Former U.S. diplomat Patrick Ryan: Time to drop Cuba from terror list

 

 

By Former U.S. diplomat Patrick Ryan

 

From The Hill

As a former U.S. diplomat who authored the 2007-09 Country Reports on Terrorism for Nigeria and visited Cuba many times on official business, I believe keeping Cuba on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism is absurd and highly political, particularly given its glaring omissions. 

Where is North Korea, which has conducted small-scale attacks against the South over the past several years — and recently threatened a nuclear first strike against the United States? Despite the fact that Cuba maintains a capable espionage network, no credible intelligence sources claim it is currently a security threat to us. Cuba’s listing is about Florida electoral politics. 

A small minority of Cuban-American politicians has been dictating U.S. foreign policy toward one of our most geographically proximate neighbors for too long — and using the highly questionable terrorist listing to justify continuation of the Cold War-era embargo. 

Ironically, these members of Congress support Cubans’ ability freedom to travel to the United States but not Americans’ freedom to travel to Cuba, and use the terrorist justification for this. If we truly want to undermine the Castro regime, the best way would be to end the listing, including the embargo and travel ban, and flood Cuba with American visitors, as well as our products and democratic ideas. Ending the restrictions would also demonstrably help the Cuban people — a stated aim of these same politicians. 

In comparison, most Vietnamese-Americans — who also lost a civil war to communists, 16 years after the Cubans — long ago accepted reality and supported the 1994 normalization of relations with Vietnam. The U.S. buried the hatchet and engaged a country whose human rights record, like Cuba’s — and China’s — has been disappointing, and with whom we were actually involved in a war that took the lives of more than 58,000 Americans. 

So why not Cuba? 

The fact that members of the Basque separatist group ETA have retired to the island with the blessing of the Spanish government, that FARC members are residing in Cuba during peace talks hosted by Havana and supported by the Colombian government and that various fugitives from American justice — none of whom have been accused of terrorism, by the way — have lived in exile there since the 1970s, are simply not credible arguments for maintaining the designation.

Frankly, it’s well past time that U.S. policymakers had the courage to tell the most vocal Miami exiles to acknowledge reality and move on, as many of them already have. Fortunately, the younger generation of Cubans in Miami isn’t as obsessed with the island as their forebears — and Cubans are no longer a majority of the Latin American population in South Florida.   

President Obama won Florida twice, and is in a unique position to remove Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and push Congress to end the embargo in his second term. As Cuba continues its sporadic offshore oil exploration with foreign partners, including U.S. allies, it would seem advantageous for it to be a part of the process, in order to help ensure there will not be another disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, not to mention the economic benefits it would receive from increased exports to the island. The only way to do so is to take Cuba off the terrorism list.

The Castros have used the listing and embargo as excuses for their economic mismanagement and the dismal plight of ordinary Cubans for decades. The last time momentum existed in the U.S. Congress towards lifting it, the Cuban government shot down two small planes flown by the exile group “Brothers to the Rescue” that allegedly violated their airspace, ensuring the embargo and listing would continue. 

I am well aware of the poor human rights record of the regime and am not an apologist for it. The incarceration of Alan Gross, a USAID subcontractor who brought communications gear into Cuba, contrary to Cuban law, is regrettable, but should not hold U.S.-Cuban relations hostage. Nevertheless, it’s time for a new approach, as the current anachronistic policy has failed miserably for more than a half century.

 

Ryan is a 12-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service who previously worked on Capitol Hill. Recently having returned after 14 years away, he has a degree in International Studies from Johns Hopkins and is currently consulting in D.C. on issues that have nothing to do with Cuba, the embargo, or potential business interests there.

 

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/guest-commentary/296867-former-us-diplomat-patrick-ryan-#ixzz2Ry1RShQv 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Spring is in the air

Margarita Alarcón Perea

Spring is in the air. It is a constant much like Pi, happens every March 21^st whether it’s snowing or raining or bright and sunny.  Its striking  that on this same date,  March 21^st, was also the birth of Benito Juarez, known as the Benemerito of the Americas, title bestowed on him by the people and government of Colombia on May 1^st of the year 1865, because of his unrelenting struggle to free Mexico and gain independence.

While president of Mexico, Juarez had a maxim that lives on today in the Mexican nation: “Among individuals and nations alike, respect for the rights of other people is what constitutes peace”. This statement always comes to mind when I think of the place Cuba has held in the region since its independence from Spain in the XIX century.

Cuba’s rights as a nation have never been respected by other nations or individuals, ever.  After the island garnered its independence from Spain the Paris Treaty left the island at the bequest of the Government of the United States and it remained so till 1959 when the Revolution of Fidel Castro triumphed establishing a socialist government in the country. Although the Cuban Revolution brought about much needed change on a social level, educating the uneducated, bettering conditions outside of the capital and establishing universal health care as the main government strategies to help its people, the country still depended because of an embargo imposed by the US on the next best option, the Soviet Union, and again, Cuba depended on someone else and much of its sovereignty was put on hold. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union as a country and a concept, Cuba was left stranded economically, politically and even socially.

Those were very difficult times, but the social benefits that still existed on the island were still stronger than the hardship and the Cuban people continued in their strife to advance, even if alone. The embargo against the island continued as it does today, but the rest of the world began to slowly open up to Cuba, and not just because of His Holiness John Paul II desire that this be so.  Cuba had proven over the years that it had something to offer and that sovereignty and independence were not to be gambled with. Cuba has never been a satellite of the Venezuelan Bolivarian Revolution, although the relationship with it  and with Hugo Chavez was strong. The difference between the two moments in time is simple: during the first forty some years of the Revolution the country had to build itself up from scratch, by the time Chavez and his oil and social justice powered revolution came to power, Cuba already had sufficient bargaining chips to stand on its own and level the playing field. No longer were the stakes as lopsided as they had been in the past.

The Soviet Union is no longer around, neither is Chavez,  and his Revolution looks to be walking on unsteady ground, which is sad not only for Cuba on a personal and national note, it is also sad for the rest of Latin America as a whole. For no matter what one may opine on President Chavez, he did put the continent on the forefront and he did bring much needed changes to both the nation of Bolivar and the rest of the region. Yet the one thing that has not changed, the one thing that remains the same, is not just spring on the 21^st of March. The one thing that remains the same is that on April 30^th, well into spring, the secretary of state of the United States will have to submit his recommendation to the president on whether to keep Cuba on the list of terrorist nations or not.  Keeping Cuba on the list means no chance on earth of giving the president even the slightest chance of moving forward on bettering relations. Relations which if were to compare to a tennis ball, are now, and have been on the White House´s court for a number of years now.

More recently during the last Congressional visit to the island when President Raul Castro told US Congress members that a sit down with all cards on the table was in the offer.

