To say that getting the United States to lift their economic sanctions against Cuba is an article of faith to some on the left, is a comical understatement. Perhaps fueled by guilt, given their complicity in giving Fidel Castro a platform, The New York Times leads the apologist pack. Here’s a quick overview of just a few of their headlines re Cuba through the years:
- Nov 2011 – Pull of Family Reshapes U.S.-Cuban Relations
- Nov 2011 – Cuba to Allow Buying and Selling of Property, With Few Restrictions
- May 2011 – Cuba’s Government Outlines Steps Toward a Freer Market
- April 2011 – Cuban Leader Proposes Term Limits in Sign of New Era
- Sept 2010 – Cuba’s Public-Sector Layoffs Signal Major Shift
- March 2010 – Dreaming of Cuban Profits in Post-Embargo World
- Dec 2009 – Trying to Sway America’s Cuba Policy With Song
- Oct 2009 – U.S. Embargo on Cuba Again Finds Scant Support at U.N.
- June 2009 – Cuba Agrees to U.S. Talks in New Sign of a Thaw
- July 2008 – Cuba to Grant Private Farmers Access to Land
- May 2008 – Stores Hint at Change Under New Castro
- Dec 2007 – Report Finds U.S. Agencies Distracted by Focus on Cuba
- March 2006 – All in the Family, Brothers Wage War on Uncle Fidel
- July 2005 – Florida’s Zeal Against Castro Is Losing Heat
- July 2004 – Get-Tough Policy on Cuba May Backfire Against Bush
- Aug 2003 – G.O.P. Legislators in Florida Criticize Bush on Cuba
- Feb 2002 – Bush Hires Hard-Liners To Handle Cuba Policy
- March 2001 – In Filling Latin Post, Bush May Reignite Feuds
- Oct 2000 – Embargo Seen as Aid To Castro; Canada, Too
- May 2000 – What’s Good for China Is Good for Cuba
Though I’ve provided just the headlines, it is mostly the headlines which distinguish the articles from one another. The content of the articles themselves have a color-by-numbers aspect to them for those of us on the Cuba Dilettantes post [no one wants us on that Wall!]. They unfailingly note the following points, though occasionally out of order:
- Since the Cuban regime has outlasted the embargo, the embargo is a failure. The idea that the embargo has served its purpose by creating a degree of economic hardship to a regime hostile to U.S. interests is just not broached.
- Cubans aren’t really political and very friendly.
- Attitudes are changing, even in Miami.
- Unflattering reference to politicians who support the embargo, i.e. hardline, bitter, intransigent etc.
- A Cuba expert, who is not identified as part of any ideological group or one with a vested interest in lifting the embargo, is quoted as indicating that the embargo is a failure. The supposedly non-aligned anti-embargo usual suspects include, but are not limited to, Philip Peters [shill used today by NYT], Julia Sweig and Sarah Stephens.
Know this about those anti-embargo Cuba experts, using their ‘embargo must be a failure’ logic; They have been spectacular failures. Soon Cuba’s nightmare will end and their futility in achieving their political goals, despite the highest of platforms, will endure. Here’s hoping their roles will be remembered when they attempt to play a role in Cuba’s future.