Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, August 31, 1994 TAG: 9410120006
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RICHARD E. SINCERE JR.
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
A naval blockade is, by definition, an act of war. Are we willing to go to war against Cuba to liberate its people from Fidel's clutches? If so, why now? What has changed in the past 35 years that permits us in 1994 to make war against Cuba when it was not permissible in 1984, or 1974, or 1964?
Throughout the Cold War, Castro was a thorn in the side of American leaders. He sent troops throughout the world - Angola, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua - to fight against both U.S. interests and people desiring genuine democracy. He allowed Soviet missiles and soldiers to be based in Cuba. Remember, during all this time the Soviet Union and its totalitarian client, Cuba, were dedicated to the destruction of America and its principles of individual liberty.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba has shrunk from its global mischief-making mission. Castro simply has been unable to afford military adventures. Lacking the subsidy from Moscow, Castro has had to turn inward.
Yet he continues to pursue the same failed economic, social and political programs that destroyed his allies in Europe. As a result, his people are poor, uneducated, hungry and eager to escape.
The political ``crisis'' identified by the Clinton administration was precipitated by an emigration ``crisis'' - thousands of brave Cubans willing to thumb their noses at Castro and declare in a vivid way their desire to seek freedom in the United States. And what could be more vivid than handfuls of Cubans traveling across the Straits of Florida in leaky boats or on inner tubes?
At the same time, the Clinton administration has reversed a 30-year policy that Cuban refugees are guaranteed entry into the United States, based on an automatic (and correct) assumption that these people are fleeing political persecution. Presumably, the new policy is meant to match up to a similar policy that has governed the treatment of refugees from Haiti. Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles has urged this change in policy and has declared his state a disaster area to qualify for federal aid in resettling the 5,000 or more refugees who have so far had the good luck to land in his state.
Clinton's moves remind us of his Democratic predecessors in the White House: John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Some pundits have suggested that Clinton may feel compelled to succeed where Kennedy failed. That is, Kennedy (through the Bay of Pigs, for example) wanted badly to restore freedom to Cuba but was unable to do so. By engaging a policy that would bring Castro down, Clinton thinks he will polish Kennedy's tarnished record.
President Carter faced a similar immigration crisis of Cuban refugees. More than 125,000 refugees - the Marielitos - arrived almost overnight in 1980.
George Washington University Professor Amitai Etzioni, who served in the Carter White House as a domestic policy adviser, told an audience at the Cato Institute in Washington recently that he recommended to the Carter administration that the resettlement be handled entirely by the private sector. President Carter rejected this advice and decided instead to set up a major federal program to do the resettlement.
By the time the program got under way, however, at least 100,000 of the refugees had already been assimilated into their new communities. The vast majority were resettled, as if by magic, because of the rapid action of the private sector (families, churches, groups like the Red Cross).
Those few refugees who were handled by the public sector - the federal government and various state governments - had more trouble becoming assimilated.
Curiously, it was the problems of resettlement in Arkansas that led (at least in part) to Bill Clinton's loss in his re-election bid as governor in 1982. He was perceived as a weak leader because of how he handled troubles in the refugee camps that had been established in his state.
So a touch of irony appears today. What is the real solution? If not a blockade, if not more pressure, then what?
The time has come to end the U.S. embargo on Cuba, which never accomplished anything anyway. Allow American investors to go to Cuba and build factories, hotels, agribusinesses. Introduce Cuba to free enterprise. As more capitalists enter the last bastion of communism in the Western Hemisphere, the harder it will be for Castro to support his weakening system.
The Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe ended when the people there had access to Western news and Western goods. There are some who say that the Soviet Union collapsed because of copy machines, word processors and faxes.
Why use battleships to bring down Castro when a Macintosh can do the job?
Richard E. Sincere Jr. is chairman of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.
by CNB