Obama to make announcement on Cuba policy at 12est

[K1052]

If you look back at your post you'll see I answered that question in the portion of my post you quoted.

First, the primary objective of foreign policy is to advance our interests. And I think the term "primary" understates the importance of that concept in foreign policy.

It is not about treating all foreign countries the same. It is not about treating every foreign country 'fairly', as if anybody really agrees on what the hell that means. It's about advancing our own interests.

I do not believe we must, or should, treat every foreign country the same because they are not the same. They are not the same in terms of their own individual characteristics, not the same in terms of what benefit or danger they represent to us, not the same in terms of their own aims or needs, not the same in their ideologies or cultures.

The countries mentioned have vastly different geopolitical significance. E.g., Russia was cozying up to Cuba because of the proximity to us.

These countries have different strengths and weaknesses. This mandates that we use different tools available in foreign policy to reach our objectives. E.g., we don't embargo China because, quite frankly, we can't. It would arguably be very disruptive to our own economy, at least in the short term, and that's not in our own interests (or maybe our politicians' electoral interests).

The idea that we would, or could, embargo Saudi Arabia is absurd. Would it be in our (economic) interests? Could it even be done logistically? (Oil is a global commodity etc.) As bad as they are, e.g., illicit funding of terrorists etc., they're one the 'better' countries in that region and can be useful to us. E.g., they stand as bulwark of sorts against the spread of fundamental Islamic regimes. Does Cuba? How can these two even be mentioned together in foreign policy etc.?

China is massive with a +billion people and nuclear arms. Cuba? Jeebus.

Fern

You haven't answered anything.

I want to know specifically what interests of ours maintaining the economic and political embargo of Cuba now serves.

 

[CitizenKain]

You haven't answered anything.

I want to know specifically what interests of ours maintaining the economic and political embargo of Cuba now serves.

Because Obama is a bad person, therefore everything he does is bad. That is the entire rational behind opposing this.

 

[inachu]

umm okay!!

 

[Vic]

The USA is the only nation capable of fueling Cuba. For some bizarre reason, other nations set and operate foreign policy for their own benefit. I don't know we'll get any good will for this, for with a more prosperous Cuba comes Cuban soldiers propping up Marxist groups looking to seize power. Can't do those things if you can't afford them. And as far as "expanded business opportunities for American businesses, and a better opportunity to guide Cuba in the direction we want them to go", surely our experience with China has definitively shot down both of those arguments.

You're losing it, possum. This foreign policy decision is 100% to America's benefit. It has already been proven, over and over again and including in China, that the best way to bring down communism is to expose a country's populace to the benefits of capitalism.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're losing it, possum. This foreign policy decision is 100% to America's benefit. It has already been proven, over and over again and including in China, that the best way to bring down communism is to expose a country's populace to the benefits of capitalism.

He's hard to figure. He sometimes makes sense.

 

[Fern]

And so it begins:

Cuba’s President Raúl Castro has demanded that the United States return the US base at Guantánamo Bay, lift the half-century trade embargo on Cuba and compensate his country for damages before the two nations re-establish normal relations.

Castro told a summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States that Cuba and the US are working toward full diplomatic relations but “if these problems aren’t resolved, this diplomatic rapprochement wouldn’t make any sense”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/28/raul-castro-return-guantanamo-cuba-us

Cuba will not accept any interference from the United States, President Raul Castro said on Wednesday, warning that meddling in its internal affairs would make rapprochement between the two countries "meaningless."

His comments came after U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson, the highest-ranking U.S. government official to visit the island in nearly 40 years, last week met with dissidents a day after talks with Cuban government officials.

"Everything appears to indicate that the aim is to foment an artificial political opposition via economic, political and communicational means," Castro told a summit in Costa Rica.

"If these problems are not resolved, this diplomatic rapprochement between Cuba and the United States would be meaningless," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/28/us-cuba-usa-idUSKBN0L12EP20150128

JFC

Fern

 

[K1052]

On Wednesday, Castro emphasised an even broader list of Cuban demands, saying that while diplomatic ties may be re-established, normal relations with the US depend on a series of concessions that appear highly unlikely in the near future.

“The re-establishment of diplomatic relations is the start of a process of normalising bilateral relations, but this will not be possible while the blockade still exists, while they don’t give back the territory illegally occupied by the Guantánamo naval base,” Castro said.

By definition bilateral relations won't be normalized until the embargo is repealed. The rest of it is just old empty rhetoric from someone who will be out of power (one way or another) by the time any US Congress will seriously take up the issue. Guantanamo has a lease, also possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the damage done by the embargo effectively cancels out US economic losses due to nationalization during the revolution in any negotiation process.