I first saw this interview with Senator John McCain posted on the "Uncommon Sense" blog. Check out this blog when you can, it provides updates on Cuban political prisoners, of whom we should demand immediate release from the Cuban government, even through negotiation.
In the McCain interview, conducted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the US senator proposes a plan after Fidel Castro's death. He says:
"I think that that is the time that we offer a package of trade, of assistance, of economic development, of assistance in democratization—and tell them we will give them all of those things and in return we are asking them to embark on the path to democracy. Including setting a date for free and fair elections."[1]
This sounds reasonable, but asking for political prisoners to wait is not. Hopefully this proposal also includes commitment to direct bilateral negotiations, and equal concessions from both parties. These are key elements to a fair process of negotiations, which should take place now.
McCain has also shown interest in possible negotiations with Iran and Syria, as suggested by the recent report by the Iraq Study Group to ameliorate the situation in Iraq. In this case McCain states:
"On the issue of a regional conference with countries in the region, as long as we understand that the interests of Iran and Syria are not the same as ours... And if the price of negotiations with Iran is acquiescence to their nuclear weapons program, then that's not good enough. And if the price of negotiations with Syria is their control of Lebanon, we cannot accept that."[2]
Many against negotiations with Cuba believe that such a gesture of compromise is a sign of weakness or acquiescence. On the contrary, negotiations between parties, where conflict escalation is foreseen, should be a serious response to dire grievances that demand immediate remedy and allow equal concessions from all parties leading to future long-term stability.
There is no acquiescence in equal compromise.
[1]http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_489826.html
[2]http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/mccain-cautions-about-negotiating-with.html
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Step One: Realistic Empathy
I will address the specifics on US/Cuba negotiations soon, but first say that I belong to the idea proposed by James Blight and Philip Brenner, from their excellent book "Sad and Luminous Days".
Blight, researcher from the Watson Institute for International Studies and with a background in psychology, and Brenner, a foreign policy professor from American University and advisory board member of the National Security Archives, propose the idea of "realistic empathy".
I will finish posting for today with this excerpt from their book explaining "realistic empathy".
"Our analysis of US-Cuba relations is rooted in an approach we call realistic empathy, which interprets a conflict by putting oneself in the shoes of each side. From the Cuban perspective, what is central to the struggle with the United States is the asymmetry between the two countries. Cuba is a small country, and the United States is the most powerful country that has ever existed. This approach makes clear why it is necessary for the United States to take the first steps in ending the hostility between the two countries." (p.xxvii)
"... the problem with US policy lies not so much in the real threat it poses to the Cuban revolution - those days are long past - but in how it appears to threaten Cuba."(p.160)
Source: Blight, James G. and Philip Brenner. (2002). Sad and luminous days: Cuba's struggle with the superpowers after the missile crisis. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing
Blight, researcher from the Watson Institute for International Studies and with a background in psychology, and Brenner, a foreign policy professor from American University and advisory board member of the National Security Archives, propose the idea of "realistic empathy".
I will finish posting for today with this excerpt from their book explaining "realistic empathy".
"Our analysis of US-Cuba relations is rooted in an approach we call realistic empathy, which interprets a conflict by putting oneself in the shoes of each side. From the Cuban perspective, what is central to the struggle with the United States is the asymmetry between the two countries. Cuba is a small country, and the United States is the most powerful country that has ever existed. This approach makes clear why it is necessary for the United States to take the first steps in ending the hostility between the two countries." (p.xxvii)
"... the problem with US policy lies not so much in the real threat it poses to the Cuban revolution - those days are long past - but in how it appears to threaten Cuba."(p.160)
Source: Blight, James G. and Philip Brenner. (2002). Sad and luminous days: Cuba's struggle with the superpowers after the missile crisis. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing
Weinmann's Prediction
I really do not want to deviate too much from the topic of US/Cuba negotiations, but I think it is also important to address the obstacles towards this pragmatic path.
As was mentioned below, Florida politics alone poses perhaps the main obstacle to terminating the US embargo (as well as other US policies) towards Cuba, which is itself an obstacle to finding a solution through the United Nations [check below for the background].
Lissa Weinmann, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, made it very clear when she wrote in 2004 that "Washington’s policy toward Cuba over the years can best be described as an extension of Florida politics by other means."[1]
Given that Cuban-Americans in South Florida vote republican and vote in high numbers, their political leadership calls the shots for now. The political leadership of Cuban-Americans is well funded and closely linked to the current administration, and this is a significant obstacle.
Yet, we are nearing a crossroad. As Fidel Castro draws closer to being absent from the political equation, and the current republican administration nearing its end, and a half century of a sanctions policy that is embarassing to mention, current forces in the US/Cuba political arena are set for a change.
Weinmann's predictions in 2004 still apply. This current admministration "will need to begin addressing the inexorable forces that compel us to chart a new course of principled engagement with Cuba."[1]
Let's explore the option of US/Cuba negotiations.
