is an indicator that the more free travel allowed by the Cuban government, the less tension and misunderstanding we will see between the Cuban and Cuban-American communities.
DeleteI agree that the ability for Cubans to legally travel internationally will be good for relations between Cuban Americans and Cubans. I think it will help both sides to be more understanding of the other and it will help to reverse the indoctrinated hate they have toward each other. When people are exposed to new cultures and ideas, like the Cubans and Cuban-Americans are being exposed, they are less likely to be prejudiced or hate each other because they see the other as more human rather than an idea that they do not like. I think as more Cubans who like Cuba travel to America, the Cuban-Americans will see that the Cuban embargo is not good for Cuba or America. Overall I believe that this shift in Cuba's travel restrictions will improve U.S.-Cuban relations and cause more opposition to the U.S. embargo on Cuba.
DeleteI agree with Mandy's post about Cuba-US relations now that they are able to travel to the US. Especially because Sanchez and how she has had such a positive influence. Now that Cubans can travel to the US, it will allow more Cuban-Americans to feel more free to speak out, which in turn, will help with the Cuba-US relations and cause pressure on the US to possibly end the embargo. I think that by allowing travel to the US, it will open up more doors and help strengthen the Cuban-American population and make them feel more comfortable to step up and try to work on relations between the two countries. Allowing travel to the US may also have an effect in Cuba in that Cubans will like this new freedom and maybe cause them to speak out more against the government, as well as play a significant role in helping to strengthen the Cuban-US relations.
ReplyDeleteI think I just immediately fell in love with Sanchez- she is such a brave woman! It is not uncommon for Cuban-Americans to speak out against the Cuban government from the safety of their Miami homes, but to return to Cuba and continue fighting for human rights is impressive. Her ideas hint at those of Mariela Castro, who says that within the revolution anything is possible, including the expansion of rights and tolerance in their country. For these women, the other half of the controversial slogan- "outside the revolution, nothing"- doesn't have to apply.
DeleteI agree with Caitlin and Mandy that breaking down travel barriers between Cuba and the US will instigate the break down of political barriers as well. Under the right circumstances, I agree with Sanchez that the embargo is more hurtful to Cuban citizens, and that it is used as an influential political tool by both the Cuban and US governments.
To add to this, I agree that Sanchez is indeed a brave and very intelligent woman who only wants the best for the people of Cuba. This is why she is against the embargo and wants the Cuban government to take responsibility for it's own failures. Nevertheless, she deeply cares about her country and remains loyal even now that she is able to travel back and forth to the US legally. I believe that this says a lot, and proves that this new ability is a positive one. As Caitlin mentioned before, it will open up new opportunities and allow for growth/strengthening US-Cuba relations in the long run.
DeleteRunning on the platform of “rights for the poor” and upholding his ideals of equality maintained Hugo Chávez’s control in Venezuela. While he made the right decision of focusing on the poor to tackle inequality within the country, he did so in a manner that can hardly be considered subtle. Chávez may be credited with single-handedly polarizing the country as a result of his rants against the United States and the “Nazis” who are trying to destroy the “progress” that he has made for the poor. I think future leaders, specifically in Venezuela, need to take from his presidency in recognizing that inequalities can be addressed without creating such a contentious atmosphere within the country. The idea should be to focus on inclusivity – including all groups within society in the political process, without marginalizing others. Chávez rallied support for the poor by condemning those who were not. I think that if a leader is successful in addressing the needs of those who have historically been politically sidelined through including their preferences in legislation and policy-making, then there will be far less polarization as there was during Chávez’s presidency.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. I think the fact that Chavez sold oil to the US while openly opposing the US shows the difference between the rhetoric of his regime, making him appear as someone who is fighting the big mean US while sticking up for the poor. The reality however is that Chavez needed the US to fund all of his social programs. If he really wanted to help his people then he should have been more open to international investment. I think it is crazy to say that the gringos are not allowed in his country. They could bring in a lot of money and create new jobs. The fact that Chavez would put his grudge of outsiders over the welfare of his people shows where his heart really was.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Chavez rallied the poor, making them an important part in the political process. Although Chavez brought free healthcare and increased sense of self worth, he was full of empty promises or his projects took to long to. He refused rebuild the tourism industry and many inefficiencies can be found in his state run oil company. Chavez reached to the poor to secure his power and reelection. He ignored infrastructure and agriculture, creating food shortages and blackouts. He badgered the US but relied on them to purchase oil. The gap between the poor and middle class has widened and much of the oil generated rents are found in the hands of the wealthy elite. Chavez changed the way a country viewed itself, but to to address the problem of polarization Venezuela must use it oil rents wisely, investing in infrastructure and agriculture, and open its borders to foreign and private investment. Then we will see a Venezuela with a sense of urgency and desire for innovation and progress.
