a)
                                                                           b)



Should US hold direct talks with Cuba?
Two different points of view are presented.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    

(a) Osvaldo Paya

Cuban Dissident    

                                                                                      

(b) Eugene Robinson 

Washington Post writer

COMMENTARY by Jose A Hernandez. MD

Eugene Robinson’s column in the Washington Post presents an eloquent and compelling argument for direct talks with the Castro regime and possibly ending the sanctions towards the Island. He describes Raúl Castro as “acting large and in charge” daring to lift prohibitions against Cubans. Interestingly Mr. Robinson also describes these governmental steps as “largely symbolic” and accepts that they are not intended to transform Cuba into a democracy (see "Cuba says few citizens have phones and Computers" - June 26, 2008 – Reuters). Still, according to Mr. Robinson, these are positive steps that should prompt the US government to direct talk with the Cuban government.
The reader could ask if these are positive changes that benefit Cubans, shouldn’t the Cuban government want to implement them? Why do they need US involvement? Regardless of the answer, his advice is that the US could be an important element in transforming Cuba into a “a free-market, one-party autocracy”, a la Beijing, which the author welcomes.
To buttress his argumentation Mr Robinson states that harsh critics of the Castro regime in the Island (possibly dissidents, although this is not clear) welcome these changes. The reader is left to conclude that this native support further shores up the argument for direct talks between US officials and the Castro gerontocracy.
In contrast to this scaffold for direct talks between two nations advocated by Mr Robinson there is the opinion of Mr. Osvaldo Paya, a well-known dissident in the Island and recipient of the Andrei Sakharov Prize for human rights. This Cuban dissident was interviewed by Terra.com (available in Spanish only) about direct talks between members of the European Union (EU) and Cuba. He made two points that are quite germane to the proposal of Mr. Robinson. The renowned dissident says that the conversations must lead to positive results and they cannot accept the present absence of civilian rights in Cuba as a normal situation. It does not sound that Mr Paya favors a Beijing solution a la Mr Robinson.
Paya also supports direct talk (dialogo), but not necessarily among a foreign power and Cuban officials, instead he favors direct talks between the opposition in Cuba and the government. Mr Robinson does not address specifically this issue in his column nonetheless he praises Senator Obama for his bravery in advocating in Miami , “the-lion's-den”, direct diplomacy with the reigning regime in the Island. If this means talks with the officials in the Island without including the dissidents, then “the-lion's-den” is an appropriate metaphor; but if Mr Obama publicly declares that he would demand the inclusion of the opposition in the island, then “the lamb will lie down with the lion" would be the more appropriate description. The Senator should dispel all confusion as soon as possible by having direct talks with Cuba, but this time he should say it is with the dissidents, and then do it!

Jose A Hernandez, MD
President, CubaResponde

Recent publications related to this topic:

Cuba says few citizens have phones and Computers - (June 26, 2008) – Reuters

------------------------------

1) Hard-Line Lunacy on Cuba
By Eugene Robinson
Saturday, May 31, 2008; Page A13

2) Oswaldo Payá califica de 'inconsecuencia moral' la relación entre UE y Cuba sin la liberación de presos
EFE.-La Habana, 28 may


1) Hard-Line Lunacy on Cuba
By Eugene Robinson
Saturday, May 31, 2008; Page A13

For nearly five decades, the United States has pursued a policy toward Cuba that could be described as incredibly stupid.

It could also be called childish and counterproductive -- and, since the demise of the Soviet Union, even insane. Absent the threat of communist expansionism, the refusal by successive American presidents to engage with Cuba has not even a fig leaf's worth of rationale to cover its naked illogic. Other than providing Fidel Castro with a convenient antagonist to help whip up nationalist fervor on the island -- and prolong his rule -- the U.S. trade embargo and other sanctions have accomplished nothing.

Now, with Fidel ailing and retired, and his brother Raúl acting large and in charge, the United States has its best opportunity in years to influence the course of events on the island. George W. Bush, as one might have expected, won't do the right thing. It will be up to the next president.

Raúl Castro is 76, and since assuming the presidency he has acted as if he knows he doesn't have much time to waste. In short order, he has repealed the prohibition against Cubans buying computers, cellphones and other consumer goods -- items that Fidel feared might facilitate sedition or promote counterrevolutionary comfort and lassitude.

It's true that these measures are largely symbolic -- on an average salary of about $17 a month, most Cubans can't dream of buying computers, and, in any event, the Cuban government still strictly controls access to the Internet. Likewise, any Cuban who owns a cellphone can't use it without paying the astronomical rates demanded by the government cellphone monopoly.

But at the same time, Raúl has encouraged the first stirrings of debate in the government-controlled media (which are the only media) -- something Fidel never would have allowed. Rumors that the government will soon permit widespread private ownership of automobiles, and perhaps even allow an above-board private market in real estate, seem much less implausible than they would have just six months ago.

I've been to Cuba as a journalist 10 times, and friends there -- including some harsh critics of the Castro regime -- say that there is real optimism about the prospects for change.

