CUBA
Question conclusions of 'anti-embargo' poll
BY JOSE AZEL
jazel@miami.edu
As the new administration takes form, a plethora of think-tank
recommendation papers are available to justify practically any policy
initiative. Unfortunately, the rush for the president-elect's ear does
not always result in rigorous analysis.
For example, a recent poll purports to show that a majority of Cuban
Americans favor ending the U.S. trade embargo of Cuba. This poll is now
incorrectly cited as clear evidence of a shift in attitude among Cuban
Americans. But that conclusion does not follow from the survey question:
``Do you favor or oppose continuing the U.S. embargo of Cuba?''
Opponents of the embargo interpret it as a desire for an unconditional,
unilateral, end to the embargo without concessions from the Cuban
government. That conclusion cannot be legitimately inferred from the
question asked. A different survey question -- for example: ''Do you
favor a unilateral, unconditional lifting of the embargo, or do you
favor a process of negotiations that would lead to concessions from the
Cuban government?'' -- would yield different results.
Another example is a 2 ½-page section on Cuba, which is part of a
broader report. The Cuba section, perhaps striving for succinctness,
appears superficial. The authors present views as self-evident truths
without explaining how they know what is claimed to be known.
Its first recommendation, ''Lift all restrictions on travel to Cuba by
Americans,'' is followed by a single sentence truth-claim that, ''The
ability of Americans to travel to Cuba would allow for better
understanding, promote small businesses, and provide information to the
Cuban people.'' It is not explained how travel by American tourists
would differ from that of millions of tourists from Canada and elsewhere
who have visited Cuba for decades without advancing a transition to
openness. How do the authors reach this conclusion on the impact of
American tourism?
Other recommendations also fail to explain their underlying logic. One
argues that liberalizing the sale of communications equipment, including
computers, ''would encourage the transfer of information and free flow
of ideas.'' But what is so magical about American branded computers for
this free flow of ideas that is not available in computers from other
countries readily available to Cuba? It also goes unnoted that the Cuban
government allows less that 2 percent of Cubans (mostly government
officials) access to the Internet.
Another recommendation seeks to ''Remove caps and targeting restrictions
on remittances.'' It then offers a one sentence rationalization: ''These
financial measures would help get resources directly into the hands of
ordinary Cubans, empowering them, improving their standard of living and
reducing their dependence on the state.'' One can advocate ending
restrictions on remittances on humanitarian grounds. However, a
thoughtful analysis needs to note that this will deliver hard currency
resources to the Cuban regime. While this may be a policy cost worth
incurring, the rationalization above suggests that the state is
circumvented. In Cuba's economic system -- where the state controls
almost all production -- the purchasing power provided by these
remittances flows to the state.
Another problem is a failure to differentiate between ''knowing that''
and ''knowing how.'' Often reports begin with a repudiation of U.S.
policy on Cuba noting that it has failed to change the Cuban regime.
This is a valid ''knowing that'' claim. It does not follow, however,
that an alternative policy embodies ''know-how'' to change the Cuban
regime; labeling one approach a failure does not provide an automatic
truth-claim for an alternative approach.
This is not to argue for a status quo approach to U.S. policy on Cuba.
Rethinking a strategy is not synonymous with apostasy. However, it is
troubling to read Cuba policy recommendation reports that are silent on
political prisoners, civil liberties or political rights. One is left to
wonder if the authors understand the nature of the Cuban government and
ignore it, relying on some unexplained change theory, or whether they
opt for a Faustian bargain.
José Azel is a senior research associate at the Institute for Cuban and
Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami.
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/819074.html
No comments:
Post a Comment