DeleteThe new ability to allow Cubans to travel will create a stronger influence for democracy, and a stronger influence within the Cuban American community to end the US trade embargo with Cuba. Having journalists and bloggers, such as Yoani Sanchez, able to freely travel outside of Cuba demonstrates and strengthen Cuban citizens' voices and opinions much more drastically. The ability to hear first-hand experiences from citizens of Cuba, who have not been able to communicate effectively with the US for a long period of time, is a huge step in US-Cuban relations. Not only has the ability of travel been able to influence the Cuban American community for positive US-Cuba relations, but so has technology. The internet and USB drives have been prominent in the transfer of information to influence stronger positive relations between the two countries. Both the new ability to allow Cubans to freely travel and the presence of technology has impacted the sentiments and influence within the Cuban American community towards US-Cuba relations.
ReplyDeleteCitizens of the United States should care about this issue because Cuba is one of the very few countries in Latin America that the US does that have good relations with. Cuba is only 90 miles away from Florida, and both communist leaders Fidel and Raul Castro are extremely old and have one foot in the grave. Additionally, a large Cuban population lives in the US (specifically Miami and Florida) and many of their relatives and family members still live in Cuba. Cuban citizens’ having the new ability to travel internationally allows these Cuban-Americans and Cubans to see each other, a socially positive aspect.
There are two potential possibilities for this situation in the future. In class, we discussed how there are temporary periods of more liberal policies in Cuba. The time we are living in could be one of these periods of temporary (somewhat) liberal polices, and could easily pass just as it has appeared. The other potential possibility is that the new liberal policies implemented in Cuba are here to stay, especially since Fidel and Raul Castro are nearing the end of their lives (both are over 80 years old). Additionally, Obama securing and negotiating political policies with Cuba demonstrates the potential possibility that these new liberal policies are here to stay.
I believe that policymakers in both the US and Cuba should work towards a positive relationship for their countries. Policymakers need to agree and resolve their differences of the past to create positive results for both countries. The US embargo on Cuba affects both countries negatively: It affects the US because it angers many Cuban-Americans. It also creates a negative reputation for the US that is viewed by other Latin American countries, because after 50 years these two countries are not able to solve their disputes. The embargo affects Cuba because they are not able to receive the proper imports which could boost and develop their economy. In essence, the US embargo on Cuba not only affects Cuba negatively, but also the US. It has been too long to continue to maintain this embargo between the two countries, since neither are benefiting from it.
I believe the current situation in Cuba and Venezuela are not all that different. Both have or had charismatic strong man leaders, camarillas. Just like HItler and Nazi Germany it's a lot easier to get the population to follow if you have someone to blame. Unfortunately the blames falls on the United States. Without the embargo Cubans could freely travel and attain a different view for the rest of the world. I don't think the United States would see an influx of immigrants or migration of current Cuban Americans. Primarily because current Cuban Americans resent the Castro regime, while current Cubans have a national pride and love for their country. What the embargos removal does allow for is freedom of information to travel. Perhaps leading to more democratic like reforms in Cuba. However prior articles have shown Cuba already making certain changes. The Castros are aging quickly and new leadership will eventually be necessary. If the embargo is removed before a new head of state is chosen perhaps an acceptable to Cuban Americans candidate could be elected. This occurring then relations are improved between the two nations.
