Administration Calls OAS Overture to Cuba A Diplomatic Victory, But Critics Call It A Sham

Love this article.... I really think Cuba will never try to join the OEA...they are living in thier own world of absolutism and control of the cuban people for 50 years. Besides Castros hate for USA..Cuba will never share seats in and assembly with Hillary or Obama to be call what they are...."""Tyran s of Cuba"""" """.

Marie in Miami Fl wrote:

Love this article.... I really think Cuba will never try to join the OEA...they are living in thier own world of absolutism and control of the cuban people for 50 years. Besides Castros hate for USA..Cuba will never share seats in and assembly with Hillary or Obama to be call what they are...."""Tyran s of Cuba"""" """.

Exactly!

Hello Little ole pecker meat - guess where I am?

THE COMPASSIONTE ONE wrote:

Hello Little ole pecker meat - guess where I am?

If you are the same Compassionate One that usually writes from NC, I just want to say how impressed I have been with you balanced and educated analysis of US-Cuba relationship and history. I hope that you see things in Cuba on this trip that will be useful as the Obama adninistration rethinks the futue of US-Cuba ties. Thanks for your personal contribution. It is clear that you have a deep love for Cuba and its people and have worked to get the US to be a help rather than a stumbling block. Thank you for your efforts for peace. Your ability to see the story clearly without bias has been very helpful to many of us who are interested in seeing ways to a better future for all the people of Cuba and to see the US play a positive role for once. have a great trip,

proud American wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are the same Compassionate One that usually writes from NC, I just want to say how impressed I have been with you balanced and educated analysis of US-Cuba relationship and history. I hope that you see things in Cuba on this trip that will be useful as the Obama adninistration rethinks the futue of US-Cuba ties. Thanks for your personal contribution. It is clear that you have a deep love for Cuba and its people and have worked to get the US to be a help rather than a stumbling block. Thank you for your efforts for peace. Your ability to see the story clearly without bias has been very helpful to many of us who are interested in seeing ways to a better future for all the people of Cuba and to see the US play a positive role for once. have a great trip,

Yes his DEEP love for Cuba will end when Traveling for free STOP.....The Comp.ONE from NC ...is similar to the USA Embargo...It haven't worked a bit for either sides..Cuba and USA....Ja Ja....

THE COMPASSIONTE ONE wrote:

Hello Little ole pecker meat - guess where I am?

Written fron Habana by world famous cuban dissident Yoany Sanchez!Castro's dictatorship can't stand any opening!
http://desdecuba.com/generationy/
http://desdecuba.com/generaciony/

Doors that open, bars that close
None of the presidents who yesterday approved the readmission of our Island to the Organization of American States held public office in 1962 when the Cuban government was expelled from that organization. However, the repeal of that resolution has found the same people who governed the fate of my parents and grandparents in power here. The Cuban people have changed greatly in the meantime: some died, others emigrated, and my generation—with its exotic “Y”—has started to see its first grey hairs. But on the podium the same name has clung to the microphones through all this time.

To our elders in the presidency, the OAS decision confronts them with a dilemma that is almost always poorly resolved. Ordered to choose between belligerency and harmony, the latter burns them like salt on the skin and drowns them like too much water in the lungs. Forged in the logic of confrontation, a possible seat in the OAS appears to them more dangerous than the barricades before which they feel so comfortable. They know that taking the seat would place them in a regional community that would support them, but that would also demand openings to the interior of the country.

Hence, Wednesday’s announcement seems to me like another hand offered, a new door opened, only to face the Cuban government’s unwillingness to accept it. John Paul II’s desire,“Let Cuba open up to the world, and the world will open up to Cuba,” would be accomplished if it weren’t that the first part of the phrase leaves no way forward. It seems that those at the helm of my country prefer the catchy slogan shouted so much during the sixties,“With the OAS or without the OAS, we will win the fight.” But now no one sees the fight as being for any side, the enemy fades, and the victory… ay, the victory… has come down to staying in power all this time

THE COMPASSIONTE ONE wrote:

Hello Little ole pecker meat - guess where I am?