It is true, Cuba has Alan Gross in jail. But he is being detained because he came down with an agenda to help undermine the Cuban government or regime, however you want to put it. Cuba has the same although slightly different situation in the US. Five Cuban intelligence agents are still in prison in the US. But their crime was never trying to undermine the US government to which they not only had no access, they also had no intention of doing, and quite frankly it would have been the most foolish of intentions.

The Cuban Five were in the US collecting information from US based paramilitary terrorist organizations in Miami which have been plotting, conspiring and bringing about terrorist acts against the Cuban people for over 50 years. They not only plot against Cuba and its people on the island, they also plot and have achieved to harm, destroy, terrorize and kill those who, whether Cuban or not, have the interest in forging better more rational relations with the island.  These terrorist groups have names, Omega 7, Alpha 66, Vigilia Mambisa, Brothers to the Rescue  and others. They have henchmen and they have leaders, one of which is infamously well known in Miami as one of the cities proud citizens, Luis Posada Carriles, a man who has more blood on his hands than most have running through their veins.  The Cuban Five infiltrated the US under false identities, this is true. They also infiltrated these terrorist organizations under false pretenses  But they did all of this in order to protect Cuba and those who want a normal life between Cuba and the US. News flash: they also, did most if not all of this, with the acquiescence of both the US government and the FBI.

Exchanging them for Alan Gross may not seem like the logical thing to do, but not on the US side, after all, Gross was accused of something he did do and something which is illegal not only in Cuba and the rest of the world, it is also illegal in the US: in theory, you are not allowed to openly try to topple foreign regimes in the United States of America. Heck, even Alan Gross accepts responsibility for his actions and recommends he be exchanged for the Cuban Five.

Now,  Secretary John Kerry has to decide if Cuba, an island that has never committed a terrorist act against the US or any other nation for that matter, should remain on an infamous obscene list.  Cuba deserves to be treated with the same respect it does its neighbors and colleagues in the world arena, it doesn’t set standards, it doesn’t disrespect others rights to decide, it thus, should be commended for its desire, as put by Juarez , to establish peace.

Unlike the unvarying Cherry Blossoms in DC and Pi, let’s hope Mr Kerry’s decision breaks one constant this Spring.

Cuba contra la violencia

 

Durante la última sesión de los talleres de la VI Bienal de Dramaturgia femenina “La escritura de las diferencias”, en la UNEAC,
sus organizadoras concedieron un espacio para hacer público el llamamiento “8 de marzo: tod@s contra la violencia”, leído por Helen
Hernández Hormilla, Laidi Fernández de Juan y Zaida Capote Cruz, junto a Lirians Gordillo Piña a nombre de las demás compañeras firmantes.

Varias de las personas participantes sumaron sus firmas al documento impreso y desde su envío por correo electrónico hemos recibido nuevas
adhesiones que sumamos más abajo. Agradecemos estos apoyos y rogamos la mayor socialización posible del texto.

8 de marzo: tod@s contra la violencia

El escritor Ángel Santiesteban ha sido juzgado y condenado a prisión por agredir violentamente a su exesposa. Y enseguida han comenzado a
circular notas de apoyo al escritor y de cuestionamiento a la sentencia del tribunal que lo juzgó. En casi todas se acusa a la víctima de loca, o de magnificar una leve “riña doméstica”[1]. Nadie puede juzgar estos hechos sin conocer la profundidad de los daños causados por Santiesteban a su exesposa y a su hijo, y nadie debería acusar a la víctima de estar inventando un caso para que alguien sea condenado por ocultas razones políticas. La violencia contra la mujer tiene su origen, precisamente, en ese gesto tan usual de imaginarla carente de juicio, de  independencia,  o de opinión propia, y quienes esgrimen esas tesis están reproduciendo la agresión; como aquellos que culpan a la víctima de una violación de haber provocado a su agresor.

Las instituciones y organizaciones cubanas deben pronunciarse sobre este caso en particular y también acerca de la violencia contra la mujer en nuestra sociedad. Es preciso intensificar, multiplicar y hacer permanentemente visible una campaña pública contra la violencia de todo tipo, especialmente la que se ejerce contra la mujer. Hay que divulgar aquellas leyes que la previenen o penalizan y los debates que han tenido lugar en espacios académicos y con motivo de campañas específicas. Combatir la violencia contra la mujer solo puede lograrse si nos unimos tod@s contra la desigualdad que la inspira y reconocemos el derecho de las mujeres violentadas a defenderse de su agresor y a denunciar la agresión, aunque se trate de un genio artístico o científico, un general victorioso, un deportista de élite o un obrero de vanguardia. Nadie más que ella misma tiene derecho a decidir sobre su vida y sobre su cuerpo, y nadie, absolutamente nadie, tiene derecho a juzgarla loca por querer defender sus derechos.

Sandra Álvarez, Marilyn Bobes, Luisa Campuzano, Zaida Capote Cruz,
Danae Diéguez, Laidi Fernández de Juan, Lirians Gordillo Piña y Helen
Hernández Hormilla

(Leído en la sede de la UNEAC, hoy, 8 de marzo de 2013)

Firman además:

11 de marzo: Marta Castillo Domínguez Neyda Izquierdo Tomás Piard María Dolores Molinet Córdova Juana García Abás José Luis Fariñas Eduardo Sosa Laurencio Lourdes Fernández Rius Saray Remón Monteagut Kaloian Santos Cabrera Horacio Verzi, escritor e investigador uruguayo Dra. Rosa Salup Díaz,Pediatra David Ravelo Rodiles Gisela Arandia Iroel Sánchez Luis Carlos Marrero: Daylins Rufins: Camilo García López-Trigo Nadia Sánchez Nodar, asesora de TV Marianela Santos Camilo García López-Trigo Caridad Tamayo Fernández Olga Marta Ailyn Martín Pastrana Luis Rondon Paz Teresa Herrera, Uruguay Lily Suárez Rodés Marta Rojas Mabel Bertot Ernesto Gonzalez Ada Caridad Alfonso Rodríguez Delcele Mascarenhas Queiroz, Professora Titular da Universidade do Estado da Bahia – UNEB, Salvador – Bahia – Brasil Rubén Larrondo Muguercia, Médico Ambrosio Fornet Elizabeth Diaz Ines Rodriguez Dayneris Machado Vento Fernanda Martinez, Argentina Carmen del Pilar Serrano Coello, escritora miembro de la UNEAC Gerardo Fulleda León Elsa Lever M./ MujeresNet.info (México)

10 de marzo: Alesandra Riccio Gustavo Arcos Silvia Gil Lupe Alvarez Doctor José Carlos Hdez Aragoné Mabel Machado Nancy Fernández Rodríguez Roberto Valera Rebeca Chávez Zulema Hidalgo Dalia Acosta Alicia Valdés Miriam Rodríguez Betancourt Marilyn Solaya Dixie Edith Trinquete Liset García Óscar Loyola Marta Valdés Nisleidys Flores Carmona Yarman Jiménez, cubana resido en Costa Rica Dainerys Mesa Padrón Jorge Valiente Sahily Tabares Marlen Domínguez Teresa Díaz Canals Victor Fowler Carmen Berenguer Angel Eduardo Rosillo Grau: Magda González Grau Aurelio Alonso