ReplyDeleteShort term benefits include families that have been for divided for years finally becoming whole again. In turn aid and investment may occur from Cuban Americans to assit family. Which benefits the infrastructure and economy of Cuba as a whole, possibly encouraging government reform overtime.
The embargo enables current sentiments to be cemented. The Cuban government will never trust the the United States and continue slow or halt reform to maintain power. While current Cuban Americans maintain a feeling of anger towards the current Cuban government and call for it's entire demise. Removing the embargo allows for at least a different course of action to occur, whether it be good or bad.
There is no doubt that the US has played a large role in Cuba's current state, even more so with its government, but it is also interesting to think about how out of x countries, Cuba was the only one where a form of communism prevailed. That being said, I think the embargo, especially with the Cold War being well over, is just absurd and unnecessary. The UN's vote on it (with something like 190 countries against the embargo and the US and Israel or whomever for it) is a sign that the United States is clearly wrong on this one. Relaxing travel restrictions is a step in the right direction, and maybe it will take the deaths of the Castros to really usher in a new age of relations with Cuba, but I would like to be more optimistic and think that we are only a few years away from not only having Cuba as a viable trading partner but even as a place to go and visit in the like, which to me would signal normal relations even more than trading between the two countries.
DeleteKnowing that that Chavez won’t be leading the country of Venezuela makes me pleased, because of the freedom I hope it will bring the people, and whole country. Yes, Chavez did bring the poor of Venezuela more then they were used to and gave them a sense of purpose, however in doing so he neglected the rest of the country and now it is in shambles, that will take years to recover. As stated in the article Chavez’s policies are not sustainable, and I feel that it was only a matter of time before his ways of doing things would have been unaffordable and the poor of Venezuela that he cherished so much would be left with even less then when Chavez started. I feel that the death of Chavez was almost a blessing for Venezuela, and I hope that they can select the right leader to get them out of the hole that Chavez has created. I feel that Venezuela has the gift of oil and they need to use that in a sustainable way, instead of neglecting the industry they need to upgrade to stay competitive, rebuild their country, from the roads of the interior to the towns of the coast, opening their boarders to tourism and allowing foreign investment to help in this process. I feel that by doing this, the poor will have more opportunities to make money and have a better life style, and by doing it the right way it will be sustainable.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Cubans new ability to travel internationally legally for the first time will increase the impact that Cuban-Americans have on the United States government as more Cuban citizen’s travel to the United States freely and as a growing community they will influence the United States government to highly consider dropping the economic embargo on Cuba. Yoani Sanchez from the New York Times article New Breed of Cuban Dissident Finds Changed Miami is as the article suggests the new type of Cuban-American that will enter the United States. The free flowing of emigration from the island of Cuba will increase Cuban citizenry in the United States and as Yoani mentions in her article, “I am finding Cuba outside of Cuba,” pointing at the fact of the Cuban neighborhoods who have kept alive Cuban traditions. Through these communities and the use of her popularity through social media cites like twitter I believe that Yoani will be able to sway the Cuban communities to participate more in government and fight for increased relations between their home country of Cuba and the thousands of Cubans who are not emigrating from the island due to the new legalization of international travel. Mrs. Sanchez also brings up the fact as more citizens travel from the island they will see that the once discriminated against “exiles” who fled Cuba but are as she says “…preserving the culture, the history, the music,” of Cuba. “She addresses the fact that there is a lot of hurt, a lot of pain, associated with the Cuba issue, and she doesn’t dismiss.” Ms. Martinez said. But she said: “Cuban-Americans have more opportunities to be involved in Cuba now than they had before, and Yoani has come to symbolize some kind of joint agency between them.” As Cuban-American and Cuban relationships grow a higher demand may appear from these communities to lift the embargo that Yoani is so against and to open up economic relations with Cuba. As stated by Ms. Martinez, “She is focused on building a narrative about the future.”
