Not long ago, the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) was an incredibly conservative, hard-line exile group almost inextricably linked with the Republican party. After the Elián González controversy (2000-2001), the hard-liners split off to form the Cuban Liberty Council, leaving behind a more centrist/moderate CANF.
That shift was considerable at the time, but the statement released today by the organization was, as the New York Times noted, “the group’s most significant rejection of a national approach to Cuba that it helped shape.” The 14-page report, “A New Course for U.S.-Cuba Policy: Advancing People-Driven Change,” is available on the CANF website here. Although the suggestions are not all new, it is a serious sign of change to hear the leading organization for Cuban exiles admitting that past policies have failed to achieve their objectives on the island.
The most common critique of the report so far, of course, is that it does not go far enough. CANF stops short of calling for the administration to lift the 47-year-old trade embargo, which is the most well-known tack of what it is calling the failed U.S. policy of isolation, and therefore would appear to be the most obvious target. But the embargo should remain, the group’s President said, until the Cuban government gives more freedoms and more human rights to its people. Then he admitted something that is key to understanding the stance of many Cuban-Americans on the embargo: it is a symbol, he said—a symbol of rejection of the regime.
There appears to be a double-standard embedded in this argument. CANF seeks to change the emphasis of policy from pushing regime change to focusing on the Cuban people, yet the failed policy that was created intending to force regime change (the embargo) should remain, with no discussion of its adverse effects on the Cuban population. And this, simply because it is a symbol.
But its reasoning for maintaining the embargo is not unsound, as long as there is a strong will to create the circumstances that will allow for lifting it soon. For now, scrapping the embargo might alienate and weaken the position of many dissidents and pro-democracy groups on the island, while causing more inequity between the groups that have access to the international sector and those that do not. Instead of this, CANF wants to increase support for the Cuban population through funding, remittances and direct aid; and to increase people-to-people contact and communication that will allow a freer flow of ideas.
Furthermore, the report serves an important purpose: it allows the administration to tally much of the Cuban-American population in a column labeled “in favor of new policy toward Havana.” This is the largest and most unified statement put out by the Cuban-American community on the issue, which is on the top of many minds in Washington at the moment. It is timely, and in many ways provides a metaphorical green light right before the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad. And it leaves very sparse company in the “in opposition to new policy toward Havana” column.
The CANF intent is good, then; empowering the Cuban people in their pursuit of democracy and prosperity will encourage the growth of a strong civil society from the bottom up, which is how the most effective democracies emerge. Yet the administration should be careful in taking their recommendations into account. Providing funding to dissidents and pro-democracy groups on the island makes them look like Washington’s dispatches, which is exactly how the Castro regime has depicted independent dissidents for years.