9 de marzo: Sara Más Leticia Pérez González Fabián García Luna Teresa Fernández de Juan Cira Romero Alicia González: Nuria Gregori Torada Eduardo Montes de Oca Marcia Collazo Escritora y abogada uruguaya. Nelia Casado Castro Josefina Hernández-Téllez Pilar Sa Roberto Fernández Retamar Adelaida de Juan Seiler Vicente Battista (Narrador argentino) Marcia Collazo (Narradora uruguaya) Paloma Wigodzky (Argentina) José Naves Nasser José M Valladares Ponce Lic. Rosa Cristina Báez Valdés “La polilla cubana” lohania Aruca Alonso Leticia Becerril Salas Dr. Jesús Dueñas Becerra Mariela López Galano Zaida Cruz Domínguez Daisy Rubiera Yasmín S. Portales Machado Aurora Camacho Zoraida Amable María Isabel Díaz Livia Quintana Llanio Orieta Cordeiro Rosalía Arnaes Amaury Pérez Vidal Cipe Fridman (Argentina) Marta María Ramírez Pedo Pérez-Ortiz (nyc) Eva Rodríguez Angel Alonso Mabel Olalde Azpiri Marialina Grau Elena Palacios, directora, guionista y asesora de tv Pepe Menéndez Neyda Izquierdo

8 de marzo: Esther Suárez Durán Rodolfo Alpízar Castillo Yoimel González Hernández Maité Hernández-Lorenzo Vivian Martínez Tabares Fátima Patterson Patterson Consuelo Duany Patterson María Teresa García Tintoré Yamilé Coureaux Bogalló Daisy Sánchez Lezcano Maribel López Carcasés Miriam Núñez Benítez Evelín Gómez Hernández Eneyda Villalón Puig María Rita Mancaniello Alba Babastro Noris Susana Nicolalde Gilda Bona Jorgelina Cerritos Ana Gianserra Sahily Moreda Gallardo Raquel González Pérez Hemar Montero Velasco Aurea Martínez Fresno Ela Guillamón Rachel Domínguez Rosa C. Báez Waldo Franco Sandra del Valle Dannys Montes de Oca Dra Norma Vasallo, Presidenta de la Cátedra de la Mujer de la Universidad de La Habana Olga García Yero Consuelo Elba Ernesto Pérez Zambrano Jorge Fornet Luis Toledo Sande Vivian Martínez Tabares, crítica, investigadora y editora teatral Mirta Arbetman-México Rosa María Ameneiro (ROCHY) Leslie Salgado

Para adhesiones y/o comentarios, puede escribir a:
cubacontralaviolencia@gmail.com
Se enviarán diariamente actualizaciones con los nombres de las personas que se han sumado a este reclamo. Si desea dejar de recibir estas notificaciones comuníquelo a este mismo correo.

Nueva Declaración

Agradecemos el apoyo recibido al llamamiento tod@s contra la violencia y, aunque reconocemos  el derecho de cada persona a defender aquellas
causas que considere justas, declaramos que:

Rechazamos la manipulación política de este caso, con su consecuente naturalización de la violencia contra la mujer, así como la repetida agresión a la víctima, al exponerla repetidamente sin consideración alguna.

Nuestro llamamiento fue leído en la sede de la Unión de Escritores y Artistas de Cuba durante la VI Bienal de Dramaturgia Femenina “La escritura de las diferencias” porque estábamos participando en ella, pero no es una declaración de la bienal, ni de ninguna institución cubana, sino una acción ciudadana coherente con nuestro reclamo de una cultura de paz y sin violencia para nuestro país.

El caso de marras demuestra la urgencia de impulsar la aprobación de una ley sobre la violencia de género en Cuba; la necesidad de capacitar a quienes deben recibir y procesar las denuncias y de crear centros de atención y apoyo a las víctimas.

Seguiremos trabajando por ampliar los espacios de discusión del tema y por contribuir a la eliminación de la violencia contra la mujer y por
motivos de género en nuestra sociedad, sin responder a agresiones ni cuestionamientos espurios.

La Habana, 10 de marzo, 2013.

Sandra Álvarez, Marilyn Bobes, Luisa Campuzano, Zaida Capote Cruz,
Danae Diéguez, Laidi Fernández de Juan, Lirians Gordillo Piña y Helen
Hernández Hormilla

________________________________________
[1] Veáse a continuación la carta “Lamentaciones y esperanzas por un nuevo escritor encarcelado” enviada por el escritor Rafael Alcides
sobre el caso citado. El texto es una muestra de que la lucha contra la violencia hacia las mujeres en Cuba precisa aún un trabajo arduo,
eficaz y sostenido.

Lamentaciones y esperanzas por un nuevo escritor encarcelado

De Rafael Alcides
A Ángel Santiesteban

Querido Ángel:

Me cuentan que a partir de pasado mañana, jueves 28, pasarás a engrosar la larga lista personalidades que en diversas épocas y circunstancias de nuestra historia nacional han sido condenadas a años de cárcel, y lo lamento. En tu caso no ha sido por razones políticas, según he oído. Ni tampoco ha sido por desfalcar la caja de un banco, por matar, por tráfico de drogas, por robo de secretos de Estado, por usura, por chantaje, por
prostitución, por venta de visas falsas o no, nada de eso. En tu caso ha sido por una simple riña con tu ex mujer y madre de tu hijo. O sea, nada nuevo en el mundo. Una de tantas disputas entre parejas que dejaron de serlo, magnificadas por las mismas pasiones que a ellos los dejaran al garete, y lo lamento Ángel. Lo lamento por ti y por tu ex mujer y por tu hijo.

Lamento, asimismo, que esta curiosa fórmula de la que tan gloriosas reconciliaciones salieron a menudo, no haya sido tenida en cuenta por los instructores que se encargaron de tu caso, ni por los magistrados que te sancionaron en la Audiencia a cinco años de prisión, ni por el Tribunal Supremo. Todo esto lo lamento, Ángel, pero me quedan las esperanzas. Tengo la esperanza de que los escritores del mundo entero hagan suya
tu causa cuando se conozcan los hechos, despojados de la magnificación que le dio la parte acusadora, a lo mejor manipulada por personas que
no te quieren, pues en este mundo donde sobra la bondad, no falta la envidia. Párate en una esquina e interroga a la gente en ese sentido.

Haz ese ejercicio.