[1]http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-1/weinmann.html
As was mentioned below, Florida politics alone poses perhaps the main obstacle to terminating the US embargo (as well as other US policies) towards Cuba, which is itself an obstacle to finding a solution through the United Nations [check below for the background].
Lissa Weinmann, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, made it very clear when she wrote in 2004 that "Washington’s policy toward Cuba over the years can best be described as an extension of Florida politics by other means."[1]
Given that Cuban-Americans in South Florida vote republican and vote in high numbers, their political leadership calls the shots for now. The political leadership of Cuban-Americans is well funded and closely linked to the current administration, and this is a significant obstacle.
Yet, we are nearing a crossroad. As Fidel Castro draws closer to being absent from the political equation, and the current republican administration nearing its end, and a half century of a sanctions policy that is embarassing to mention, current forces in the US/Cuba political arena are set for a change.
Weinmann's predictions in 2004 still apply. This current admministration "will need to begin addressing the inexorable forces that compel us to chart a new course of principled engagement with Cuba."[1]
Let's explore the option of US/Cuba negotiations.
[1]http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-1/weinmann.html
Second Obstacle...
For those who dismiss the UN as the arbiter for a solution, then I see very little hope otherwise. This has been made clear for almost half a century.
For those who wish for a pragmatic (and perhaps immediate) solution continue reading.
As mentioned below, the US embargo towards Cuba, called the "economic, commercial and financial embargo" by the UN general assembly, is an obstacle to the possibility of the UN as a venue to negotiations between the US and Cuba.
Now, this is a serious setback if one is familiar with the background of the embargo.
There is a widespread opposition to the US embargo towards Cuba in the US. If one reads the mainstream literature on foreign relations concerning US and Cuba, one will notice that the majority of researchers are opposed to the policy or are baffled by it. At another time I shall go over some of the quotes of the leading academics concerning US policy towards Cuba. But, for now let me quote one well known mainstream historian of US and Cuba relations, Timothy Naftali, current director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. He appeared on C-Span's Washington Journal program on April 17, 2006 (for the anniversary of the Bay of Pigs) and made some points about the embargo. Naftali has also written extensively on the US/Cuba conflict with one book called "One Hell of a Gamble": Khrushchev, Castro and Kennedy, 1958-1964 (with Aleksandr Fursenko) and other articles.
While he is not a expert on foreign policy, but a historian, concerning the US embargo towards Cuba, Naftali said that it is a "cold war relic", and that "it's self-defeating to wall off Cuba", and that the embargo is a "political, strategic mistake."
Now, that's the mainstream. And that's also along the line of what most Americans think too. According to the latest Gallup poll "more than two-thirds support re-establishing diplomatic ties with Cuba."[1]
You may be asking yourself that if there is so much opposition to the embargo, then why is it still there?
Florida politics.
And, that's a huge obstacle.
[1]http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200612/POL20061219a.html
For those who wish for a pragmatic (and perhaps immediate) solution continue reading.
As mentioned below, the US embargo towards Cuba, called the "economic, commercial and financial embargo" by the UN general assembly, is an obstacle to the possibility of the UN as a venue to negotiations between the US and Cuba.
Now, this is a serious setback if one is familiar with the background of the embargo.
There is a widespread opposition to the US embargo towards Cuba in the US. If one reads the mainstream literature on foreign relations concerning US and Cuba, one will notice that the majority of researchers are opposed to the policy or are baffled by it. At another time I shall go over some of the quotes of the leading academics concerning US policy towards Cuba. But, for now let me quote one well known mainstream historian of US and Cuba relations, Timothy Naftali, current director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. He appeared on C-Span's Washington Journal program on April 17, 2006 (for the anniversary of the Bay of Pigs) and made some points about the embargo. Naftali has also written extensively on the US/Cuba conflict with one book called "One Hell of a Gamble": Khrushchev, Castro and Kennedy, 1958-1964 (with Aleksandr Fursenko) and other articles.
While he is not a expert on foreign policy, but a historian, concerning the US embargo towards Cuba, Naftali said that it is a "cold war relic", and that "it's self-defeating to wall off Cuba", and that the embargo is a "political, strategic mistake."
Now, that's the mainstream. And that's also along the line of what most Americans think too. According to the latest Gallup poll "more than two-thirds support re-establishing diplomatic ties with Cuba."[1]
You may be asking yourself that if there is so much opposition to the embargo, then why is it still there?
Florida politics.
And, that's a huge obstacle.
[1]http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200612/POL20061219a.html
First Obstacle...
So, following this direction, I think that the US and Cuba can achieve a pragmatic solution to their conflict through the UN. The UN specifically says that it the security council that shall give legitimacy to any sanctions directed at any nation. It is important to note that the US embargo towards Cuba has been condemned by the UN general assembly for 15 consecutive years (since 1992 with the introduction of the Cuban Democracy Act) for violating this basic principle.