ReplyDeleteThrough the ever increasing power of social media Yoani will be able to spread her word of lifting the economic embargo on Cuba as increasing relations grow between Cuban-Americans and the now free to travel Cuban citizens who’s discrimination to those who “ran away” has prevented communication for years and a lack of support and interest in Cuban-Americans to lift the economic embargo. As these relations strengthened there will be an ever increasing pressure on the United States government to enter into talks with the Cuban government and discuss the possibility of lifting the economic embargo on the island.
I believe that there new ability to travel internationally legally and the influence they will have is already being recognized by the Republican Party and their push to make Marco Rubio a Cuban-American citizen there front runner for the 2016 Presidential election. They recognized the increased influence these Cuban-American communities will have on the United States government and relations strengthen between the Cuban-American “exiles” and the Cuba people who are free to travel. As of now the ability to travel internationally is limited but as the number increase so will the influence these Cuban-American communities will have towards U.S.-Cuban relations.
Neuman’s article “Chávez Transformed the Way Venezuelans View Themselves” basically keeps on the discussion about the good and the bad that Chavez left behind. It is up to Venezuelan, I suppose, to spell out the ugly. Neuman does well in leaving the reader to make its own opinion. Nevertheless, the article cannot have the same effect on readers that are not fully aware of what has happened in Venezuela during Chavez’ ruling, to someone that has experienced first hand the drastic and severe changes that have been made to the country and its people. Even as some of the article’s examples could be considered as “good” or “positive”, in fact they veil wrong means to achieve a populist tactic. Such is the case of “it (Chavez’s government) has built tens of thousands of new homes and apartments in the last two years”; the truth is the Ministry of Public Construction and Housing allocated resources to solve housing shortage but these resources ended up in government officials’ bank accounts, and in Belarus’ constructions companies that under bilateral government agreement were assigned contracts that never materialized (http://news.belta.by/en/news/econom?id=685974). A partial solution came, as referred in the article, when private construction companies belonging to the opposition were taken over by the government and entrepreneurs had to leave the country under threats of imprisonment (https://www.whatsnextvenezuela.com/media-kit/timeline-of-expropriations/).
ReplyDeleteWhen stated that Chávez legacy was not so much tangible but more the way in which Venezuelans (a term that extremely generalizes since half of the country did not agree with him) view themselves. This might sound powerful but in reality this change of ideas was nothing more than a brainwashing tactic of the populist government. Another example of this “good” legacy characteristics its when said that “He has made people who didn’t feel they where part of democracy before feel like they are part of the system” This is true to the point where he made the poor be more active and participative in society and politics. However, on the other hand, members of the opposition or anyone that did not agree with him, were excluded, taken away from politics and/or business, imprisoned or had to leave the country. In the article it is also said that Chavez “warned ceaselessly of enemies,” that wanted to take away the benefits that had been given to the poor. Funny enough, this fact was never proven, found, or shown; in reality these enemies were more of a shadow to attack in order for Chavez to keep looking good in front of his supporters. Another example is Mr Benjamin José Astudillo saying, “Mr. Chavez wanted the Beach to be for the Venezuelans, not the gringos.” Any business owner, with a mind on its own, would know that more tourists bring more money and good service keeps them coming but Mr. Astudillo seems to be content with just no more “gringos”, which means any foreigner, not just Americans. This type of irrational and pointless hatred and rejection towards foreigners and members of the opposition was a way in which Chavez brainwashed a good amount of the Venezuelan people. Again just to look good and get them to support his “crusade”.
This ridiculous hatred towards the opposition has now reached the point where, Nicolas Maduro, the presidential candidate for the chavismo, is calling his opponent, Henrique Capriles Radonski, a fascist Nazi. A very ironic insult, since Mr. Capriles ancestors were actually Jews from Poland, who fled to Venezuela in order to avoid the Holocaust. Let us hope that on April 14 Venezuela’s fate changes for the better.
Honestly with the recent death of Chavez I am not surprised that these kind of accusations are coming about. The country doesn't have a clear set direction so some parties are going to accuse the other of being communist, and some will accuse the other of trying to be a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteI find the sort of "Cult of Chavez" in Venezuela to be a bit disturbing. There's nothing wrong with loving your President but he seemed to have more fanatical fans and followers than most leaders in world today. Hopefully with him gone the country can move on and come into the fold.
The article regarding Cuban dissident, Yaoni Sanchez, offers a promising look at Cuban-American relations. With restrictions, such as travel and freedom of information being loosened, it seems that Cubans are more comfortable about speaking out. Voices, like that of Sanchez, offer a better understanding as to the Cuban perspectives that have been limited or even silenced by the government. With Raul Castro seeming to be contributing to a newer and more progressive Cuba, there is still plenty of room for concern. The Venezuela article, for instance, shows a country that has been stifled by its previous government similar to that of Cuba. Even with such an understanding of the limiting government that Venezuela has had, the people still hold loyalty to the fallen Hugo Chavez and sympathize with many of his political tactics. Such sympathy comes from a feeling of nationalism among the people, where most everyone is included and looked after by the government. According to the author’s reference, “He has made people who didn’t feel they were part of democracy before feel like they’re part of the system” (Neuman).
ReplyDeleteCuba has been almost completely separated from the United States for decades now, and while Cuban Americans seem to denounce Fidel Castro as a positive Cuban influence, there still seems to be the opportunity for a similar national loyalty to that of Venezuela. And while, Raul Castro is liberalizing the country to travel and relations with the United States, it is important to remain skeptical as to Castro’s motivation as well as the extent of which he expects to change. Such skepticism has brought disagreements among politicians in previous elections. An article from 2008 describes a major disagreement between Obama and McCain in their presidential campaigns. “When Obama told his audience, ‘I know what the easy thing is to do for American politicians,’ he was recalling successful presidential candidates' promises to maintain a hard line against Cuba. He said Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, had done just that when he vowed at a town hall meeting in Miami on Tuesday to maintain a status quo in policy toward Cuba” (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-woos-Cuban-Americans-3213055.php#ixzz2PanniB00).
While it is important to for the United States and Cuba to improve their relations, it is an injustice to those Cuban Americans who supported the embargo to do so without insuring the reform of the government. I think the biggest concern, and the main concern that McCain outlined in his campaign is the freeing of political prisoners. The United States should not relax their expectations of the Cuban government in order to seek better relations.
This week's articles focus on Yoani Sánchez, a Cuban blogger who recommends less austere measures for Cuba imposed by the United States. Yoani Sánchez vehemently opposes Fidel Castro’s Cuba, but decries the US embargo on Cuba (in contrast to a majority of Cuban Americans).
ReplyDeleteMore open borders between the United States and Cuba will improve relations between the two. Cuban diaspora has created a strong Cuban American community in the United States. With more interaction between Cubans and Cuban Americans, there should be an increase in the sharing of ideologies. Cuban American opinion will soften on the embargo; the article mentioned that technology can “puncture” physical barriers. It is conceivable that Cuban Americans would began to view the embargo in a more negative light when they hear about the negative ramifications it has on the average citizen. The embargo would be seen as something that was hurting their families, not an efficacious way of opposing a despot.
We discussed how the Castro name brings a certain legitimacy to the heavy-handed rule of Cuban government. While technology has given a platform for refreshing voices to be heard, such as Ms.Sanchez. I think the most significant step in improving the relations will be a non-Castro ruling over Cuba. The decades of antagonism between the Castro family and the United States make a move from the Cold War era policies difficult to envision. Some have posited that the Cuban government has intentionally sabotaged efforts to end the embargo. While the veracity of this claim can be debated, it does highlight the level of distaste the two governments have for each other .
One question that I had after reading the articles on Cuba was: How would the United States respond to a more amicable Cuba? If the rhetoric and the deleterious policies of both states was ratcheted back, how would this impact US policy towards Cuban defectors? The chance for all Cubans to pursue citizenship might not be seen as tenable if relations thaw.
Recently Raul Castro has eliminated travel restrictions for many Cubans, including Yoani Sanchez, who is arguably the most influential Cuban dissident in recent times. Through blogging and means of communicating through the internet, she has captured the support of many Cubans who share the same interests. The elimination of the travel restrictions within itself puts Cuba in a step towards liberalization. It is a substantial stepping stone in liberalization because it allows for Cubans to publicly demonstrate for or against their government, even if it doesn’t take place in Cuba. This is where the internet and journalists like Yoani have played a big role in spreading the message in attempt to make an impact on Cuban society, government, and their relations with the United States.
ReplyDeleteAs Americans, we should care about this issue because we have been enemies with communist Cuba for a long time now. As the Castro legacy is coming closer to an end, this might be the perfect time for a possible movement towards a freer Cuba led by Yoani Sanchez. Although she stated that she doesn’t want to go into politics, she serves as a messenger and her message is now circulating faster than ever with the elimination of the travel restrictions. The more her message circulates, the more support she will receive and more people will come together in an effort to change Cuba.
In the video, Sanchez says that the U.S. embargo only creates economic and political setbacks for both nations. In class we learned about reasons why Dan Griswold for the Cato Institute is against the embargo, which are consistent with those of Sanchez. He argues that rather than hurting the Cuban government, the embargo is hurting the Cuban people. It also hurts U.S. business and economic interests by costing the U.S. billions of dollars in potential exports. A political scientist for the University of Miami defended the embargo saying that the argument that the U.S. can change Cuba by engaging with them is discredited. His point being that many other countries in the world have engaged/traded with them and have not brought democracy or liberalization to Cuba.
Personally, I think that if anyone had a chance at liberalizing Cuba, it is the U.S. My reason for this is that the largest Cuban population outside of Cuba is in Florida, which is only 90 miles away from Cuba. The Cuban-American population probably will support Sanchez more than anyone, as they are all Cuban dissidents as well. I think that they will back Sanchez on bringing an end to the embargo, as they have seen how it has been a burden on both nations. This said I think that with the ability for Cuban’s to travel and experience democracy and life outside of Cuba, the more they will see a need for change in Cuba. I now call myself a supporter of Sanchez and would like to see an end of the embargo and for the U.S. and Cuba have better relations, as it will benefit both nations.
Cuba has long been known as the country of restrictions and communism under the Fidel Castro government. From the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to the U.S embargo that began in 1960, Cuban citizens have had to become acclimated to various limitations and regulations. However, now that Fidel’s brother Raul has taken up the presidency, Cuban citizens have finally experienced a gradual movement towards lower constraints and extending freedoms, including travel outside the country.
ReplyDeleteYoani Sanchez, a Cuban resident and journalist, has been attempting to travel outside Cuba for about five years, according to the NYTimes article. Throughout her career, she has produced numerous articles and blogs criticizing Cuba’s restrictive government and has long encouraged a drastic shift towards freedom. Though Sanchez has been previously detained and beaten for her writing and proactive opinions, she still continues to strive towards citizens’ rights and supports the end of the U.S embargo against Cuba. Now that Fidel’s brother Raul is in office, Yoani Sanchez is finally able to travel outside Cuba and spent time in Miami, Florida with her family. It has become obvious to the world that Raul Castro is not quite as resistant and rigid as his brother, and this leadership alteration has given some hope to the Cuban citizens. Since Cuba’s president is willing to increase the freedom of mobilization, I am curious (like the rest of the world) whether he is possibly willing to give a little more, especially in technology and cyber communication. The country has long had restrictions concerning internet access and Sanchez, having experienced this predicament herself, has scrambled for various means of communication under Cuba’s restrictions for years. There are obvious examples that the Cuban citizens, “inherent freedoms,” of speech and opinion are being oppressed. If Castro were to decide to revoke the restraints of speech and internet access, Cuba would more or less, see a trend away from communism. The flood-gates may have been opened with this one choice of Castro’s.