Tengo la esperanza de que junto a los escritores se pronuncien los gobiernos, ¿por qué no?, la ONU, el Papa, Dios mismo que tan discreto pero efectivo a la vez suele ser en estas cosas. Tengo la esperanza de que a todo aquel a quien en este planeta le sobre un dólar lance un tuit dirigido al presidente Raúl Castro informándole de esta arbitrariedad o tal vez exceso de pasión del poder judicial, o deje su protesta consignada en una página web que acaso se le ocurra abrir y administrar a alguno de tus lectores del extranjero… Pero tal vez nada de esto sea necesario. Pues también tengo la esperanza de que la Unión de Escritores y Artistas de Cuba, nuestra querida UNEAC, Ángel, nuestra UNEAC, por espíritu de justicia y por cautela, consciente de la tremenda polvareda a que en el mundo pueda dar lugar el desacierto (incompetencia, y aun fraude le han
llamado algunos, yo no) de los magistrados que manejaron tu causa, se movilice en el acto, acuda al Buró Político, exponga allí las partes
sensibles de este delicado asunto que nunca debió exceder el ámbito de la cuadra. Sí, Ángel, confiemos en la justicia de los hombres y en la
de Dios sobre todo. Dicha por la ley la última palabra, ahora le toca a la justicia hacer su entrada en escena. Yo confío en ella.
No serías el primero en obtener sus favores. Caso que no te indulten, lo que en Cuba no es costumbre, podría el gobierno darle un carácter
simbólico a tu sanción, o digamos, reducida al mínimo, mandarte a cumplirla en tu casa, de modo que puedas seguir escribiendo y recibiendo a tus amigos sin desautorizar del todo a tus desacertados magistrados. Se ha hecho con otros. Que yo recuerde, se habló una vez de alguien que en uno de esos malos momentos que suelen tenerse en la vida, sacó raudo su pistola y le voló la tapa de los sesos a un imprudente; otra vez oí de un automovilista que yendo por una carretera de la antigua provincia de Oriente tomado y a exceso de velocidad mató a alguien, y se le echó polvo a eso; y sé de más de uno que por azares, porque les tocó, atropellaron o mataron a alguien a quien no vieron o que se les metió delante del automóvil, y tampoco pasó nada. Y ya en el drama de carácter folklórico que tan divertido suele ser, pero que drama al fin no deja de sacar lágrimas, no puedo olvidar a cierto amigo, ya difunto, que por una disputa con su mujer, empeñada, con esa inocente coquetería de las mujeres, en ponerse una trusa que él entendió intolerable, en el colmo de una cólera más temible que la de Aquiles, atacó su casa con bazuca y todo, dispuesto a no dejar allí ni el recuerdo de aquella trusa malvada. Y es famoso el caso de un deportista que pusiera una bomba en el motor del automóvil del marido de su ex mujer.

¿Favoritismo? ¿Venalidad? ¿Abuso de poder? No lo creo así, Ángel. Son, sí, de hecho, acciones de antemano condenadas por la ley, Pero la ley
es sorda, es ciega, la ley sólo tiene boca para dictar sentencia y manos para agarrarte y llevarte al paredón en ocasiones. La justicia, en cambio, puede mirar, y mira si es justicia de veras, lo que la ley no podría ver. La ley juzga a la criatura por su peor momento, el que la llevó a comparecer ante ella; la justicia en cambio la juzga por su mejor momento.
Carlos Manuel de Céspedes fue a menudo autoritario y aun tiránico, y en ocasiones solapadito. Pensar en su golpe de estado a Aguilera, pensar en los esclavos a los que les dio la libertad en la noche de su alzamiento en el ingenio La Demajagua. No le dio la libertad a nadie. Los esclavos no eran suyos puesto que tampoco lo era el ingenio. Era de su hermano Eduardo quien por cierto lo tenía perdido en deudas de juego, y además –además!–, aquellos esclavos de su gesto para la galería eran unos ancianos ya. Empero, ni por estas astucias ni por aquella alevosía inicial podría calcularse el alma de Carlos Manuel de Céspedes sino por por su postura cuando el enemigo español le toma prisionero a su hijo Oscar, porque es allí, en ese momento, cuando el pequeño hombre ambicioso de gloria se levanta de pronto en su estatura de Padre de la Patria de los cubanos para todos los tiempos.

Los favorecidos que te mencionaba a manera de breves “botones de muestra” (como solía decirse cuando yo era niño) merecían justicia, Ángel Santiesteban, la merecían: esto es comprensión, reconocimiento –no perdón, no caridad, no: reconocimiento–, por su vida de servicios a la nación a cuya gloria habían contribuido. Estuvieron en la Sierra o fueron asaltantes de Palacio o trajeron títulos mundiales para Cuba.
Tú, desde luego –lo sabemos–, no eres deportista, ni tampoco estuviste en la Sierra. La escuela de comandantes de la Sierra cerró muchos años
antes de que nacieras. Pero eres un héroe de la cultura, eres un autor laureado, un hombre que ha dedicado ya más de la mitad de tu vida a
escribir, y a ganar premios que honran al país, a la patria, esa entidad mayor y para siempre, porque los gobiernos pasan, Ángel, pasan, pero la patria permanece.

Tengo por eso la esperanza de que no te den menos de lo que a otros héroes se les dio. El hecho de que se dé la casualidad de que también seas disidente, hombre de la oposición política, no creo que cuente. La oposición es el partido más numeroso del mundo, en todos los países el sesenta o setenta por cierto de la población pertenece a la oposición sin que eso se considere un demérito. En definitiva, todos los que después fueron poder estuvieron antes en la oposición. Mira al pobrecito Mandela. En todo caso, mi querido amigo Ángel Santiesteban, estamos hablando de
justicia, no de política. De justicia. Y mi memoria del porvenir, y mi experiencia de ochenta años de vivir en este mundo –los que cumpliré
ahora en junio si Dios me lo permite–, me dicen, me están diciendo que se te hará justicia, Ángel, que saldrás bajo un régimen de prisión
domiciliaria a purgar esa riña familiar, con una pena acorde a lo que dentro de unos años, después de todo, será folklore en el barrio,chiste incluso de tu ex esposa: “El susto que le hice pasar”, la oigo diciendo mientras ella allá en esos días de entonces juega dominó o le sirve té a las visitas y yo en esta madrugada del 27 de febrero del 2013, termino de escribir estas lamentaciones y esperanzas, que también serán folklore.

Rafael Alcides

Dos para el baile

Margarita Alarcón Perea

El cambio radical y necesario llevado a cabo durante la presidencia de Raúl Castro, finalmente ha llegado. A los cubanos en la isla se les permite salir sin necesidad de obtener el diabólico “permiso de salida”.

Si sacamos cuentas de las ventajas de esta medida, vemos que contrario a lo que piensa la mayoría, de los cubanos que estarán haciendo viajes al exterior, la mayor parte de estos, regresará.