Many accuse that the UN is biased with respect to Cuba, and point to the way they vote continuously against the US embargo towardsd Cuba. In reality, there is no bias here. If one is seriously concerned about why the UN general assembly has voted the same for fifteen years, one need just look at the resolution. The members of the UN make it very clear that the US embargo towards Cuba violates the UN Charter. They have made this argument year after year.
According to this year's press release of the resolution "of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba", it states that the ambassador from Mexico "expressed his delegation’s rejection of embargoes and other unilateral or coercive measures that did not correspond with the principles of the Charter. Mexico believed that such measures could be set out or imposed only by the Security Council of the General Assembly."[1]
"India, one of the largest democracies in the world, had consistently opposed any unilateral measures by countries, which impinged on the sovereignty of another country, and he shared the view of the Assembly that sanctions, irrespective of their purpose, have to comply with the customary international law principle of non-intervention and proportionality."[1]
[1]http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10529.doc.htm
Many accuse that the UN is biased with respect to Cuba, and point to the way they vote continuously against the US embargo towardsd Cuba. In reality, there is no bias here. If one is seriously concerned about why the UN general assembly has voted the same for fifteen years, one need just look at the resolution. The members of the UN make it very clear that the US embargo towards Cuba violates the UN Charter. They have made this argument year after year.
According to this year's press release of the resolution "of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba", it states that the ambassador from Mexico "expressed his delegation’s rejection of embargoes and other unilateral or coercive measures that did not correspond with the principles of the Charter. Mexico believed that such measures could be set out or imposed only by the Security Council of the General Assembly."[1]
"India, one of the largest democracies in the world, had consistently opposed any unilateral measures by countries, which impinged on the sovereignty of another country, and he shared the view of the Assembly that sanctions, irrespective of their purpose, have to comply with the customary international law principle of non-intervention and proportionality."[1]
[1]http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10529.doc.htm
New Start
Sorry, to have been absent from this project, which I hope to continue much further so
I can collect my thoughts on why US/Cuba Negotiations should take place.
As I stated already, the basic direction of my purpose originates from the outlined
principles of the UN Charter. While the UN itself is seen poorly by many in the US,
the principles outlined by the UN Charter, and its many additional conventions and
declarations, are the result of efforts to achieve a sustained peace that was desired
after the atrocities that followed World War II.
These wishes of World peace and stability are still relevant (and more important than
ever, in my opinion), and the United Nations, at the moment, is the only venue where
nations can address their concerns about threats to their sovereignty, of which the UN
Charter grants equitable treatment to all nations.
I can collect my thoughts on why US/Cuba Negotiations should take place.
As I stated already, the basic direction of my purpose originates from the outlined
principles of the UN Charter. While the UN itself is seen poorly by many in the US,
the principles outlined by the UN Charter, and its many additional conventions and
declarations, are the result of efforts to achieve a sustained peace that was desired
after the atrocities that followed World War II.
These wishes of World peace and stability are still relevant (and more important than
ever, in my opinion), and the United Nations, at the moment, is the only venue where
nations can address their concerns about threats to their sovereignty, of which the UN
Charter grants equitable treatment to all nations.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
About the UN Charter
This is a project to discuss, debate and agree on certain parameters to a possible resolution to the US/Cuba conflict by negotiation.
I encourage a resolution along the principles of the UN Charter and international law. Most importantly, those guidelines that are stated in Chapter 6, article 33:
"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."[1]
I believe it is not too late to pursue these methods.
Allow me to inaugurate this blog with the comments of Alan Dershowitz, recognizing the eloquence of Amos Oz:
"The time has come for compromise. My friend, Amos Oz, the great novelist and leader of the Israeli peace movement, has said there are two possible resolutions to a conflict of this kind: the Shakespearian and the Chekhovian. In a Shakespearian drama, every right is wronged, every act is revenged, every injustice is made right, and perfect justice prevails, but at the end of the play, everybody lies dead on the stage. In a Chekhov play, everybody is disillusioned, embittered, heart-broken, disappointed, but they remain alive. We need a Chekhovian resolution..." (Nov. 29, 2005)
[1]http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I encourage a resolution along the principles of the UN Charter and international law. Most importantly, those guidelines that are stated in Chapter 6, article 33:
"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."[1]
I believe it is not too late to pursue these methods.
Allow me to inaugurate this blog with the comments of Alan Dershowitz, recognizing the eloquence of Amos Oz:
"The time has come for compromise. My friend, Amos Oz, the great novelist and leader of the Israeli peace movement, has said there are two possible resolutions to a conflict of this kind: the Shakespearian and the Chekhovian. In a Shakespearian drama, every right is wronged, every act is revenged, every injustice is made right, and perfect justice prevails, but at the end of the play, everybody lies dead on the stage. In a Chekhov play, everybody is disillusioned, embittered, heart-broken, disappointed, but they remain alive. We need a Chekhovian resolution..." (Nov. 29, 2005)
[1]http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)