It is LONG past time to lift travel AND trade embargo restrictions on Cuba. The Cold War ended a decades back. Neither the Cuban government nor the citizens of Cuba pose a threat to the United States.

I am an Cuban-American who was born in the US just before the embargo.

I’ve visited Cuba numerous times during the last several decades to see family and for my work. My perspective, based on speaking with friends and colleagues, is that the travel ban and embargo have been more helpful to the Cuban government than to the cause of inciting Cubans to overthrow their government.

I have family members in Cuba who are both pro-Castro and anit-Castro. To me, it’s very interesting to see that among these family members, as well as among others I’ve met, there is a lot of agreement as to what Cuba as a nation needs. One point of agreement is that Cuba MUST change, but also, this change must come from within and not from abroad. In particular, Cubans of all stripes believe that exiled Cubans should be able to easily visit, but they don’t have a ‘right’ to dictate the future of the country. The refrain I’ve often heard is that after all, the people in Cuba are the ones who are most deserving of setting the new course for the nation.

When I ask about how this change can be assisted by us here in the US. Almost everyone says: increase interactions among the countries. I’m told that be isolation, it’s more difficult for Cubans to ’see their potential future.’ One person quipped: ‘given a chance to rub shoulders with democracy, some will rub off …’

What leverage (does US have)? Why keep on going with something that has not worked in so many years? Eastern Europe would still be behind the iron curtain if things had not eased up. The more isolated a country is, the easier it is to control – from within.
I can’t wait to go see what’s left of Cuba. It will be too late for Americans to start any business there though – the rest of the world is ahead of us.

Jamie is right … tourism will NOT fix things.

Tourism does not equal tourism

Interaction = collaborative efforts … academically, culturally

sorry

I meant

Tourism does not equal interaction

interaction = collaboration etc

I salute the Administration for easing restrictions on Cuba. In fact, they should go all the way and allow all Americans to travel and trade with Cuba. The U.S. contention that we will not support a government that is not democratic is absolutely hypocritical. We wine and dine the Saudis, the Chinese and other much more repressive regimes than the Cubans. This is simply about economic hegemony. The U.S. has a financial interest in staying friendly with Saudi Arabia and China. However, we have never gotten over the fact that Cuba wants to go it alone and not be slaves to U.S. corporations. Lift the entire embargo and end it now.

I’m an American who has been to Cuba six times by going through the Bahamas,and I always stayed in “Case Particulars” (private homes) while in Cuba; never in a hotel.

I roamed everywhere and interacted with average Cubans all the time. So, I believe the embargo and travel restrictions should be totally lifted.

In the same way that Obama has spoken about a change in the U.S. stance toward the Arab world by showing “respect” it would be a good first step to acknowledge that Cuba has not been treated with respect. It would also be refreshing, although I’m not holding my breath, to hear your guests, never mind the president, recognize that the conditions that brought the Cuban people to revolution are likely to reappear on the island if the forces of neo-liberalism have their way there.

Should have written “casa particulares” (wrote fast).

Some of the ugliest episodes in American history are when the US has attempted to force changes to the political system of other countries. Also, we have been hypocritical and arbitrary in who we allow to be oppressive and despotic.

Who are we to insist that another country make “concessions” to us. We don’t require anything of other countries (which happen to have deep pockets) that actually have virtual slavery going on right now (while raping they’re also raping the environment).

I tuned in late, but found your program on easing restrictions between U.S. and Cuba quite biased. Could you not find anyone, Hispanic or otherwise, who was not from the Cuban exile community for your guests. Our policies have been dominated by this community for far too long. Their interests are not necessarily what is best for the U.S. We trade with Vietnam; we trade with China — why not Cuba. It’s long overdue.

Given that the latest poll shows a majority of Cuban-Americans FAVOR easing the embargo, I am mystified by your choice of guests. Are these the only people you could get? For one thing, you really need someone to present an alternative view of pre-Castro Cuba to the very self-serving, skewed view of Mr. Suchlicki. The actions of the US in Latin America in general and in Cuba in particular, do not make a pretty picture — not in the ’50’s or long after that. WBUR should be presenting a balanced, informed version of Cuba’s past. We need to know how America has long been viewed in Cuba and elsewhere in the region because of our history of propping up appalling business-friendly dictators like Battista, Trujillo, Pinochet, etc. etc. I know this comment will just be dismissed as “a comment from the Left,” and cancelled out by some “comment from the Right.” But I am not calling for anyone to agree or disagree with it, I am just calling for an objective, fair-minded debate, rather than Mr Suchlicki’s with no one to oppose him. Otherwise how can we ever have any kind of useful conversation with Cuba???

