Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
“Negotiations”? What “negotiations”?

“Negotiations”? What “negotiations”?

Last updated on: February 24, 2015 at 11:28 pm by Jane the Actuary

“Negotiations”? What “negotiations”? 2015-02-24T23:28:46-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The newspaper headlines this morning, and the online news reported yesterday, were pretty dreary: a report on the president’s actions to normalize relations with Cuba and a report that Sony is cancelling its planned distribution of The Interview, in reaction to terrorist threats.

With respect the latter: well, what can you say? Or, rather, what can I say? It’s terrible, and Sony’s excuse that they don’t want to have a bad Christmas earnings from fearful Americans in Everytown, USA, staying at home because they’re afraid of a massive strike at all movie theatres, just doesn’t cut it. Clearly they’re cowed by the threats to them as an organization (which also makes it likely that they wouldn’t even release it in some digital manner, if they’re afraid of retaliation for any kind of release — maybe someone needs to pirate a copy for the common good). And that’s a bad thing.

But I think everyone is pretty much on the same page on this.

So let’s talk about Cuba. (Not that I really have much to say on this, but it’s more worthy of a conversation, rather than just a collective expression of frustration and unhappiness.) Here’s an article from the Tribune; not sure if this is behind a paywall or not: “Secret diplomacy with Cuba ends in breakthrough deal.”

Now, the ironic thing is that most of the changes, in and of themselves, are hard to argue against. China is hardly a model of diplomacy, and for all that it’s adopted free-market reforms, it still imprisons people fairly frequently for political or religous reasons, compels women to have abortions even of nearly full-term babies, and so on. Yet we still trade with them and, exept for tongue-lashings in human rights reports, don’t punish them for their misdeeds.

Heck, even in the midst of the Cold War, we still traded with Russia and had an embassy there.

And spy exchanges were routine — or, rather, we’d catch one of their spies, they’d imprison a few journalists with the claim that they were also spies, and we’d negotiate a swap, with the men crossing some bridge in Berlin in opposite directions.

Yes, it’s true that Cuba is different largely for its proximity to the United States. But our policies are largely driven by history, and the political influence of Cuban exiles.

So, the first thought experiment is this: imagine that President Romney presented a proposal to Congress to dismantle the embargo against Cuba. Do you think that the House and the Senate would have voted for it? What if Obama had presented the very same legislation?

One suspects that it wouldn’t have passed, and that Obama knows that it wouldn’t have passed, and it wouldn’t even have passed earlier in his presidency when he had the numbers on his side. Obama’s actions now, in doing everything he can to “normalize” relations with Cuba that doesn’t directly contravene this law, are not justifiable as a “this is in accordance with the will of the people and simply done in advance of anticipated approval of Congress.” This is a matter of doing everything possible to violate the spirit of a law that is, in fact, still law, and will still be law for the foreseeable future.

Here it is, from an article that generally reports on this change as a positive outcome:

In addition to reopening its embassy in Havana, the administration plans to significantly ease trade and financial restrictions, as well as limits on travel by Americans to Cuba, by using its regulatory and enforcement powers to evade limits imposed by a congressionally mandated embargo.

Now, the article doesn’t outline what “enforcement powers” this refers to, but this does imply that the administration is playing the game of, again, announcing an intentional non-enforcement of the law. Is this all even constitutional? Could an exile who had property expropriated by the Cuban government 50 years ago, and thus could make a claim that the administration’s attempt to unilaterally lift the embargo harms them because the embargo is, after all, supposed to be pressuring the Cuban government to return their property, make a case?

(Further reading turned up an article from The Hill, which says,

Meanwhile, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who herself fled Cuba, suggested that Obama’s decision to unilaterally normalize relations with Cuba could be unconstitutional.

“It is quite possible that this unilateral action by the President without Congressional consultation is in violation of the following U.S. laws: Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, and the Trading with the Enemy Act,” Ros-Lehtinen, a former Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman, said in a statement.

“The White House attempts to normalize relationships with Cuba without the approval of Congress,” she said, “may be in direct violation of Helms-Burton that specifically states that all political prisoners must be released, and free and fair elections must be held before establishing a diplomatic relationship.”)

What’s more: the Tribune reports,

Obama and Castro — who spoke by phone Tuesday, the first such exchange between leaders of the two countries since the 1959 Cuban Revolution — thanked Pope Francis and the Vatican, which they said were instrumental in promoting their dialogue, and the government of Canada, where secret talks that began in June 2013 were held.

But what did Obama achieve?

The release of Goss and a high-value Cuban spy for the U.S., in exchange for the release of three Cuban spies, who, in addition to spying, actually were convicted of murder.

That strikes me as fairly routine, in a Cold War-ish sort of way, and far more proportional than the Bergdahl exchange.

But the second part? Obama gave Castro a generous basket of goodies: primarily the opening up of all kinds of trade, travel, and banking opportunities, but also opening an embassy, a promise to “review” the designation of Cuba as state sponsor of terrorism, and a plan to ask Congress to lift the embargo.

What did Obama get from Castro? Squat.

OK, Castro promised to release 53 political prisoners and “agreed to expand Internet access and other freedoms” (vaguely stated in the Trib, and I imagine just as vague in reality). This is the hard-won concession that took years of negotiation to achieve? Give me a break!

Uncategorized

Cuba

Previous Post

December 17, 2014

Jeb Bush? No. Just no.

Next Post

December 19, 2014 Gift suggestions wanted!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In the New Testament what is the last book?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Revelation Titus Matthew Luke