Having pushed for more freedoms, Sanchez has also shown distaste in the U.S trade embargo that has been in place for over sixteen years. When Raul Castro became president in 2008, he emphasized that the trade embargo was to remain in effect, though now his citizens are able to make their way more easily to United States’ territory and, “’Cuban-Americans have more opportunities to be involved in Cuba now than they did before,’” as stated by Natalia Martinez (NYTimes). In accordance, Cuban citizens may develop a better idea of freedom in U.S territory which could ultimately create a larger support system for Sanchez’s idea of, “diversity of opinion,” and empowerment. President Raul Castro doesn’t appear to be completely unreasonable either, as he is allowing Cuba to progress into a more modern development, though much more of a step towards leniency seems almost impossible given Cuba’s history. However, increasing ties between Cuba and America, even with the mere surge of Cuban travelers, could potentially lead to a more lenient trade embargo, improving each country.
This drastic shift will by no means happen quickly, but I think that lessening the United States’-Cuba limitations will be a great step towards increasing relations.
When considering how a country might be able to engage a previously marginalize sector of society without creating a polarized society the first thing that comes to my mind is the amazing work of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Although it’s not a Latin American situation, the case-in-point that these ideas and this path is possible is important for any country, especially for those individuals making decisions in the post-Chavez Venezuela. The marginalization of a huge portion of Venezuela during the Chavez years is evident, and based on the way Maduro is handling himself so far, it seems that he is only perpetuating the same sentiments. Although it is possible that Raul Castro is influencing Maduro via diplomats as well as the Doctors in Venezuela, I personally believe that targeting doctors is not the appropriate way to go as these individuals typically focus their work in poor communities where their assistance is needed most. It is also important to point out that Maduro and is support and making such extreme claims against the opposition even though he has a double-digit lead in the polls.
ReplyDeleteIn the article Chavez Transformed the Way Venezuelans View Themselves, an individual suggests that the legacy Chavez left behind is that he included people in democracy that had previously been left out. It seems interesting to me that this could possibly be his legacy as he left out a significant portion of people, the ones who had previously been included.
In order for Venezuela to move forward and instill a legitimate democracy that truly represents all the citizens it is imperative that Maduro stop his figurative assault on his opposition and discontinue to antics of Chavez. Maduro will likely win the upcoming election, with his seat assigned he should do his best to guarantee that Venezuela will not become a Communist state, while at the same time continue to give importance to the lower class and promote transparency and rule of law.
After giving thought about the U.S. society under a democratic government and reading the articles "Chavez Transformed the Way Venezuelan's View Themselves" and "Maduro Calls Venezuelan Opposition 'Heirs of Hitler'", I'm convinced that society in general is too young to create and sustain complete social equality and social justice. Whether a government is Democratic, Socialist, or Communist, one group or multiple groups will feel marginalized in some way. I say this because looking at the U.S. society under our Democratic government, it would be hard for someone to say that we have definite social equality or an absence of deep polarization. Even from the articles that speak of Hugo Chavez's ability to incorporate the poor in Venezuelan politics, a strong opposition still existed and this opposition wasn't and still hasn't been dealt with in a civil manner. Opposition to Chavez in the past and Maduro in the present are being put down through the use of marginalization whether it be identifying them as Nazis or Fascists or forcing the most viewed broadcaster RCTV, which had a opposition agenda, off air.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I'm honestly not sure how a society would go about addressing historical inequalities and injustice without creating a polarized society because 1) I don't necessarily believe there has been a successful example in which we can draw conclusions from and 2) Society in general is still too young to handle what it would take for a nation to be relatively not polarized.
I think it is important to recognize the fact that Hugo Chavez has done a great deal for the poor people of Venezuela, however, from an outside perspective his constant criticism and dismissal of opposition parties such as Un Nuevo Tiempo has further intensified the polarization of Venezuelan society. Chavez’s legacy lives on in Venezuela’s acting president Nicolas Maduro who sees the country’s opposition as nothing more than oligarchs. Certainly it is important for historically oppressed people to be part of the democratic process, but at what point does this increased participation begin to constrain democracy? The current situation in Venezuela reflects this notion in that Maduro continues to dismiss the opposition resulting in a lack of political pluralism which inhibits checks on Maduro’s power. I think a possible solution to the polarization of Venezuelan society would be the creation of more inclusive political and economic institutions. Inclusive economic institutions enable citizens to choose occupations freely, and acquire schooling and skills whereas inclusive political institutions allow people to take part in the democratic process, to elect their representatives, and replace them if they do something wrong. More inclusive institutions will lead to greater economic development and less economic inequality with power and wealth being dispersed among many people rather than in the hands of a few. These inclusive institutions would also allow for the integration of all Venezuelan people, both rich and poor, into the political and economic process in which they voluntarily work together to ensure sustainable growth and development.
