A discussion about Hillary and Cuba

The Guardian has an article about Hillary Clinton's plan to end economic sanctions against the Castro family dictatorship. The following is an excerpt from the article, and a piece of a follow up exchange I had in the comments section:

"Hillary Clinton will call for an end to the US embargo on Cuba during a rare foreign-policy speech for the Democratic presidential frontrunner, in a signal that the former secretary of state is willing to challenge her chief Republican rivals in the arena in which they have sought confrontation the most."


"She will highlight that Republican arguments against increased engagement are part of failed policies of the past and contend that we must look to the future in order to advance a core set of values and interests to engage with Cubans and address human rights abuses,” Clinton’s campaign said in a statement on Wednesday."

So I wrote the following comment:

Let's see....we know the Castro family dictatorship is one of the vilest ancient regimes on Earth. It sponsors and sustain another emerging autocracy, soon to lose any semblance of legitimacy or rationality (Maduro's regime), it advocates hatred towards the USA whenever it can. That's a given. 
Ms Clinton seems to be uncomfortable because Latin American regimes (la Kirchner, Evo Morales, a weakening Dilma, and boy genius Correa?) are made uncomfortable by USA sanctions. So what? If Latin American populists in that list prefer to defend autocracy, corruption and dictatorship, then they aren't worth much. Put them in the backyard and let them bark. And if they want to be Chinese colonies they can be liberated in due course.

Peter McInnes: Perhaps Ms Clinton is uncomfortable because stodgily conservative allies like Australia, UK, Germany and Canada don't like sanctions either. Why? 60 years of sanctions and nothing achieved so why not try something different?
Me: Those countries you list don't have much objection towards comprehensive economic sanctions against Russia and Iran. The sanctions the USA uses against Cuba are mostly symbolic and ineffective precisely because the regime is free to trade with all the countries you listed, as well as every Latin American country, every African country, every Asian country, plus Mexico, Canada, and Papua New Guinea. 
The way I see it the Castro dictatorship is trying to change over to a boutique form of communism, with a heavy dose of capitalism involving multinationals using cheap slave Cuban labour. They also want to make the dictatorship hereditary. And this in a sense puts the Castro family regime firmly in the fascist camp. 
We know Hillary is a creature of the neocon / Israel lobby, and this means her foreign policy is dictated by whatever that ruling elite desires. In this case there was an interesting change in their attitude, they seem to be throwing the Cuban people into the hands of the emerging "red neofascist" hereditary dictatorship the Castros are trying to design. And I'm afraid this means they want the USA to gather diplomatic support for more neocon aggression against Russia and a very muscle bound imperialist stance in the Middle East.
In other words, the Cuban people are disposable to a portion of the American ruling elites, the move is convenient because the international left has a rather abnormal attachment to the monster in Havana, so this is the reason why Hillary will be making her speech. It's simple politics. Dirty, obscene, unethical. Same as it always was.

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario