Center for International Policy

Answer to Richard Cohen from Wayne S. Smith
March 14, 2002

In his column on April 8, Richard Cohen goes to some lengths to tell us what we already know: that the Castro regime is a dictatorship that doesn't respect human rights. He then excoriates American liberals for naively and obtusely applauding the dictator. Cohen even suggests that it was in part because of this blind applause that Castro felt he could go ahead with the deplorable arrest of and imprisonment of Cuban dissidents.

But this is to see things in such simplistic terms as to lose sight of reality. There may have been a few Hollywood stars who have gushed over Castro - as they might gush over anyone with whom they are on camera. But for the great majority, the argument has not been about whether Castro is a fine fellow or not or whether Cuba is a flourishing paradise where civil rights are respected. Rather, the argument has been and remains about how to bring about the kind of change we'd all like to see - the peaceful movement toward a more open society. Many are convinced that the best way would be through a reduction of tensions, dialogue and engagement, not repeat not through the same old policy of pressure and efforts to isolate that we've been about for the past 45 years and that hasn't achieved anything.

I, and many other Americans, have regularly met with the dissidents and found that many of them agree that engagement would do more to advance the cause of human rights than the policies of the past.

And the debate is not and long has not been one between liberals and conservatives. There are almost as many Republicans as Democrats who favor dialogue and engagement with Cuba, not, again, because they think Castro is a great guy, but because they believe this is the best way to bring about positive change. Is there any evidence that they are wrong?

Hardly. In fact, we should note that it was not any softening on the part of the Administration that led to the crackdown against dissidents. On the contrary, the Administration had stuck to the same old hard line. What does that tell us about its efficacy?