Cuba nunca fue realmente una cárcel como tantos han pretendido hacer creer. Era una isla bajo condiciones extremas intentando subsistir y de hecho aun lo sigue haciendo. Aun así, la idea de tener que solicitarle al gobierno autorización formal para salir del país era algo que pasadas las primeras décadas de la Revolución, comenzaba a resultarle inadmisible a la población y a la larga iba en detrimento de lo que el sistema estaba tratando de lograr: una isla colmada de justicia social. La población simplemente no podía comprender porque se les obligaba a pedirle permiso al gobierno para poder  salir y volver a casa. Y en esto justamente yace el quid de la cosa, no solo podrán salir los cubanos libremente, sino que se les permitirá permanecer fuera (aunque considere que esta restricción debería variar) por un periodo máximo de 24 meses, y podrán volver a casa, a la isla, a Cuba. Ya no vivirán más la angustia de tener que decidirse entre “aquí” y “allá”.

El asunto ahora recae en obtener la visa de entrada para los países hacia donde los cubanos quieran viajar. No solo hacia los EEUU por cierto. Canadá, España, México y otras serán las naciones que verán sus consulados llenos de cubanos solicitando permiso de entrada desde la Habana. Y no solo se hace necesario que los cubanos entiendan el fenómeno que regula el mundo del viajero. Por lo que he leído últimamente, hay blogueros por ahí a los que no les vendría mal un curso intensivo en el tema:

                      “Aun se necesita una visa para entrar en prácticamente cualquier país al que desee viajar un cubano. Hay una lista corta de países a los cuales el gobierno permitirá que viajen sus ciudadanos sin visa: Malaysia, Hungría, Rusia, Liechtenstein, Ucrania, Bielorrusia, Eslovaquia, Barbados, Granada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vicente y las Granadinas, Moldavia, Kazakstán, Kirguistán.“

El autor de este escrito o bien tiene problemas con la gramática y no supo ubicar correctamente el sujeto de la oración, o debería aprender sensatamente sobre leyes internacionales de viajes e inmigración antes de meterse a escribir sobre el tema. El gobierno de Cuba, quiera o no, carece del DERECHO LEGAL de plantearle a otro gobierno que le permita la entrada de sus ciudadanos sin necesidad de una visa, salvo que estableciera convenios al respecto. Hasta donde tengo entendido este tipo de convenio existe con muy pocas naciones, de manera reciproca bilateral y se restringen a pasaportes oficiales (de trabajo) y diplomáticos.

Tenemos el otro tema que involucra directamente a los EEUU. En el pasado, un cubano deseando viajar hacia los EEUU estaba sujeto a una serie de restricciones, una de las cuales era, el permiso de salida, la carta de invitación y otra sarta de papeles más. Ahora, del lado cubano, solo se necesita un pasaporte válido y un pasaje  y bueno por supuesto, la visa de entrada hacia los EEUU que emite el Departamento de Estado de ese país

En otra publicación reciente, vemos que entrevistando a cubanos de a pie, la respuesta resume un tanto el presente y futuro de la situación:

                      “Me gustaría viajar y compartir con mi familia,” nos dice María Eugenia Jiménez, quien estaba despidiendo a la hermana que vive en         Miami.  “Ellos (los EEUU) me negaron la visa porque dicen que soy una inmigrante potencial… ahora el problema es con los demás países, no con Cuba.”

El análisis final tiene que ser que la posibilidad de viajar fuera de la isla y regresar, le dará a los cubanos la posibilidad de ver por si mismos  lo que hay más allá de las aguas que los rodean. Verán con sus propios ojos. Y a su regreso, podrán mejor entender lo bueno que hay en su isla y cuáles son los aspectos que necesitan mejorar verdaderamente dentro de la sociedad y el sistema de gobierno tal de producir cambios validos.

Tengan en cuenta que durante más de 50 años, los Estados Unidos han sido “la fruta prohibida” para la mayoría de los cubanos. Han idealizado esa nación a través de la familia que se fue, las películas que han visto, la música que han oído y bueno, la no poca propaganda que les ha llegado a través de las no pocas administraciones presidenciales en los EEUU,  intentando socavar los intentos de soberanía e independencia de la isla desde 1959. Al final de la jornada, esa imagen pintoresca del arcoíris con la cazuela de oro a sus pies, cobrará otro matiz. Incluso, olvídense de los EEUU. Pregúntenle a cualquier cubano y verán que tienen una idea muy distorsionada del concepto de lo que es la vida fuera de su pequeña isla caribeña. Ahora, tendrán la oportunidad de ver por sí mismos, y será un golpe de alarma para muchos.

Si la situación política, diplomática y económica entre Cuba y los EEUU cambiara para mejor, muchos de estos mismo cubanos podrían establecer un puente de entrada y salida entre ambas naciones que significaría cambios positivos tanto para Cuba como para los Estados Unidos.

En cambio, lo que tenemos ahora es un embargo impuesto por los EEUU que sigue inamovible, seguimos con la Ley de Ajuste Cubano y las restricciones de viajes contra los ciudadanos norteamericanos cuando de viajar hacia Cuba se trata. Todo esto tendrá que cambiar tarde o temprano. Mientras Cuba sigue dando pasos hacia adelante,  EEUU insiste en permanecer estático. Hacen falta dos para bailar un tango.

Antes de quitar la Ley de Ajuste Cubano

ARTURO LÓPEZ-LEVY

Publicado en el sitio C.A.F.E

 

Por décadas, el gobierno cubano ha denunciado la Ley de Ajuste Cubano de 1966, como “la ley asesina”, culpando al estatuto norteamericano por la migración de miles de cubanos a la Florida. Esa interpretación nunca ha tenido efecto en los gestores de política en EEUU, pues ignora los factores del sistema económico y político en la isla que empujan a los cubanos a emigrar. Por extraña coincidencia, ahora han aparecido sectores vinculados al embargo norteamericano que insisten, cada vez con más fuerza, en la necesidad de derogar la ley.

El hecho de que muchos cubanos que emigran discrepen del gobierno cubano, no significa que concuerden con el embargo estadounidense contra Cuba. Cada año, 300,000 cubanoamericanos van a Cuba y votan contra la restricción para viajar y la estrategia de provocar una rebelión por asfixia, enunciada en la ley Helms-Burton. Tras la flexibilización migratoria cubana del pasado octubre, no es difícil pronosticar un aumento del movimiento circular entre Cuba y EEUU.

En la comunidad cubanoamericana se acentúan las tendencias a una preponderancia de las últimas oleadas de emigrantes, con una visión más favorable a incentivar cambios en Cuba a través del intercambio y el diálogo. Usando las ventajas asociadas a la Ley de Ajuste Cubano de 1966 y las nuevas regulaciones migratorias cubanas, miles de cubanoamericanos, interesados en llevar vidas trasnacionales, podrían hacerse residentes legales y ciudadanos norteamericanos, mientras mantienen propiedades, residencia y hasta negocios en Cuba.

Tal dinámica tendrá efectos moderadores en las políticas de Miami y La Habana. Primero, porque el contacto entre las dos orillas del Estrecho de la Florida se multiplicará; segundo, porque comunidades interesadas en tales intercambios crecerán, poniendo presión respectiva en la Casa Blanca y el Palacio de la Revolución; y tercero, porque una ley que originalmente surgió como parte de la guerra fría entre Cuba y EEUU, podría servir ahora de virtual amnistía migratoria para cubanos que salen legalmente de Cuba a EEUU por motivos de trabajo, educación, o encuentro familiar.

