In Washington, the pro-embargo lobby – or what is left of them – began to mischaracterize the letter as a “concession” to the regime, and cherry picked quotes by some dissidents and exile leaders to make it seem as if there is widespread opposition to increasing support for Cuban civil society.In Havana, the supposed beneficiaries of these “concessions” reacted in equally predictable fashion. As they’ve done every time there’s been a potential thaw, the Cuban regime’s hardliners are going out of their way to thwart political momentum in the U.S. for a new approach. Let’s face it, one of the regime’s favorite strategies is to blame American policy for all of their own shortcomings. It has helped them stay in power. If they wanted better relations, they wouldrelease Alan Gross, or stop beating up the Ladies in White, or cease detaining pro-rights activists, or loosen customs and import restrictions. They haven’t, of course, because like the hardliners here, they want everything their way.
Both sides have something else in common – they will twist anything to fit their view of the world, even when it makes no sense. Washington hardliners are quick to pose for photo ops or send press releases praising the bravery of Cuban activists. Yet by denying those activists real support, and refusing to accept that civil society needs economic resources to thrive, they are doing them a disservice.To suggest that an increase in the flow of contacts and resources to the Cuban people is a “concession” to the Castro brothers plays directly into the hands of the most unyielding forces within the Cuban government. As WLRN’s Tim Padgettnoted last month, ”Incredibly, [hardliners] somehow convinced themselves that denying Cuba’s fledgling entrepreneurs more seed money, cell phones and sage advice – that keeping them in the micro-economic Middle Ages – is the best way to change Cuba.” It isn’t.
The “concessions” talking point might be a cute sound bite, but it’s wrong. For decades, the American people have been force-fed the baseless notion that any reform of Cuba policy, no matter how practical, is tantamount to rewarding the regime for its iron grip over the island.In fact, easing the embargo to support the island’s nascent entrepreneurial class puts more pressure on the Cuban regime to respect human rights because they have a stronger independent private sector and civil society with which to contend. And if the argument from hardliners is that we should not support entrepreneurs because there can be no private sector without rights, then that would mean we couldn’t support dissidents either. We must do both.