Bush's response has been a cold shoulder. In remarks a few days ago, the president did little but state the obvious fact that Raúl Castro is not, and never will be, a believer in democracy. He dismissed the recent measures as "empty gestures at reform," and then made an empty gesture of his own: He said he would change U.S. policy to allow Cuban Americans to send cellphones to their relatives on the island, something many families already do.

Raúl Castro is not going to transform Cuba into a free-market democracy. But he gives every indication of moving down the path that China's leadership has taken, toward making his country a free-market, one-party autocracy. That's not a perfect outcome, as shown by recent events in Tibet. But it's impossible to deny that the Chinese people enjoy far greater personal freedom than they did, say, 20 years ago. Why wouldn't Washington want to encourage Havana to become more like Beijing?

That would require actual engagement with the Cuban government, though, and Bush doesn't intend to allow anything of the sort.

Barack Obama appeared before the Cuban American National Foundation -- one of the most powerful and most strident of the Miami-based anti-Castro groups -- May 23 and said that if he were president, he would conduct "direct diplomacy" with Cuba's leadership. Earlier last week, John McCain essentially vowed to continue Bush's hard-line course.

Obama's into-the-lion's-den performance may win him some points for bravery, but it may not get him a lot of votes in South Florida. He has the right idea, however. The United States can attempt to influence any changes that eventually take place in Cuba, or it can harrumph from the sidelines. Several of Cuba's leading dissidents have urged the White House to end the decades-old trade embargo and the draconian restrictions on travel to the island. Bush pays no attention to those on the front lines of this struggle.

Stubbornly sticking with a policy that has achieved nothing in nearly 50 years is a pretty good definition of insanity.
------------------------------------------------

2) 2) Oswaldo Payá califica de 'inconsecuencia moral' la relación entre UE y Cuba sin la liberación de presos

El disidente cubano Oswaldo Payá pide que la UE apoye 'de manera pública y sostenida' la liberación de presos políticos, el diálogo entre cubanos por la reconciliación nacional y cambios de leyes para que se respeten los derechos civiles. EFE


2008-05-28 | EFE.-La Habana, 28 may (EFE).- El disidente cubano Oswaldo Payá envió un mensaje a la Unión Europea (UE) en el que califica de 'inconsecuencia moral' una relación normal de ese bloque con el Gobierno cubano mientras haya presos políticos en la isla, reveló hoy el opositor en La Habana.

Payá, líder del Movimiento Cristiano Liberación, no reconocido por el Gobierno de La Habana, pide que la UE apoye 'de manera pública y sostenida' la liberación de presos políticos, el diálogo entre cubanos por la reconciliación nacional y cambios de leyes para que se respeten los derechos civiles, políticos, económicos, sociales y culturales.

'El diálogo entre la Unión Europea y el Gobierno cubano debe orientarse a resultados positivos, (...) a la apertura, y no a la aceptación de este orden de no-derechos como una situación normal', afirma el mensaje.

Según Payá, 'presentar el hecho mismo del diálogo como un éxito, aun sin resultados reales, alienta el inmovilismo y niega los propios objetivos del diálogo'.

Lamenta el disidente, Premio Sajarov de 2002, que el diálogo de representantes de la UE y autoridades cubanas 'vaya acompañado de la exclusión de contactos con los luchadores pacíficos por la democracia y los derechos humanos'.

'¿Qué nos están anunciando? Que la UE aceptará las condiciones de exclusión que impone el Gobierno cubano contra sus propios ciudadanos, para lograr lo que llaman 'relaciones normales'?. ¿No es esta una negación de la Posición Común y de los propios objetivos del dialogo?', pregunta el mensaje.

Añade que de ser aceptadas 'las condiciones de exclusión que impone el Gobierno cubano, el estado de negación de derechos y la permanencia en las cárceles de los prisioneros políticos pacíficos, entonces se le levantarán las sanciones al Gobierno cubano para imponérselas al pueblo de Cuba'.

'Nuestra propuesta es positiva y se basa en que los cubanos tenemos derecho a los derechos porque somos seres humanos. El Gobierno cubano debe respetar y promover todos los derechos para todos sus ciudadanos, no para complacer a la UE sino porque nos corresponden como ciudadanos y como personas', afirma Payá.

Recuerda que siguen en la cárcel más de 50 de los 75 opositores apresados en la oleada represiva de 2003, que dio origen a la aplicación de sanciones políticas de la UE a Cuba, suspendidas desde 2005 y que actualmente quieren eliminar del todo algunos dirigentes europeos.

Según el disidente, esos opositores están presos 'solo por promover, defender y ejercer pacíficamente los derechos humanos', y que la mayoría 'han enfermado debido a las condiciones infrahumanas, los tratos crueles y las manipulaciones de las autoridades'.

Envíe sus opiniones a Cubaresponde@cubaresponde.org

Las cartas deberán incluir el título del artículo y el nombre del autor, así como la ciudad desde la cual se envían. Algunas serán publicadas a modo de comentario al final del artículo.