From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:48:05 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan1.151226.24374@vlsi.polymtl.ca> d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
>Dave Griffith (dave@alex.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: The basic reason the US still has the embargo on is internal democratic 
>: pressures.
>
>At least there is someone who agrees with me on this point.
>
>: They vote.  And there are a lot of them who
>: would volunteer to die if it would mean the end of Castro and his regime.
>
>They don`t seam to remember Batista`s horrible government, that is bizare.

HOW DARE YOU!  Telling thousands of mature adult exiles that the political
basis of their lives is due to simply 'forgetting' Batistas regime.  If they
would just listen to some snot-nosed quebecois cs geek, the scales would
fall from their eyes, and they would climb back into their leaky rafts 
to Senor Castro's island paradise.  Truly astounding arrogance.  

>
>: Boycott? It's only the garauntee that Castro will fall if the boycott 
>: continues that keeps us from taking military action!   
>
>He may fall, but the result will be chaos, the chinese route, steps toward
>democracy taken gradually while keeping channels open is better.

Unfortunately, it is Mr. Castro who is making this impossible. The phrase
that he usually uses for this policy is "Socialism or Death".  Every indication
is that Castro will be dictator of Cuba until he dies.  The point of the
embargo is to speed his death, by causing the overthrow of his government.  
(Okay, to be precise, his death is unnecessary.  If he follows Rushdie's 
example, he might be able to remain alive in _deep_ hiding.  Unlikely, though.)

As an aside, your view on China is simply unique.  No responsible China watcher
predicts that the Communist party will give up political control any time
soon.  Economic control, certainly.  Politically, China is set for dictatorship
for the long haul.

>
>: While the above is, admittedly, a morality-free calculation, there is a moral
>: question lurking there.  What is the effect of the Cuban exiles on questions
>: of the morality of the boycott.  There is a large body of Cubans who consider
>: Castro's regime to be illegitimate.  Does it make a difference that they
>: live in Miami rather than Havana?  We certainly allow that the Palestinian 
>: diaspora has interests in the West Bank, and the long-exiled ANC leaders had
>: interests in South Africa.  Why should the Cuban exiles be different?
>
>The difference is :
>	- the ideas drive the actions in the palestinians & ANC`s case.
>	  The palestinian don`t really have a country.
>	  International laws (UN resolutions) are at stake.
>	- constituents drive the actions in the cubans case, it is 
>	  to please them and not for any altruistic notion that
>	  the embargo exists.

Where to begin.  The Cuban exiles actions are certainly based on ideas as
much as the ANC's.  The ANC is opposed to apartheid in their country (among 
other less savory positions).  The Cuban exiles are opposed to Castro's 
variety of Stalinism in their's.  Assuming that the "constituents" views are
not altruistic is the same flavor of arrogance I flamed about above.  Finally,
you have not answered the basic question, as to whether the Cuban exile 
community in the US deserves influence on Cuba's future. 

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh