Raul wants to meet Obama

Quote:

HAVANA – Cuban President Raul Castro said in an interview released Wednesday that he would like to meet President-elect Barack Obama on "neutral ground" — and he suggested the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay.

The Cuban leader's offer came in a rare interview in Havana with actor-director Sean Penn, who wrote about it for the Dec. 15 edition of The Nation magazine. The article was released on the magazine's Web site Wednesday.

Penn asked if Castro would meet with Obama in Washington. The Cuban president said he "would have to think about it," but that it would not be fair for either leader to go to the other's territory. Instead he suggested the base at Guantanamo.

"We must meet and begin to solve our problems, and at the end of the meeting, we could give the president a gift ... we could send him home with the American flag that waves over Guantanamo Bay," Castro said.

Raul Castro is largely seen as more pragmatic and conciliatory than his fiery older brother Fidel, and has offered to meet with U.S. officials several times since replacing his ailing sibling in mid-2006.

Cuba's main focus in such a meeting would be on normalizing trade, Castro said.

"The only reason for the blockade is to hurt us," he told Penn, using the term the communist leadership employs for the five-decade-old U.S. trade embargo. "Nothing can deter the revolution. Let Cubans come to visit with their families. Let Americans come to Cuba."

Obama has said he is willing to meet with Raul Castro without preconditions, and that after taking office on Jan. 20 he would "immediately" lift all restrictions on family travel and remittances to Cuba. Under tough rules imposed under President George W. Bush, Cuban Americans can now visit their relatives on the island only once every three years.

But Obama has said he would not support lifting the embargo until Cuba releases all political prisoners. An independent human rights group on the island last counted 219 prisoners of conscience behind bars.

Castro told Penn that "no country is 100 percent free of human rights abuses, but insisted that "reports in the U.S. media are highly exaggerated and hypocritical."

Cuba often typically answers human rights charges by pointing out the accusations of torture and other abuse at the U.S. military's Guantanamo prison in easternmost Cuba.

Cuba leases the base property to the Americans in an uncomfortable arrangement that dates to the Spanish-American war, and insists that it eventually be returned to Cuban control. But as Cuba's Defense Minister for nearly five decades, Castro is said to have had good relations over the years with U.S. base commanders.

"The base is our hostage," Castro told Penn. "As a president, I say the U.S. should go. As a military man, I say let them stay."

Castro appeared to refer to Cuba's conciliatory statements when the prison first opened in January 2002. The communist government said then it would not oppose the housing of terror suspects on the base and offered to provide medical assistance to the prisoners, saying "we are willing to cooperate in any other useful, constructive and human way that may arise."

"Despite the fact that we hold different positions as to the most efficient way to eradicate terrorism, the difference between Cuba and the United States lies in the method and not in the need to put an end to the scourge," the government said then, four months after the September 11 attacks on America.

Military officers from both countries meet periodically to discuss mutual matters. Castro told Penn that 157 such meetings have been held since they began in 1994, on the third Friday of every month, and that they are recorded and alternate between the U.S. base and Cuban-held territory.

Castro said the meetings now include a U.S. State Department representative, but "the State Department tends to be less reasonable than the Pentagon." Still, he said, "no one raises their voice because ... I don't take part. Because I talk loud. It is the only place in the world where these two militaries meet in peace."

Castro, 76, rarely gives interviews and this was his first with an American since being named interim president when his older brother Fidel fell ill in late July 2006. Castro officially assumed the presidency in February when his brother, now 82, resigned for health reasons.

Mexican publisher Mario Vazquez Rana interviewed Castro for his El Sol newspapers in April.

Castro told the Communist Party Granma in August 2006 that Cuba was opened to normalizing relations with the U.S., but warned that the U.S. government will get nowhere with threats or pressure.

"They should be very clear that it is not possible to achieve anything in Cuba with impositions and threats," said Castro, who was then acting president. "On the contrary, we have always been disposed to normalize relations on an equal plane.

"What we do not accept is the arrogant and interventionist policy frequently assumed by the current administration of that country," he added.

