
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, September 3, 1994                   TAG: 9410130020
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A9   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

BEHIND THE CRISIS, AN OLD OBSESSION

TALKS BETWEEN the United States and Cuba began this week in an effort to stem the Cuban exodus. And guess what: The pain of communicating seems manageable. So why not broaden the dialogue? Why not open our eyes to the fact, recognized by everybody else, that the Cold War is over?

If we can bargain with North Korea, trade with Communist China, and begin normalizing relations with Vietnam, is there some reason we shouldn't rethink our 35-year obsession with a windy ruler of a small island intent on pulling Uncle Gringo's chain?

There are three reasons not to rethink U.S.-Cuba policy, but none is compelling:

Bargaining with Castro might be regarded as a sign of weakness.

True, but the status quo can't be maintained anyway. In an effort to discourage Cubans' flight in rickety rafts, President Clinton has rightly ended automatic asylum in the United States. But at Guantanamo Bay - where refugees picked up at sea are now being detained - Haitians also are crowded in, conditions are deteriorating, and there may soon be no vacancy.

Having adopted a policy it can't sustain, the Clinton administration will have to change course at some point - and an elephant trying to squash a gnat does not seem tougher for trying. After three decades of isolating the island, it's hard to argue that sanctions need more time to work.

Politically influential Cuban-Americans will decry any hint of accommodation.

True, but Clinton too often has allowed domestic politics to weaken foreign policy. An ironic result: His lack of constancy abroad has contributed to his weak image at home.

Domestic political concerns help explain the president's decision last month to stop the flow of cash from expatriates to relatives back home. The new policy placates some Cuban-American hardliners.

But it also worsens the suffering of Cubans, encourages more to take flight - and is unlikely to succeed even in the politically crassest regard. Clinton can hardly believe his gesture will prompt Cuban-Americans to defect to the Democrats.

Castro's rule is in its death throes; nothing should be done to prop up his legitimacy or prolong his grip on power.

True, but Castro has always used the U.S. embargo as a cover for his own failures and an excuse for Cubans' deprivations. The best way to press for change may not be to further isolate Cuba, but to negotiate a phased-in lifting of the U.S. embargo, in return for progress toward civil liberties, elections and market reforms.

Castro is the unclothed tyrant, an embalmed artifact losing control of a crumbling island prison. His principal legacies are political repression and a ruined economy. His ideology carries no weight in a Latin America trending toward democracy. The Soviet Union no longer is around to subsidize his failed experiment.

If Cuba's communist authoritarianism were answered with an influx of goods and culture from a developed, democratic nation, might not the demise of dictatorship be expedited and the flow of refugees reduced? It's at least worth considering.

Castro can still use refugees to bedevil us. But times have changed since the days we launched bungled invasions and mob hit-squads against the annoying rebel. We need to realize we've won the war.

by CNB