Картер призывает к свободе слова и дем. выборам. - "Уйдут старики - конец".
Гнусная статья с привычной пропагандой, в которой упоминается речь Картера по ТВ на испанском в прямом эфире. Картер также призвал "снять эмбарго". Впрочем, непонятно - зачем призывать к этому, если после введения "демократии" эмбарго будет снято автоматом, а после Кастро шансов на уцеление нынешнего строя чрезвычайно мало.
Cuba si, Bush no!
White House attempt to discredit Carter's visit was reminiscent of the 1960s' Ugly Americans
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor
It is often said that Jimmy Carter is the best ex-president the U.S. ever had. Last week, he travelled to Cuba to meet Fidel Castro. In a dramatic live broadcast on national TV, Carter, speaking in Spanish, called for free speech, democratic elections and an end to America's punishing trade embargo of the island nation of 11.2 million.
Castro, who has ruled Cuba as a dictator since 1958, sat silently as Carter told Cubans it was time to join the democratic world.
If anyone represents the moral side of America, it is Jimmy Carter. He has devoted his post-presidential years to working for human rights. Many people, myself included, used to sneer at him as a naive do-gooder, but over the decades he has quietly soldiered on, reminding the world that America is about much more than controlling other people's oil, or exporting violent films and predigested fast food.
Carter's humble decency is in sharp contrast to the bellicose, unilateralist George Bush administration, which is increasingly viewed abroad as the reborn Ugly Americans of the 1960s - men who combined missionary zeal with arrogance and ignorance. In a disgraceful, clumsy attempt to embarrass Carter during his Cuban trip, the White House claimed Cuba was developing biological warfare weapons and selling them to "rogue" states. President Bush sought to further embarrass Carter by announcing further restrictions on American travel to Cuba.
But when asked for proof that Cuba was exporting germ weapons, the administration quickly backed down, lamely claiming Cuba "might" have biowarfare capability because of its advanced pharmaceutical research. So might Canada, Sweden, or Iraq.
There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of the contentious Cuban question. Castro is an old-style communist dictator who presides over a totalitarian police state that violates human rights. Thanks to four decades of tropical socialism, Cubans today have a lower living standard than the Chinese, though Cuba's education and health care are of high quality.
Once the most developed
I remember Cuba before Castro: back in the 1950s, it was the most developed, best educated, most cultured nation of the West Indies. Its capital, Havana, is a century older than New York City.
Republicans insist ending sanctions and travel restrictions will only aid Castro's dictatorship. They have a point. Canada "engaged" Cuba with trade and tourism in hope of liberalizing the Castro regime. The effort failed miserably; in fact, the Castro regime become more repressive. Canada's prime minister should have made Carter's tough speech to Cubans, instead of mouthing platitudes.
But as Democrats point out, the U.S. is in bed with all sorts of ugly, anti-democratic regimes, most recently, the communist dictatorships of Central Asia. The U.S. trades with communist China and Vietnam. Why not tiny, bedraggled Cuba? Two reasons.
First, Castro has openly defied the mighty United States for over 40 years. Empires do not like being challenged. Castro's insolence and audacity have long enraged Americans, and emboldened anti-American elements in Latin America. Castro has battled against U.S. influence in the Americas and Africa. He was a loyal ally of the Soviet Union. During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, Castro even begged Moscow to launch nuclear missiles against the U.S. If ever America had an enemy, it is Fidel Castro.
Second, there is the political influence of ardently anti-Castro Cuban-American voters in the key swing states of Florida and New Jersey. Bush's current anti-Castro rhetoric is clearly aimed at Cuban-American voters in this fall's tight Congressional elections. In an editorial this week, the august New York Times opined that many "are tired of having American foreign policy hijacked by anti-Castro activists in a key electoral state" - meaning Florida, where the president's brother, Jeb, is governor.
As I reported from Cuba in 1999, an overpowering sense of "fin du regime" hangs over Havana, reminiscent of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union before the fall of communism in 1989-91. Cuba's communist system is unlikely to survive Castro, who is now 76.
Fidel remains more a venerated national father figure than typical Marxist dictator. As a Cuban said to me, "We are a totalitarian state with high morals." This is true. Most supporters of Cuba see it as a paragon of social justice while ignoring its brutal abuse of human and political rights, or spreading corruption among the pampered communist elite.
In spite of recent criticism of Castro's record by Mexico, he is still widely respected across Latin America for machismo in standing up to the bullying gringos. He retains a reputation as a man of honesty and principle - qualities sadly lacking among most Latin American dictators or democratic politicians.
However unpalatable, it's time for the U.S. to open the doors to Cuba, if for no better reason than to ensure the post-Castro transition does not become a bloodbath or another dictatorship.
Kudos to Jimmy Carter for his intelligent, humane policy initiative. I hope his next trip is to Baghdad.
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_may19.html