Penn wrote that he reminded Castro that even some conservative Republicans in the U.S. have called for ending the embargo in order to give Cubans more contact with the outside world and empower them to end the "dictatorship." Castro ignored the slight and responded boldly, Penn wrote, saying "We welcome the challenge."

Quote:

"Despite the fact that we hold different positions as to the most efficient way to eradicate terrorism, the difference between Cuba and the United States lies in the method and not in the need to put an end to the scourge," the government said then, four months after the September 11 attacks on America.

Quote:

George Bush said he'd only end the blockade if Cuba had a multiparty government. Actually they came up with a whole "transition" plan that was basically Americanizing it. I think I made a topic about it...

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=38634

The political prisoner thing is slightly less ridiculous to the point where just maybe Obama believes it.

Also, I love it when the news makes up crap for how people are widely seen. When Raul came to power BBC said he was seen as more violent and tyrannical. Then he released political prisoners, and BBC said he was seen as more lenient. Now we have some minor but exaggerated reforms, and he's "widely seen" as pragmatic.

Media is just reinforcing itself...

Quote:

As far as foreign relations goes, this is quite silly. If Cuba really wants to end the blockade why invite the Russian military onto it's seas and land. It's not like it's really trying to make any case to the US, but instead play a victim or make vague shows of force. Especially since America doesn't really have any incentive to normalize trade. So wtf is Raul on? Appealing to the kindness of their hearts or what?

Quote:

However the release of political prisoners is a relatively pain-free demand isn't it? Hypocritical perhaps, but it's a joke to say that Cuba is more democratic (or better at human rights than the US).

Quote:

but they aren't democratic and that's plain to see.

Quote:

I've been to Cuba myself and it's probably one of the more corrupt places I've ever been to.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

I think these are just symptoms of the dilemma Cuba is facing. On one hand, the government wants all the restrictions associated with the embargo to end (after all many do have a strong impact on the Cuban economy and population - poor access to the internet as a result of having no access to U.S. run undersea cables for example) and I'm sure it can see the possible benefits of a trade relationship with the U.S.. It also needs to show a population who have been taught the embargo is a negative force that it is trying to do something, even if that something is ineffective, like appeals to the United Nations. On the other hand, it also quite correctly sees the U.S. as a possible threat militarily and has to take whatever measures it can to minimise that threat. For now, that means getting close with the Russians. It's a hard balance with no magic solution as of yet.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

All I can say to this is that Cuba has made some serious attempts to improve it's perceived human rights record in the last few decades, while the U.S. has only truly done so on and off mainly due to administration change.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

By what standard? By Liberal Democratic standards certainly not, but that is not the only there is to judge from. No-one can claim that the Cuban system is perfect and it certainly could use improvement as all political systems can, but to say it isn't democratic in the slightest is misleading in my opinion. It's version of democracy is simply different and by the judgment of most people here, more in line with Socialist principles.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

I've read several accounts from visitors of various persuasions which contradict this statement. Could you elaborate please?

Quote:

I would say that in the US there are still significantly more freedoms available than in Cuba. Sure the 'US' is the great evil in the eyes of most socialists and 'Cuba' is perhaps one of the better functioning socialist states, they are still worlds apart.

Quote:

By normal standards. Only a small group of Marxists think a dictatorship of the proletariat is more democratic than western 'liberal democracies'.

Quote:

But it's certainly telling when one man has been in power for over 40 years and when he retires his brother takes power? That should certainly tell you something.

Quote:

And the judgment of most people here, well this is the one forum I post on where I see people talk often about getting rid of democracy and how it's bad blah blah.

