Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company
The Boston
Globe
May 30, 2002, Thursday ,THIRD EDITION
SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. A19
LENGTH: 822 words
HEADLINE:
JEFF JACOBY;
BUSH IS FOCUSED ON CUBAN FREEDOM
BYLINE: BY JEFF JACOBY
BODY:
LAST WEEK, IN A HEARTFELT ADDRESS, PRESIDENT BUSH SPOKE OUT IN SUPPORT OF A
NATION SUFFERING UNDER TYRANNY. HE DECLARED THAT ITS PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO
LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY, AND DIGNITY, AND HE CONDEMNED THE DICTATOR "WHO JAILS AND
TORTURES AND EXILES HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS." HE CALLED FOR FREE ELECTIONS AND
FREE SPEECH. AND HE PROMISED THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD CONTINUE TO PRESS THIS
ODIOUS REGIME TO "FINALLY BEGIN RESPECTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ITS PEOPLE."
But the president's message was more nuanced than a blanket censure. He
acknowledged that democratic reform sometimes comes slowly, and made it clear
that Washington would respond encouragingly if it saw even halting progress
toward liberty and the rule of law. "The United States recognizes," he said,
"that freedom sometimes grows step by step." If Bush's speech had been about the
vicious dictatorship in Burma, he would have won plaudits in all quarters. If he
had been speaking of Saudi Arabia's corrupt theocrats or the depraved rulers of
Sudan, the editorial pages would sung his praises and Capitol Hill would have
cheered. But because his speech was about
Cuba, it was promptly
dismissed in elite circles as nothing more than right-wing pandering.
Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota sneered that the
president's stand was "driven by politics, not policy." USA Today brushed it off
as "an anachronistic failure" and even pooh-poohed Bush's proposal to direct
more philanthropic and educational aid to Cuban citizens. Over at the Council on
Foreign Relations, a font of conventional wisdom, Walter Russell Mead poured
scorn on a "do-nothing speech" that was "not . . . very convincing or
effective."
More hostile still was the Los Angeles Times, which
headlined its Page 1 story "Castro Must Yield to US, Bush Says" - as though
forcing Castro to bend his knee to Washington, not liberty for the Cuban people,
were Bush's true aim. Below the headline, the Times reported in its lead that
Bush had reaffirmed the American "economic quarantine" of
Cuba.
But there is no "quarantine"; there is only an
embargo on
US-Cuban business that leaves Castro free to
trade with every
other country on earth.
Reasonable people can differ on the efficacy of
the
embargo, but surely all Americans ought to be able to agree
that Castro's reign is an affront to human decency and a blot on the Western
Hemisphere.
So why is it that so many critics of the administration's
position expend far more energy denouncing the US
embargo than
calling for an end to Castro's repression? The abuse of Cuban dissenters doesn't
seem to anger them nearly as much as the loss of business opportunities caused
by the US ban. What really motivates the antiembargo lobby? A yen for liberty -
or for profits?
A few days before Bush's speech, 14 members of the
congressional
Cuba Working Group held a press conference to
discuss their views of US policy toward
Cuba. My transcript of
the event runs to 12 pages of single-spaced type. It is a revealing document.
All 14 congressmen spoke, yet not one expressed outrage over the way
Castro suffocates the Cuban people. Not one denounced the lack of free speech or
the elaborate network of government informers or the misery that drives
countless Cubans each year to risk death in an effort to escape Fidelismo. Oh,
there was a passing reference now and then to democracy or human rights, but on
the whole the
Cuba Working Group seemed to get passionate only
when the topic turned to the quantities of dried beans and chicken legs that
Cuba is supposedly keen to import. Would 14 members of a South
Africa Working Group in the 1980s have called a press conference and neglected
to express their revulsion for apartheid?
At one point Representative
James McGovern of Massachusetts saluted former president Jimmy Carter for
"having the guts to go to
Cuba, for standing before the Cuban
government and speaking the truth about human rights." But when I asked McGovern
the other day whether he was equally proud of Bush for speaking the truth about
human rights, he pronounced himself "very disappointed with the president's
speech. It was precisely the opposite of what the dissidents have asked for."
It is true that some Cuban dissidents call for an immediate end to the
US
embargo. But others call for it to remain in force until
Castro leaves. And still others want what Bush wants - an end to economic
sanctions but only in exchange for irrevocable democratic reform.
McGovern says the promotion of democracy and human rights is the very
raison d'etre of the
Cuba Working Group. Perhaps so. But while
he and his colleagues persist in talking about the
embargo,
Bush is reminding the world that the real issue is freedom. The pole star of his
Cuba policy is liberty, not chicken legs. When the Cuban people
are free at last, they will not forget his steadfastness.
Jeff Jacoby's
e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
LOAD-DATE: May 31,
2002