The male guest posited that racial inequality in Cuba was the result of the Revolution. He is entirely incorrect. Within the Revolution and Wars of Independence from Spain, racial unity was seen as a necessity in overcoming the oppressor. Any white-black hierarchy that existed before rebellion was the result of the hegemonic Western culture. Yes, Castro, has played up racial unity abroad, while quelling in domestically, but his purpose was not to maintain white privilege; it was instead to prevent insurrection from below.

However, today racism is apparent in Cuba. It is not the result of a Revolution that increased the access to education, healthcare, food, and housing to ALL and improved the quality of life, literacy, and body weight of ALL that has brought racism. It’s the controlled openings of Cuba’s economy to the dual investments of Canada and Europe, It’s once again European preference for white customer service representatives. And whites maintain these high-paying jobs (tourist tips) just like they do in the U.S.: selective recruitment, relative and friend referrals, etc.).

Therefore, blacks have to resort to the secondary economy (black market) in order to afford the same goods that whites have access to with their tourist dollars. (Cuba has a dual economy: national pesos which the government pays workers in and can be used in most local places and tourist dollars (CUC’s) which only tourists and those few with jobs in which they are paid by entities other than the government. In order to purchase goods at ‘dollar’ stores, malls, hotels, some pharmacies, some restaurants, Cubans (and tourists) must use CUC’s. Therefore, in order for blacks to gain access to certain goods, they must resort to hustling, prostitution, etc.). Furthermore, negative stereotypes about the behaviors and morals of blacks are reinforced. Regardless, the embargo prevents so many Cubans access to food and medicine (and tons of materialistic goods the Americans couldn’t imagine living without) for the simple fact that Cuba can’t get together enough (internationally valued) dollars or trading partners to get the goods in the first place.

So, if anything, opening up Cuba to the international community most likely will increase the wealth gap between whites and blacks. And that’s not ignore that we are not simply discussing an embargo. This is a blockade, see Torricelli and Helms-Burton. (Any country who conducts trade with Cuba cannot conduct trade with the U.S., roughly). I argue that without a doubt, the U.S. should repeal the act. Sure, don’t trade with a country with whom you have issue without blocking them from trade with virtually every other (first world) nation. Let Cuba take the international stage on its own terms. Soon after, the U.S. would most likely realize that its just hurting itself; we need to get in on the organic farming, the alternate energy, the sugarcane.

In the words of my Cuban friend and professor, “The blockade is a knife at the throat of every Cuban.”

My mother is Cuban and she left with her sister when she was 7 years old.
I just recently went to Cuba for the first time to find family. And on January of this year I spent a month in the island traveling in search of my family, whom by the way I found.
In that trip I had the amazing opportunity to talk to a huge amount of people and ask them their opinion.
And what really stays in my mind is that the older people who remember things before the revolution will tell you that the middle to lower class really suffered a lot before the revolution. They were severely exploited, had no access to health, no real access to education, and there were a lot of shortages.
Now they don’t have much but they can at least live and not worry about getting sick and not being able to go to the hospital, their children can go to get educated all the way up to university included.
I saw young men from all over Latin America getting education in Cuba.
I realize that politically the country doesn’t function, and economically it is even worst.
But on the other hand look at Haiti, why don’t we worry about fixing them first?
Castro did reach out to the US government first, before he seeked help from the soviet Union; and we turned just sent some puney secretary to receive him. And this is way before the misil crisis, this was a visit from them wanting us to recognize their sovereignty.
Lastly we have supported and even funded much more oppressive dictators.
I honestly think your guest to the show was a really poor choice.
I am not a fanatic of either side, the right wing Cuban in America’s (of which I have a lot of relatives) nor the communist Cuban in Cuba’s (of which I also now have relatives).
I myself was born and grew up in Argentina, and I can tell you I am probably your most neutral party.
But I do think the decision of Obama was a blessing, that is a mistake we should have corrected a long time ago.
Thank you for giving all of us the opportunity to comment on this issue.