La Ley de Ajuste Cubano fue aprobada por la Administración demócrata de Lyndon Johnson para regularizar la presencia en territorio norteamericano de miles de cubanos, cuyo proceso migratorio de entrada no fue como asilados bajo peligro de persecución o tortura. La ley protege a los Estados Unidos de un derecho automático a la residencia. El fiscal general regula la elegibilidad. Es por eso que varios de los arribados durante o después de Mariel, con problemas legales, fueron considerados “entrantes” y tuvieron que esperar a la reforma migratoria en 1986, o siguieron siendo deportables.

Si el gobierno de Barack Obama detuviese la implementación de pies secos/ pies mojados, que es diferente a derogar la Ley de Ajuste Cubano, Estados Unidos recibiría una emigración en camino a la legalización. Entrarían a EEUU, cubanos, mayormente educados, con conocimiento del inglés, que tienen familiares asentados en el país, y por tanto con un aterrizaje menos traumático al de otros emigrantes.

EEUU necesita emigrantes para atenuar las bajas de natalidad de típico país desarrollado. El cubano es un buen prospecto; no alberga sentimientos hostiles ni valores contrapuestos a la democracia norteamericana. Cuba tiene bajas tasas de natalidad, sin peligro de una emigración de gran magnitud. Ningún acto terrorista en suelo norteamericano cometido por cubanos (como el disparo en el puerto de Miami contra un barco polaco) es atribuible a los cubanos emigrados en las más recientes oleadas.

Son los legisladores cubanoamericanos los que al abrir un posible debate político sobre el estatuto de 1966, están creando la enfermedad, de la que se proclaman remedio. Desde 1978, cientos de miles de cubanoamericanos han visitado su país de origen y ningún Congreso (de mayoría republicana o demócrata), ni ningún presidente ha perdido tiempo tratando de derogar la ley de 1966. Fue frente al gobierno cubano hasta 1978 que los emigrados tuvieron que reclamar su derecho a visitar su país de origen.

La libertad de viajes es tan americana como el pastel de manzana. Nada en la Ley de Ajuste Cubano o su debate previo en el Congreso de 1966 prescribe que sus beneficiarios se olviden de sus familiares. Benjamín Franklin, el primero de todos los norteamericanos, hizo incontables esfuerzos por abrazar a su hijo, antiguo gobernador de Nueva Jersey, y refugiado en Inglaterra tras ser derrotado por la revolución alentada por su padre. Al decir de Franklin los lazos familiares eran del tipo “natural”, e iban “más allá de las consideraciones políticas”.

Profesor Adjunto, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver.

 

It’s not always greener

Margarita Alarcón Perea

The most dramatic and necessary of all the changes brought about during the Presidency of Raul Castro, is finally here. Cubans are allowed to exit the country freely, no longer requiring the devilish “exit visa”.

When one factors in the reasons why this is an all around positive move we find that the aspect that tops the list,  contrary to popular belief,  is the reality that of all of those Cubans who will be making trips abroad, most of them, will be coming back home.

Cuba was never really a jail as some have spent years and endless amounts of paper and ink claiming. It was an island that under extremely difficult circumstances was trying to survive, and still is. Still, that said, the concept of having to solicit a formal authorization in order to leave the country was something that after decades, began to weaken much of what the country had been striving to achieve: complete social justice. Cubans on the island simply couldn’t comprehend why they were obliged to go and request the government to allow them to exit the country and then return. Herein lies the gist of the issue, Cubans will not only be allowed to exit, they will also be allowed to remain abroad (this time restraint still needs tweaking) for a maximum of 24 months, and they will be allowed to return home. No longer will  there be the anguish of having to decide between “here” and “there”.

The issue now will be entry visas from the countries where the Cubans will wish to travel to. Not just the United States. Canada, Spain, Mexico and others will be nations where Cubans will swarm the consulates in Havana requesting the right to enter. And not only will it be Cubans who will need to understand the concept and the aspects that regulate world travel, some bloggers out there will also have to take a crash course as I read in one piece.

“A visa is still needed to enter almost any country Cubans wish to visit. There is a short list of countries that the government will allow its citizens to travel to visa free: Malaysia, Hungary, Russia, Liechtenstein, Ukraine, Belarus, Slovakia, Barbados, Grenada, Saint Cristobal and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan.“

The author of this blog post either has a problem with the English language and mixed up the subject of the sentence, or seriously needs to learn a bit more about international travel laws before writing. The Cuban government, whether it wants to or not, has NO LEGAL RIGHT to tell another government that Cuban citizens may travel there “visa free”.  The above mentioned nations may have established a covenant with Cuba (not that I am aware of) which allows Cubans with a valid passport to travel to their nations visa free, but by no means is that ever a decision made by the Cuban Government.

There is another issue which involves the United States specifically. In the past, Cubans wanting to travel to the US were subject to a series of restrictions one of which, of course, was the exit permit, letter of invitation and other paperwork. Now on the Cuban side, all of this has been limited to a valid passport, an airplane ticket and of course a visa issued from the US enabling the individual to travel and enter the country.

Below,  another post, interviewing individuals in Cuba, pretty much sums up the current and future situation:

“I would like to travel and be with my family,” said Maria Eugenia Jimenez, who was seeing off her sister who lives in Miami. “They (the US) turned me down for a visa because I could be a possible immigrant… Now the problem is with the other countries, not with Cuba.”

In the end, the ability to travel abroad and return home will give Cubans the chance to see for themselves what lies across the waters that surround them. They will see for themselves. When they return, they will be able to better understand what is good about the island and what are the aspects within the society and the government that could use valid change. Keep in mind, for 50+ years, the US has been the “forbidden fruit” for most Cubans. They have idolized it through family members living there and friends who left. By and large the years of propaganda stemming from the different programs oriented to disrupt the Cuban revolution have painted the perfect picture of a pristine gold rushing US society where everything is to be had if you have the desire and the will.  Even if you step away from the US as an issue and ask any Cuban on the street they will have a completely distorted concept of what life is like outside of their little enclosed island. Now they will have the chance to see for themselves, and it will be a wakeup call to say the least.

If the political, diplomatic, and economic situation between Cuba and the US were to be resolved, many of these same Cubans could establish a back and forth bridge between both countries, where not only Cuba but the US could benefit.  Meanwhile you have the US embargo still in place, you also have the Cuban Adjustment Act and you have the travel restrictions against normal everyday US citizens,  regarding travel to Cuba. All of this will have to change sooner rather than later. The grass is always greener where you water it; both sides of the fence need a serious sprinkler and Cuba just opened the spout.