Quote:

Cops would try and get money from us for just giving us directions (directions we didn't ask for.) That was on our first day there (my Dad and I). Now I've never been to sub-saharan Africa so I wouldn't doubt it's more corrupt there, nor have I been to Vietnam (generally regarded as one of the more corrupt places today), nor have I been to other Latin American countries. But I've traveled a bit, and I've never seen anything like that. Not even in Belarus. Not in Mongolia.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

I'm sure Chaz and others who have gone through situations similar to his would agree with you.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

It isn't relevant how many people believe this and how many believe that. The fact that there is more than one standard from which to judge is all I was pointing out. It could simply be that there are a Hell of a lot of people in the world who are wrong or misguided. There was a time when Democracy of any sort was only believed in and pushed by small fringe groups not too unlike Marxists and other progressives in developed nations today, but the ideals eventually spread and became accepted. I'm sure you would agree that it didn't develop out of a vacuum.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

All I see is that the Cuban system works differently to the ones we are used to. This is something which was been discussed on this board at great length. Let's not forget that there have been been governments in Western style democracies which have been in power for long periods (although I concede, not 40 years) and often under much the same people, that is of course in nations without a limit on how many terms a government can remain in power.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

Maybe they have some good points? In my time here, I haven't seen a great many people criticise Democracy so much as how it has been implemented in most places. Most Socialists simply want to create a democratic system geared towards advancing their cause rather than hindering it.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

That's little more than low level corruption. I've read of far worse examples in other countries.

I've seen some quite disturbing reports of police corruption here in Australia and only within the last few years as well (I also have family who've experienced it to a lesser degree). I should be able to dig them up or at least give you an account if you would like. Would that make Australia one of the "more corrupt" places in the world today? It's entirely possible that you and your Dad simply had the misfortune of running into a couple of bad eggs. The fact that Cuba is still developing a decent reputation as a tourist destination would seem to indicated that the kind of corruption you experienced isn't very wide spread.

Cata wrote:

George Bush said he'd only end the blockade if Cuba had a multiparty government. Actually they came up with a whole "transition" plan that was basically Americanizing it. I think I made a topic about it...

TRL wrote:

The real issue is what effect lifting the blockade will have on Cuba. We have seen one after another socialist centrally planned economies open up to trade and then collapse as a result.

WCM wrote:

Especially since America doesn't really have any incentive to normalize trade.

WCM wrote:

However the release of political prisoners is a relatively pain-free demand isn't it? Hypocritical perhaps, but it's a joke to say that Cuba is more democratic (or better at human rights than the US).

WCM wrote:

Cuba may have the infrastructure for an innovative form of democracy (so does Libya actually), but they aren't democratic and that's plain to see. I've been to Cuba myself and it's probably one of the more corrupt places I've ever been to.

WCM wrote:

By normal standards.

WCM wrote:

But it's certainly telling when one man has been in power for over 40 years and when he retires his brother takes power?

WCM wrote:

Sure but they've generally had multi party representation, freedom of speech was allowed to a much larger degree, and generally you were able to leave the country at your own volition. o.O

Quote:

"We must meet and begin to solve our problems, and at the end of the meeting, we could give the president a gift ... we could send him home with the American flag that waves over Guantanamo Bay," Castro said.

Quote:

that guy that thought 1984 was the framework for a perfect society and that the USSR was comparable to a slice of rotting pizza (pretty good if you looked aside from the rot.)

Red Rebel wrote:

American companies have lost billions of dollars in possible trade with Cuba over the years.

Red Rebel wrote:

Cuba is more democratic for their working class than the United States.

Red Rebel wrote:

According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, Cuba is ranked in the 3rd tier (6th being the worse). Above most of the Latin American countries. Not saying that corruption isn't a major issue in Cuba, it is.

Red Rebel wrote:

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." -Marx. Really aren't any normal standards.

Red Rebel wrote:

A brother who has been leading the country since the Revolution. And before you point at Nepotism, look at their children. Only Luis Alberto Fernández has a position of importance within the armed forces.

Red Rebel wrote:

A country could have a 100 political parties that all represented the same class. Is that better than having one party represent one class? As for freedom of speech, with the exception of comrades and trollers, working class media generally doesn't get represented by them. It comes down to what class owns the private property (in this case the media).

Quote:

The end of the blockade would piss off all the Cubans living in Florida, which seems to be a fairly large and active voting group.