ReplyDeleteAddressing historical inequalities requires a deep revolution economically and politically. When historically oppressed population does not know or understand their impact in society, inequalities will be exaggerated. This has been, according to the articles, one of the reasons that Hugo Chavez was so popular. Chavez gave poor people a voice and a sense of belonging in Venezuela. When a marginalized sector of society knows that they can influence who gets elected and knows that their voices can be heard inequalities can be addressed.
ReplyDeleteThe key though is having the abilities to make those that are in the privileged position that a more equitable society everybody wins. Having the ability to make requests and positions half way allows for equal input and a balance in ideas and goals. The sense of national pride also contributes to wanting an equitable society without polarizing more. Creating a bigger middle class contributes to this search for equity. This should start with the government and having a transparent and trustworthy image.
If a government is alienated from the needs of the general population and tends only to “elite” levels of society then this government is negatively contributing to the disparity thus contributing the polarization of a society. In my opinion, the best way to address these inequalities and injustices is through offering quality schooling to every citizen and access to proper health care. Schooling though can be a double edge sword though, as a certain group’s interests can be implemented on children thus furthering these inequalities. Like I mention before it all comes down to finding a middle ground where general society wins without jeopardizing the integrity of traditionally disadvantaged sectors of the population. It comes down to having the ability to convince every sector of society to buy into the idea that everybody wins when the most at risk members of societies win. For this though a figure with charisma that can speak to and resonate with a wide range of sectors of society, not just the elite, needs to come along and unite. When candidates refer to the opposition for example as “Heirs of Hitler” these divisions will be further enhanced thus stalling progress to equitable society.
What i enjoy about the article in which admires Chavez political legacy of the Venezuela people, is that he empowered his people. In the article it suggested that Chavez words of encouragement to the people may not be immediately followed by action, however, i propose that it is the thoughts and words of wisdom that ignites the movement within the people. Inequality wont be immediately fixed issue however by making the people feel apart of the country eventually leads to vision and action that will be practiced in future generation of political leaders.
ReplyDeleteHey Paul, I din't know you were in this class. Hope all is well. In response to your comment, I agree with your observation of Hugo Chavez as a unifying force for Venezuela. His ability to speak to the people and gain their loyalty is unprecedented, especially when you take into account the lack of change and reform in Venezuela over the past decades. So while I admire Chavez for the influence he has had on his country, I can't help but look sorely upon his administration for the lack of change. It seems like his strength of power lied more inmanipulation and false hopes than in sincerity.
DeleteThe problem with democracy in the Chavez era is that, while the marginalized poor now felt included in the system, it was now based on the idea that only Chavez knows the way and there are no alternatives. Democracy is based on the idea that people have the right to protest and to have a voice, whether it speaks for or against the government. By condemning anyone who spoke out against Chavez, labeling them fascists or nazis, Chavez eliminated any possibility for freedom of speech. Simply allowing the newly marginalized population that does not support the government to have a voice, even if that voice doesn't lead to any changes, would include them in the system allowing for a better democracy.
ReplyDeleteI think with Cuban's being allowed to travel internationally there will be a drastic change in how the Cuban population views the rest of the world. This could bring massive change to the policies being pursued in Cuba to reform. The ideas coming from Cuban locals and Cuban immigrants should be interesting to see. Yoanni is a perfect example of a Cuban already working to change the way things are in her home community while finally having the opportunity to see what the rest of the world says about her opinions and what her government stands for. I think it will be very similar to what happened after the USSR opened their borders to their citizens. Change is eminent and all we can do is sit back and see how it plays out.
ReplyDelete