Obama Engages Cuban Tyranny as Cubans Watch Him Navigate the Shark Infested Waters

After intervening in Cuba's War of Independence in 1898 without Cubans having asked, US leaders pushed the Cuban Mambises aside and granted Spain rights to administer the fledgling nation. Today, 57 years after it helped the first of 2 Cuban tyrants into place the US is deliberating on how to engage the second, presumably to further hemispheric interests.

Yet US President Barrack Obama has arrived at the Summit of the Americas in Port Of Spain, Trinidad announcing that he didn't come to debate about 1898 or 1952 or 1959-2009 but to construct the future. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton however quickly referred to part of the past declaring: "We are continuing to look for productive ways forward because we view the present policy as having failed..."

Which policy? The embargo or the one inspired by the Monroe doctrine and implemented in Cuba since at least 1898? Obama then announced: "I think it is important to recognize, given the historic suspicions, that the United States policy should not be interference in other countries."

No Monroe Doctrine it seems. Yet Obama's next statement is ambiguous: "But that also means that we can't blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere, that is part of the bargain, that is part of the change that has to take place. That is the old way, we need a new way."

So does his policy of non-interference with the tyranny actually mean that he intends to treat the tyrant the same as those whom the latter is crushing? That would align him closely with one mayor thread of the past: McKinley, Monroe, Truman and Eisenhower but not with Lincoln.

It should be obvious that non-interference cannot mean strengthening a tyranny for that certainly interferes with those Cubans struggling for liberation.

Non-interference should be only with respect to what is just; and assistance against what is unjust when asked. Obama and Clinton surely recognize that 2 million Cubans have not been 50 years in exile because things in Cuba are just or even tolerable. Accordingly, any meetings with the Castros should not happen at least until they explain why they can't respect human rights, allow a free press, respect freedom of expression, free political prisoners and not prevent the celebration of multi-party elections, prior to a meeting with Obama.

Castro writes reflections on almost a daily basis. Obama should consider asking him to explain why these changes must wait until a meeting with him. Cubans everywhere need to understand what those reasons are and I believe Obama does too. Otherwise Obama would be navigating on a raft and blindly through shark infested waters. So he should ask them.

UPDATED BELOW AT 4:11 PM ON APRIL 18, 2009 FROM ARGENTINA

If Obama and Clinton consider US policy in Cuba not merely since the embargo but from its beginning in 1898 they will see a different picture. In said context the embargo is a clear break from a past in which the US first supported the Spaniards against the Cubans after Cuba's 1898 War of Independence; and later supported the tyranny that brought us to where we are today, that is, Batista's. If it were to support Castro's tyranny by unilaterally lifting the embargo it would return to that past.

I believe Obama is an honest man and that for him engaging Castro does not translate into becoming his accomnplice. All the contrary. He wants to go beyond the 50 year rhetoric that stalls and enter critical and liberating dialogue with the regime. That's why he has publicly recognized that it will take time and cautioned that he's 'not interested in talking for the sake of talking'.