Are you in Habana 'George'? Where are you staying? I will be at 'Ambos Mundos' Hotel tomorrow! How can I get in touch with you?

proud American wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are the same Compassionate One that usually writes from NC, I just want to say how impressed I have been with you balanced and educated analysis of US-Cuba relationship and history. I hope that you see things in Cuba on this trip that will be useful as the Obama adninistration rethinks the futue of US-Cuba ties. Thanks for your personal contribution. It is clear that you have a deep love for Cuba and its people and have worked to get the US to be a help rather than a stumbling block. Thank you for your efforts for peace. Your ability to see the story clearly without bias has been very helpful to many of us who are interested in seeing ways to a better future for all the people of Cuba and to see the US play a positive role for once. have a great trip,

PA...yes, it is the same person. He is in Cuba now at an important time. The Obama administration and the OAS are both starting the process of a new era of dialogue and relationship with Cuba. In short time, the Castro era will be over and a new day for Cuba may very well be on the horizon. Let us all hope that the leadership of Cuba in a post-Castro period and the leadership of the US in the Obama era will find common ground for friendship and relationship. Hopefully that will lead to an opening of opportunities and political change in Cuba. Thanks CO for being a part of the effort to open up that dialogue between the US and Cuba!

open mind wrote:

<quoted text>
PA...yes, it is the same person. He is in Cuba now at an important time. The Obama administration and the OAS are both starting the process of a new era of dialogue and relationship with Cuba. In short time, the Castro era will be over and a new day for Cuba may very well be on the horizon. Let us all hope that the leadership of Cuba in a post-Castro period and the leadership of the US in the Obama era will find common ground for friendship and relationship. Hopefully that will lead to an opening of opportunities and political change in Cuba. Thanks CO for being a part of the effort to open up that dialogue between the US and Cuba!

I guess you would have been just as eager to open that dialogue with Adolph!

LIGER OMNI POTENT MAGNUM wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess you would have been just as eager to open that dialogue with Adolph!

Well, if Hitler had won the war and had ruled much of Europe for 50 years, yes, I imagine that at some point it would have made sense to open up a dialogue with Hitler! Remember Nixon and China? After 25 years of Communist rule (late 40's-early 70's), even the most anti-Communist leader of American political history opened up a dialogue with the Communist Government in China. Would you like to see what that government has done to millions of its citizens? Rivals Hitler in the torture and killing and treatment of its citizens and yet the conservative Republican anti-communist regime of Richard Nixon opened up a conversation with Communist China (a more modern version of Hitler). So, why not Cuba after 50 years? Conversations and even diplomatic relationships do NOT mean approval or agreement. To talk with Raul (or Fidel) doesn't mean we like them or agree with them. It is time that we open up ties with Cuba. What we've been doing for the past 50 years certainly hasn't worked! Would you like me to replay some of your comments about Cuba today? So, why not try something different? We didn't agree with the white rulers of South Africa but we talked to them and had diplomnatic relationships with them? We don't like or agree with many leaders around the world, even dictators and (every now and then) even crazy leaders (Idi Amin?). Why single out Cuba in ways that we don't ANY other nation on the face of the earth?!

Jesus also said """- Those what are not for me are against me ...... and Those do not gather...scatter."" """ For him was no neutral way to look at life/faith/and certainty

open mind wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, if Hitler had won the war and had ruled much of Europe for 50 years, yes, I imagine that at some point it would have made sense to open up a dialogue with Hitler! Remember Nixon and China? After 25 years of Communist rule (late 40's-early 70's), even the most anti-Communist leader of American political history opened up a dialogue with the Communist Government in China. Would you like to see what that government has done to millions of its citizens? Rivals Hitler in the torture and killing and treatment of its citizens and yet the conservative Republican anti-communist regime of Richard Nixon opened up a conversation with Communist China (a more modern version of Hitler). So, why not Cuba after 50 years? Conversations and even diplomatic relationships do NOT mean approval or agreement. To talk with Raul (or Fidel) doesn't mean we like them or agree with them. It is time that we open up ties with Cuba. What we've been doing for the past 50 years certainly hasn't worked! Would you like me to replay some of your comments about Cuba today? So, why not try something different? We didn't agree with the white rulers of South Africa but we talked to them and had diplomnatic relationships with them? We don't like or agree with many leaders around the world, even dictators and (every now and then) even crazy leaders (Idi Amin?). Why single out Cuba in ways that we don't ANY other nation on the face of the earth?!

