Do You Like Cafe?

Do You Like Cafe?
May 3, 2012
Haroldo Dilla Alfonso*

HAVANA TIMES, May 3 – "CAFE" is the acronym of a new Cuban-American
organization. It stands for Cuban Americans for Engagement, a promising
name that seems to indicate the will of their supporters to involve
themselves in actions and policies in support of the Cuban community in
the United States.

I don't know many details about their purpose or how it is organized. In
a family-like photo along with a legislative representative, appear nine
people, most in their forties, professionals, all white, but both women
and men.

Some of them are members of families of the island's political, economic
or cultural elite. Some have been favorite guests in the activities
sponsored by the Cuban Interests Section in Washington D.C., while yet
others possess immigration statuses that are flexible enough for them to
travel frequently to Cuba and return to the US without a hitch.

Some of these people have been contributors to online newspapers and
have spoken out on various topics, on occasions arguing for critical
support for the "updating" of the general/president (I should emphasize
that the noun is their support, while their being critical is an
addendum adjective).

Among these online periodicals is Cubadebate, the electronic daily of
the Ideological Department of the Communist Party of Cuba.

C.A.F.E. is emerging at a time when the Cuban government has declared
that it will implement immigration reform and that it will attempt to
reshape its relations with the Cuban émigré community.

As I have noted elsewhere, this effort is aimed at improving the
external image of the political regime, to gain the economic support of
emigrants (remittances and investments) for its "updating" that is
leaking in many places, and to coordinate an anti-embargo/anti-blockade
lobby that can at least achieve the lifting of the travel ban on
Americans to Cuba, an indispensable resource for tourism to takeoff.

I don't think there exists the least intention on the part of the Cuban
government to envision emigrants as citizens with full rights. They are
only looking at them from a utilitarian perspective: as senders of
remittances, payers for services and probably as investors.

I don't know what the most intimate intentions are of the supporters of
C.A.F.E., which for the moment doesn't seem to have many members, but I
think the emergence of this organization can't be removed from this
context: It, at least in the first instance, has a duty.

If this is the case, then I think that C.A.F.E. has become part of the
problem and not the solution. This is simply because it's strolling
through a minefield with the inept joy of a baby elephant.

The statement by C.A.F.E. began by telling a story about their visit to
the office of one Cuban-American senator linked to the Tea Party, though
making it clear that they didn't see him as being politically
representative of them.

What the visit could be seen as was a way to explain to the public that
other non-Cuban-American congressional representatives will be the
targets that C.A.F.E. will aim at in its lobbying. They later visited
the State Department, where they urged the official who attended to them
to "take a broader view of the people-to-people contacts" and to avoid
narrow concepts linking these strategies to political subversion.

All this meant a boost for Obama's policies on an issue that obviously
exceeds the specific relations between the Cuban communities on the two
sides of the Florida Strait.

Personally I'm in agreement with all of this, just as I too disapprove
of the Helms Burton Act. I would say that it was a political tour with
nothing new, though a healthy sign. It was simply something that wasn't
objectionable.

The problems started on the other side of the process, when the C.A.F.E.
members visited the Cuban Interests Section in Washington.

With absolute transparency they outlined four points with the official
who met with them. I imagine that this individual must have had the most
comfortable interview of their career, more pleasant than the bembes
(performances) of the La Colmenita children's theater group.

Indeed, what the visitors told them is what every Cuban official has
ever wanted to hear. Plus, all of this was despite the fact that the
main obstacle to a healthy relationship between the Cuban communities on
and off the island is anti-national, exclusionary and a discriminatory
policy of the Cuban government.

Let's consider the four approaches proposed by C.A.F.E.:

1 – An opening by the Cuban Government to Cuban-American investments in
the sectors of small and medium-sized properties. This was heavenly
music to the Cuban officials, who in the end can place the blame for its
not being achieved on the embargo.

2. The elimination of restrictions on travel to the island imposed on
specific social groups, including balseros (rafters) and doctors who
abandoned their missions abroad. This was partially celestial music: the
issue of the physicians will be left for deeper reflections in the future.

3. The excessive costs of processing paperwork for a passport or an exit
permit, as well as travel expenses that abuse the possibility of a more
active relationships between the Cuban community abroad and that on the
island. This was more heavenly music. Note that there wasn't even an
objection to the exit permit. According to C.A.F.E., Cubans should just
pay less for the violation of their right to freedom to travel.

4. The elimination of existing prejudice against Cuban-Americans that
hinders a more active relationship between them and the institutions on
the island, particularly in areas such as academic, educational and
cultural exchanges. This was a complete celestial concert.

What was raised by C.A.F.E. — whatever the good intentions of its
supporters may be — are light-years away from everything that is
important with regard to this issue.

This has to do with the real problems that require a solution that is
inseparable from the recognition of the full rights of travel for Cubans
on both sides.

This relates to what are the most advanced diagnostic documents issued
by institutions, an example of which is the hard-hitting report "La
diaspora cubana en el siglo XXI" (The Cuban Diaspora in the 21st
Century," by CRI-FIU (Cuban Research Institute – Florida International
University).

And what could possibly be even more paradoxical are the Cuban
government's own decisions in its attempt to change some of its
immigration norms.

I think that regardless of specific policy approaches, nothing is
plausible in the Cuban government's relationship to Cuban immigration
without addressing the key question of the principles of citizenship
that establish the right of all Cubans to travel freely from and to
return to their country of birth unless the individual expressly
renounces their Cuban nationality.

This is a topic that is dense and full of resentment on both sides.
That's why I favor the idea of ??an explicit timetable for a gradual
rebuilding of citizenship, but making clear to all the targets,
deadlines and commitments.

It is not politically or morally acceptable to confuse our rights as
citizens with the lowering of custom fees or the possibility of an
entrepreneur investing in the Cuban economy.

It is frankly unforgivable to admit, even by omission, that the Cuban
government uses the issue of immigration as a mechanism of political
control, and that through this it deals very painful punishments and
gives out petty rewards.

I think the C.A.F.E. supporters have placed themselves in a very
complicated issue in the worst possible way.

It's worthwhile to ponder the complex future of a large transnational
space (it isn't otherwise) called Cuban society.

This is something we truly need.
—–

(*) Publicado originalmente en Cubaencuentro.com

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=69033