On Point does it again. Two commentators, one right of center and the other to the right of attila the hun.

While there is not much point to acting as if this was a wide ranging debate/discussion about the US policy of attempting to economicaly strangle cuba and starve cubans into submission, there are some ironies two obvious to pass by. First, the right wing commentator, sorry do not know his name, inaccurately describes cuban health care as being only available to the well to do and government officals and not available to low income people and others not well connected. What health care system does that remin you of? HINT: a country 90 miles away where moderate and low income people have no access to health care; where people have to use hospital emergency rooms because they can not afford the upfront fees for even minor health care; where even insured people are denied access to proper treatment and access to the best specialists. I am from Detroit and Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than my home town.

Secondly, if as claimed by your spin dude, the cuban govenment’s economic policy is solely responsible for the bad shape of the cuban economy, why is that dude so angrily,almost violently, demandig tht it be continued until the cuban government capitulates? And why would that government capitulate if the boycott is so ineffective?

I have to agree with the comments regarding Mr. Suchlicki’s views. At times, I wondered if his positions were somehow biased by his own personal story (leaving Cuba at the age of 18).

Also, he answered almost every question or responded to other’s points with just about the same answer. Surely we can all agree that the issues are many and multi-faceted ones that can’t be addressed with the simple ‘you have to hold something to bargain with’ view that Mr. Suchlicki advocates.

I was very much surprised by Mr. Suchlicki’s view of the social inequities in pre-revolution Cuba. As a professional scientist, one of the first things that struck me during a professional trip to Cuba was just how many of the senior scientists I met were women and people of color. I do know that racism exists in Cuba as in far too many places, but surely one can see that the level of racism now is much lower than before the revolution.

Also, opening up travel to Cuba is, of course, not the solution to increasing democracy. But, opening up travel will increase connections and dialog — it is by these mechanisms that we can begin to truly understand each other’s perspectives and open up real communication across those 90 miles that seem like much more…

It is possible that the US embargo toward Cuba isn’t about human rights at all, but about power? It seems our falling out with Cuba happened at a time we were beginning a Cold War with the Soviets, and the threat of Maoist China. Castro allied with both. Castro’s revolution confiscated tremendous wealth from very powerful Americans and Cubans who were then exiled under threat of “revolution or death”. Powerful American’s and exiled Cubans hated Castro. Didn’t the US continue to fuel that hatred in order synergize power against Castro, because at that time Cuba was a threat to the U.S.? This threat was palpable for American’s in the late 1950’s who experienced the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets found a sympathetic island in America’s backyard to assemble missiles (just like the missiles we assembled in Turkey aimed at the Soviets). Today, we don’t have the same emotional memory of that threat. After the Cold War ended, the Cuban political lobby in Florida remained so powerful a politician couldn’t speak of opening relations with Cuba without risking re-election and their political careers. And wasn’t this policy toward Cuba manipulated to win elections and political favors? I question our motives to enforce the embargo. I do not question the harsh reality of those who are oppressed by their leaders. But, it’s not okay to used the plight of the oppressed to leverage power for ourselves. It is time to clean-up and redefine our policy toward Cuba. If the US opens a relationship with Cuba, Cuba may open up. Cuba is already forging relationships all over the world. We are closed.

The United States has never gone into a third world or Middle Eastern country to ’spread democracy’. Our government policy is to exploit. I think that once we open up relations with Cuba, Cuba will be ruined.

I am a Cuban American who has visited Cuba numerous times since 1978. Jaime and Myriam are so wrong about the ability to speak up in Cuba. I found Cubans very forthcoming and more and more open as years gone by. There are forums and meetings and gatherings where people speak their mind and are not jailed. Cuba has been historically attacked by the US for years and they know that the US cannot be trusted when it comes to their sovereignty.

Also, why does the US need concessions to meet with Cuban officials? Should Cuba also ask for concessions before meeting with the US? Imagine if Cuba said that we will not talk to you unless you provide health care for all in the US.

I am a German citizen and my family had been divided between East and West Germany for many many years under very similar circumstances. My family in East Germany relied heavily on the fact that we could visit them, even though the conditions for travel were extremely difficult. They needed to be in touch with the outside world, they needed help with appliances, food etc. It also helped them in there fight for freedom. They were able to receive our tv stations and it was not only us policy what helped to bring the wall down.
There will be the right moment when people will rise up.

Obama’s decision to open travel to Cuba does nothing more than minimize the hypocrisy of Helms-Burton — Agribusiness from the Midwest sold over $600 million of foodstuffs to the Cuban government in 2007. Buying anything in Cuba for the casual traveler is considered “trading with the enemy” under U.S. law. Its Okay to give food to the Cuban government if you’re a large agribusiness which Castro, in turn, uses to manipulate the populace but Jaime from Hialeah can’t give his ailing aunt cash to pay for care and food? Those who support the ban are standing on jello if they think the ban keeps the U.S. from feeding the Castro regime…rich American farmers are doing it now!

It is unfortunate that Jane Clayson is getting very biased commentators almost every time she substitutes for Tom Ashbrook.
As Ms Markez was tolerable at best, Mr Shishliki was quite cartoonish in his dinosaur anger. Their time has passed, it is a new day and we have to normalize relations with Cuba- the sooner the better.

So these folks are asking for concessions, that Cuba become “democratic”? Give back the property to the gangsters and casino owners? So when are we going to give Arizona back to the Indians?

I just finished listening to a RE-BROADCAST OF “ON POINT” from my local NPR Affiliate, on the subject of CUBA, with a fairly lively discussion between several callers, and two guests at the other end. One of the guests were from the Miami Herald, and another from the University of Miami. My concern was however, why was there not a guest who could have provided an alternative point of view? If your two guests were to have provided an alterntive point of view to each other; that certainly did not happen, since they were in virtual unison. Your two guests made several claims and there was no alternative guest to challenge the veracity of those views; the result being, we the listeners were not able to hear both sides of the argument and as such, be able to individually form our own opinions. Its of very critical importance, to have an alternative voice when these types of programs are presented, so that we the listeners will have the benefit of both points of view, instead of having two guests virtually regurgitating the same points of view.
I feel that your Program Presenters, do owe we the listeners that responsibility on your part.

people keep talking about , the missle crisis, the harboring of enemys of america, but that all happened as a result of the us policy of anti socialism. the reason the us is at odds w/cuba has always been its socialist policys. and why do “we” hate socalism? because were capitalist… well at least status quo is capitalist. the us has run the worlds most efficiant propoganda campaign in the history of the world. most americans dont even know the principals of socalism, let alone the merits and pit falls of it. they just know because the government tells them “communism is bad”. the truth is the true fear of communism is held by the rich. they fear being average or worse…poor. so they convinced the masses that communismis bad, and gave the middle class distractions like , pro life pro choice, or gay rights, or civil rights in genral, or crack cocain. all things to keep us from seing the true enemy. the modern version of the aristocracy… the rich, and oh how we love to be distracted by their antics(of wich the vast majority are against the law, or worse against humanity). i am not religios but have, noticed that the vast majority of them are esintially socialist. for example, when cain killed able and god asked him “where is able?”, and cain asked god am i my brothers keeper?… the answer in the bible and in life is yes. that is socialsm, to provide for your society, not for personal gain, but for the gain of all. didnt kennedy say ” ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”? why not extend this to man in genral. we now have the ability to destroy our species in the blink of an eye. over what? economic policys??? no thanks. the people of cuba and america are the same species.. wher human lets do right by each other, and extend a hand to all man regaurdless of policies.

ps i cant spell, and if my grammer, or lack there of is your focus when reading my comment… then you my friend are the problem with the world… find the flaw , ignor the message

Tonight, I was also listening to the re-broadcasting of this program through my local NPR station 91.3 in Miami. It’s sad that the US policy on Cuba couldn’t be commented live by Cuban-Americans in Miami. And how was Suchlicki invited without being challenged by another academic from either the CRI (Cuban Research Institute) from Florida International University or by a scholar from the Institute of Cuban Studies from Miami Dade College?
After almost 50 years of a failed policy is time to give a chance to a no-embargo policy towards Cuba. After all, the embargo has been the scape goat of the Cuban government.