Sorry, open, but I think you misuderstand the message. So if sopmeone is going to shoot your wife, or your mother, then you turn the other cheek. You arer taking things too literally old man!

LIGER OMNI POTENT MAGNUM wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, open, but I think you misuderstand the message. So if sopmeone is going to shoot your wife, or your mother, then you turn the other cheek. You arer taking things too literally old man!

I can only assume that you did not read the essay by Walter Wink regarding the 'turn the other cheek' reference or you would not have written the absurd comments above. I'll be happy to have a conversation about the meaning of what Jesus said if you're willing to do some work and not just continue the knee-jerk reaction. I think Jesus was really on to something by what he said but the way you are understanding it is, in the opinion of many scholars, not at all what Jesus meant. There is nothing passive about what he said or what he meant. Look at the context and see it through the eyes of someone living in the first century of the common era and not through the lens of tradition.

open mind wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, if Hitler had won the war and had ruled much of Europe for 50 years, yes, I imagine that at some point it would have made sense to open up a dialogue with Hitler! Remember Nixon and China? After 25 years of Communist rule (late 40's-early 70's), even the most anti-Communist leader of American political history opened up a dialogue with the Communist Government in China. Would you like to see what that government has done to millions of its citizens? Rivals Hitler in the torture and killing and treatment of its citizens and yet the conservative Republican anti-communist regime of Richard Nixon opened up a conversation with Communist China (a more modern version of Hitler). So, why not Cuba after 50 years? Conversations and even diplomatic relationships do NOT mean approval or agreement. To talk with Raul (or Fidel) doesn't mean we like them or agree with them. It is time that we open up ties with Cuba. What we've been doing for the past 50 years certainly hasn't worked! Would you like me to replay some of your comments about Cuba today? So, why not try something different? We didn't agree with the white rulers of South Africa but we talked to them and had diplomnatic relationships with them? We don't like or agree with many leaders around the world, even dictators and (every now and then) even crazy leaders (Idi Amin?). Why single out Cuba in ways that we don't ANY other nation on the face of the earth?!

England Prime Minister at that time Sir Neville Chamberlain,trusted and established a dialogue with Adolph Hitler and Hitler took that as a weakness.That weakness cost Millions of lives . History has proved that it is IMPOSIBLE to have a dialogue with dictators! That's History 101. Just name One dictator in which dialogue has beebn effective on the long run, Just mention me ONE!Even ex-president Bush fall for that trick too,when he opened a dialogue with North Korea's dictator Kim Jong Il and see what is happenning with North Korea now!

Just a thought wrote:

<quoted text>
England Prime Minister at that time Sir Neville Chamberlain,trusted and established a dialogue with Adolph Hitler and Hitler took that as a weakness.That weakness cost Millions of lives . History has proved that it is IMPOSIBLE to have a dialogue with dictators! That's History 101. Just name One dictator in which dialogue has beebn effective on the long run, Just mention me ONE!Even ex-president Bush fall for that trick too,when he opened a dialogue with North Korea's dictator Kim Jong Il and see what is happenning with North Korea now!

You only want ONE? OK. Let's start with the oppressive and ruthless Apartheid government of South Africa (late 80's-early 90's). Dialogue and compromise led to a peaceful change and ultimately an election that provided Mandela his stepping stone to a new regime. Dialogue and conversation (with international pressure) led to a peaceful resolution. Whether or not the new government proves to be better or not is, in some ways, beside the point.

Thus, even though North Korea appears once more to be on the edge of creating something unpleasant, everytime we have had a dialogue (Clinton and Bush), it has defused things even if only temporarily. Those moments allow time to build bridges that will ultimately work. Even the current crisis should, hopefully, lead to new opportunities for positive change. North Korea will not survive unless they get international economic help. Their constant rattling of the cage is only self-defeating. Keeping them at the table may provide them a stage on which to act out but it also keeps them in check.