Adiós para un Gentil Hombre

“Pobre de la nación que sacrifique sus poetas”

Por EAP y MAP

“Ya va para más de 40 años que te metiste debajo de la piel y ahí has seguido, convertido en un segmento muy importante de la biografía, alimentando ideales que nunca desfallecieron.” Así le digo a un amigo, muy especial, que se conoce tanto de la historia que por momentos da miedo.

No se trata de cuanto sabes, ni de tus habilidades oratorias, es más profundo, es honestidad, respeto a ti mismo, es inteligencia y conocimiento, es educación y amabilidad. Es dejar en otros las semillas para ser mejores. Es hacer de la vida poesía.

La lealtad al ideal que manifiestas con la consecuencia del pensamiento, del sentimiento de amor. Es el tiempo dedicado a un mundo mejor, ese que sabes posible ese que nos regalas con cada estrofa de tu verso de vida.

Es tu dedicación a que los humanos se entiendan mejor, a que las exigencias políticas nunca se impongan sobre las necesidades de tu pueblo, pueblo que se extiende más allá de frontera geográfica, política o ideológica.

Tantas veces apartado, tantas veces taciturno, tantas veces en aparente “ausencia” y tantas veces siempre presente para lo que vale, dejando la huella de quien marca la diferencia.

Tus textos, pocos firmados por ti, son siempre accesibles, aclaratorios. Nunca tu genialidad fue barrera, impedimento. Te entiende el académico y el leñador. Eres pueblo, no casta. Escucharte siempre un privilegio. Compartir contigo y otros nunca bien ponderados una sobremesa, una dicha que nos acompañará siempre.

No importa de qué lado del surco estemos, si nos miramos de frente.

´Desnudos vinimos al mundo y desnudos nos vamos de él,´ tu credo siempre, paradoja entonces que nos vistas con sabiduría, con gracia; nos arropes con la coraza que protege y guía, donde quiera que estemos,  donde quiera que estés.

No es una despedida. Sólo un abrazo más desde esta distancia.

The Age of Aquarius

Margarita Alarcón Perea

Growing up in the US during one of the most radical times in the history of that great nation was a privilege that I nurture every day.

Being too young to actually partake in any of the political activities and given my circumstance as a diplomat I had to consign myself to listening and watching. It’s only been in the last 15 years or so that I have been able to feed from the many conversations I witnessed as a child not knowing that I was a spectator to a part of history that would accompany me forever.

Hearing about the Viet Nam war and President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is not the same as actually being able to form an educated opinion on the topic, but it did somehow instill in me a feeling of “adulthood” as I was growing into adolescence.

I call us, “the children of” the Age of Aquarius generation. We weren’t blessed to be players in that radical era, but its vivacious character inevitably imbedded, much like mother’s milk, a sense of belonging that it has become an essential characteristic of my generation´s response and reaction to life.

I believe that it is due to this that my generation is one that now feels the need to stand up for a better world on all levels. We are the inheritors of those who started a struggle that continues today.

Last month, a person from North Carolina began an online campaign to present President Obama with a petition to normalize relations with Cuba. The White House has put it on its web site. It asks the US government to open dialogue with Cuba for the release of Alan Gross.

Your signature is needed before December 30th.  http://1.usa.gov/TyOtlG

The Petition reads:

We Petition the Obama Administration to: Open an honest dialogue with the Cuban government to secure the release of American operative Alan Gross. Include potential prisoner exchanges, admissions of wrongdoing, drop of the embargo as incentives to bring this man home. His employer owes it to him.

It relates to the children of the Age of Aquarius because we are all victims of the wrong doing between Cuba and the United States over the past half century.

It is not only in our best interest, it is our responsibility to take action and show our love through our struggle, for a better more just world.

American jailed in Cuba wants US to sign ‘non-belligerency pact’ to speed release

Peter Kornbluh , right, stands with Alan Gross, in a picture taken on Kornbluh’s iPhone by a guard during his visit to the Havana prison where Gross is being held.

By Michael Isikoff
NBC News

 

HAVANA, Cuba — Three years after he was arrested in Havana, jailed American contractor Alan Gross is asking the U.S. government to sign a “non-belligerency pact” with Cuba as a first step toward negotiating his release, according to a Cuba policy analyst who just visited him.

Peter Kornbluh, a Cuba specialist at the National Security Archives, a nonprofit research center in Washington, met with Gross for four hours on Wednesday at the military hospital in Havana where the contractor is being held. He said Gross appeared “extremely thin” — he has lost over 100 pounds since his arrest —and dispirited.

“He’s angry, he’s frustrated, he’s dejected — and he wants his own government to step up” and negotiate, said Kornbluh. “His message is that the United States and Cuba have to sit down and have a dialogue without preconditions. … He told me that the first meeting should result in a non-belligerency pact being signed between the United States and Cuba.”

Gross’ comments appear to represent a new tack in an aggressive public relations campaign to win his freedom. His supporters have planned a candlelight vigil outside the Cuban interests section in Washington D.C., on Sunday and the U.S. Senate is poised to take up a resolution Monday demanding his release, Gross’ wife, Judy, has also become increasingly critical of the U.S. government for not doing more to demand that her 63-year-old husband be allowed to return home.

Jose Luis Magana / AP

Judy Gross at her home in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 29.

“He feels like a soldier in the field left to die,” she said at a press conference in Washington last week.

Gross, who worked for an Agency for International Development contractor, was arrested by the Cubans on Dec. 3, 2009, and accused of smuggling sophisticated satellite and other telecommunications equipment into  the country to give to the island’s tiny Jewish community. Gross has said he was only trying to increase Internet access  in Cuba. But he was convicted by a Cuban court in March of last year for crimes “against the independence and territorial integrity of the state” and sentenced to 15 years.

Last month, Gross and his wife filed a $60 million lawsuit against the U.S. government and the contractor he was working for, Development Alternatives, charging he was used as a “pawn” in a U.S. government program to change the Castro regime and never advised about the dangers he faced bringing high tech satellite transmission equipment into Cuba. (The State Department, of which AID is a part and which has repeatedly called for Gross’ release, declined comment. Development Alternatives has released a statement saying it has “no higher priority” than bringing Gross home.)

Kornbluh, who has advocated closer U.S.-Cuba dialogue, was in Havana last week to attend a conference marking the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis. He was granted permission to visit Gross by Cuban officials. (The Cubans so far have denied all news media requests to meet with him.) He said Gross was most upset about being unable to return home to see members of his family who are ill, especially his 90-year-old mother in Texas who has cancer.

Keystone / Getty Images

Ever since U.S.-backed Cuban President Fulgencio Batista was forced from power by rebels led by Fidel Castro in 1958, the relationship between the two nations has been fraught with difficulties.

“He really wants to see his mother, who is quite old and infirm,” said Kornbluh. When Kornbluh had his photo taken with Gross, the contractor held up a photo that read: “Hi Mom.” When he asked Gross what he wanted to get out of the lawsuit, the contractor replied: “I want to see my wife and I want to see my mother.”

To accomplish that, Gross is seeking to nudge the Obama administration, according to Kornbluh. Gross knows that his freedom “is going to depend on his government negotiating in good faith with the Cubans,” said Kornbluh. “His message to Barack Obama is: I’m fired up and ready to go. Where are you at this moment?”

Michael Isikoff is NBC News’ national investigative correspondent; NBC News producer Mary Murray also contributed to this report.

The Latin American Gorilla

 

By Arturo Lopez-Levy

Originally in Foreign Policy in Focus

 

It has become commonplace to say that Latin America was absent from the 2012 election campaign in the United States. It is understandable, because the region was mentioned only once in the candidates’ foreign policy debate (by Governor Romney, when he referred to the potential of free-trade agreements in the hemisphere), and it got almost no attention in campaign speeches.

However, as with much conventional wisdom, the devil is in the definitions. If Latin America’s impact on U.S. politics is viewed in terms of relations between governments, the statement is correct; if, on the other hand, the concept includes the public, then the region was present like never before in the elections.

It is time to think about Latin American policy within a broader framework than old-fashioned nationalism. The political borders of transnational societies in the United States and the rest of the hemisphere have little to do with their legal boundaries. Latin America and the United States do not start or end with the Rio Grande or the Caribbean Sea. With their many, non-exclusive identities, Latin American and Caribbean Diaspora populations are increasingly important in the United States and in their home countries. The rigid divide between “Latin America” and the United States needs to be revised.

A New Calculus

It is symptomatic that oft-proposed solutions to the most emblematic problems of inter-hemispheric relations (free trade, energy, immigration, organized crime, and Cuba) have been dependent on the balance of power in American domestic politics. Insofar as the vote of important U.S. Latino groups changed those political calculations, Latin America’s role in the U.S. elections was extremely important. The emerging dynamic could have a major impact on U.S. policy toward the region.

By casting 71 percent of their votes for President Obama, few electoral blocs can claim more credit for Barack Obama’s reelection than Latinos. This is the highest percentage of ballots Latinos have cast for a Democratic candidate since 1996, when Bill Clinton got 72 percent. Had Romney managed to match George W. Bush’s 40-percent showing among Hispanics, he probably would be the president-elect today. Even more painful for the Republicans, Latinos are now 10 percent of the electorate and rising.

But the Republicans’ problem with the Latino electorate is not just demographic; it is first and foremost ideological. Several Republican leaders made offensive statements on the immigration issue. For the rest of his life, Romney will regret his strident support of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, his promise to veto the Dream Act, and his “self-deportation” proposal for undocumented immigrants. Although Latino voters have numerous concerns—often very similar to those of the average voter—their sensitivity to the immigration issue is unique. They have common connections and histories with the immigrant population and the native countries of their social group. The discriminatory statements of conservative politicians against minorities, especially Hispanics, created a moral pressure within Latino communities to vote.

MSNBC’s Steve Schmidt, who directed Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, summed up the 2012 message for the Republican Party: if it does not change its attitude toward the country’s new demographic reality, “it may be left wandering in the dark for a generation.”

The Democrats cannot take the Latino vote for granted. Before this past summer, when the president signed the executive order authorizing temporary residence for more than 1 million young immigrants, Obama’s approval rating among Latinos had fallen significantly to below 50 percent. Accordingly, immigration reform is now at the top of the national agenda.

If the Romney campaign’s movement toward the center after the first presidential debate works as a prelude to a more general Republican repositioning, then the possibility of immigration reform getting passed in Congress is greater. The popularity of a reelected president tends to increase in the first year of the second term, providing Obama with more political capital. Additionally, the next discussion of immigration reform will occur in the context of modest Democratic gains in both houses of Congress, and a Republican Party that has been criticized for obstructionism, bias, and a resistance to compromise.

Few political acts would have a greater effect on U.S.-Latin American relations than the naturalization of millions of Hispanics over the next decade. President Obama announced that immigration reform would be a legislative priority in his second term during the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena. It is not only a domestic but a foreign policy promise. The countries that have the largest number of undocumented immigrants in the United States are the same ones that have free-trade agreements: Mexico, Central America, and Colombia. These are also the countries with the greatest need for a coordinated effort against organized crime and drug and arms trafficking.

Establishing a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants would make border control more manageable, and it would also lead to greater demand for the legal immigration of families and circular movement between the United States and immigrants’ countries of origin. Comprehensive U.S. immigration reform would have a very significant positive impact on tourism, remittances, investment, and the voting preferences of expatriates from those countries.

Room to Maneuver on Cuba?

Another example of how changes in U.S. Latino groups can change the context of policymaking occurred in Cuban-American Miami. For years, Cuban-Americans have voted Republican for president and sent to Congress pro-embargo legislators like Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, who oppose Cuban-American travel to the island, and Senator Marco Rubio, who has filibustered presidential nominations in retaliation for alleged “abuse” of people-to-people travel.

But Obama won a record share of the Cuban-American vote (47percent to Romney’s 48 percent), showing the power of a new bloc of Cubans consisting both of recent immigrants and Americans of more distant Cuban descent. This bloc rejected the McCarthyist propaganda of the pro-embargo right-wing forces, enabling the president to campaign on more liberal U.S. policies toward the island.

For the first time, the election resulted in victories for candidates favorable to greater contact between the Cuban-American community and the island. In one closely contested House race, Democrat Joe García defeated Republican Rep. David Rivera, one of the most fervent supporters of the embargo. The evolution of García, a former director of the Cuban American National Foundation who now supports Cuban-American cultural exchanges, is evidence of the moderation now prevailing among a major component of the Cuban-American elite.

The same tendency was seen in the election to the Florida state legislature of José Javier Rodriguez, a Democrat who supports exchanges between the Cuban-American community and the island. Garcia will enter the House just as Rep. Ros-Lehtinen leaves the chairmanship of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in line with the Republican caucus’s term limits.

Outside of Florida, the elections had ambiguous results. In Texas, voters elected Republican Ted Cruz, a Cuban American who will join fellow embargo supporters Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) in the Senate. On the Cuba issue, however, Cruz’s victory is offset by that of Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, who has been the most consistent anti-embargo voice in the U.S. House in the past decade.

All told, Obama owes nothing to the pro-embargo lobbyists who accused his administration of “unilateral appeasement” towards Havana and paid for spurious campaign ads connecting the president with Raul Castro’s daughter and Hugo Chavez. Now it’s payback time. Anti-embargo groups should work to ensure that the virtuous cycle represented by increased travel and the creation of communities who are interested in new ties with Cuba can continue for four more years.

The messages that have been sent out from a more plural Miami, combined with greater flexibility in Obama’s second term, offer the president more maneuvering room for a rational treatment of the Cuba issue. Taking Cuba off the State Department list of terrorist countries would be a symbolic first step in the right direction.

Cuba, as the rest of Latin America, was not absent from the election; the voters put it into play.

Arturo Lopez-Levy is a PhD Candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies of the University of Denver.

You can follow him on Twitter @turylevy.