Historically, I think it would be helpful to remind students of history that Chamberlain's 'dialogue' with Hitler was never done with the kind of seriousness or dedication required for a resolution. Chamberlain was more interested in keeping the status quo than he was with really confronting Hitler with the kinds of questions and dialogue that was needed. A serious level of diplomatic dialogue requires serious negotiation and vigilant actors. In the case of England (Chamberlain), that never happened.

open mind wrote:

<quoted text>
You only want ONE? OK. Let's start with the oppressive and ruthless Apartheid government of South Africa (late 80's-early 90's). Dialogue and compromise led to a peaceful change and ultimately an election that provided Mandela his stepping stone to a new regime. Dialogue and conversation (with international pressure) led to a peaceful resolution. Whether or not the new government proves to be better or not is, in some ways, beside the point.
Thus, even though North Korea appears once more to be on the edge of creating something unpleasant, everytime we have had a dialogue (Clinton and Bush), it has defused things even if only temporarily. Those moments allow time to build bridges that will ultimately work. Even the current crisis should, hopefully, lead to new opportunities for positive change. North Korea will not survive unless they get international economic help. Their constant rattling of the cage is only self-defeating. Keeping them at the table may provide them a stage on which to act out but it also keeps them in check.
Historically, I think it would be helpful to remind students of history that Chamberlain's 'dialogue' with Hitler was never done with the kind of seriousness or dedication required for a resolution. Chamberlain was more interested in keeping the status quo than he was with really confronting Hitler with the kinds of questions and dialogue that was needed. A serious level of diplomatic dialogue requires serious negotiation and vigilant actors. In the case of England (Chamberlain), that never happened.

Let's speak the truth here,not Half the truth!
Openmind!
I think you choosed a bad example to reinforce your point!
South Africa was forced by most country of this world with wide spread sactions (Remember the USA Embargo on Cuba now?)to engage into a dialogue and you must remember that their dialogue was between themselves(SouthAfricans) not with foreign countries! In 1990 the National Party government took the first step towards negotiating itself out of power when it lifted the ban on the African National Congress and other left-wing political organisations. It released Nelson Mandela from prison after twenty-seven years' incarceration on a sabotage sentence.
So as you can see the only way it can work is when many countries press the dictators to engage in a dialogue with its own people and starts releasing its political prisoners.Let's force Raul to engage in a dialogue with Dr Biscet and Dr Antunes,Eng. Oswaldo Paya etc! Let's force the Castro brothers to engage in a serious dialogue with all Cubans dissidents and to force the dictatorship to free the dissidents that are actually in prison. If we can force the Castro's dictatorship to do that,then perhaps a dialogue will work! and this my friend is World History 102!
By the way, you are wrong about Chamberlain not being serious in its intentions. British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, even flew to meet Hitler at his private mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden in an attempt to resolve the crisis created by Hitler trying to take The Sudetenland! Chamberlain bowed to Hitller's desires(A dialague?)and handle Hitler(The dictator) on a silver plate the The Sudetenland(The Munich Agreement signed between Chamberlain and Hitler in 1938)! Hitler of course saw Chamberlain actions as a weakness and took the Sudetenland! A few months after, Hittler invaded Czecholovakia,Poland,etc,etc and almost conquered Russia! Chamberlain was forced to resign the premiership on 10 May 1940, after Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France.Another good example with a democracy must never establishe a dialogue with a a dictator was the 'Yalta Conference' in 1945,where Stalin took half of Europe,but of course that O.M would be explained if you wish, on my next World History 103 class!

open mind wrote:

<quoted text>
You only want ONE? OK. Let's start with the oppressive and ruthless Apartheid government of South Africa (late 80's-early 90's). Dialogue and compromise led to a peaceful change and ultimately an election that provided Mandela his stepping stone to a new regime. Dialogue and conversation (with international pressure) led to a peaceful resolution. Whether or not the new government proves to be better or not is, in some ways, beside the point.
Thus, even though North Korea appears once more to be on the edge of creating something unpleasant, everytime we have had a dialogue (Clinton and Bush), it has defused things even if only temporarily. Those moments allow time to build bridges that will ultimately work. Even the current crisis should, hopefully, lead to new opportunities for positive change. North Korea will not survive unless they get international economic help. Their constant rattling of the cage is only self-defeating. Keeping them at the table may provide them a stage on which to act out but it also keeps them in check.
Historically, I think it would be helpful to remind students of history that Chamberlain's 'dialogue' with Hitler was never done with the kind of seriousness or dedication required for a resolution. Chamberlain was more interested in keeping the status quo than he was with really confronting Hitler with the kinds of questions and dialogue that was needed. A serious level of diplomatic dialogue requires serious negotiation and vigilant actors. In the case of England (Chamberlain), that never happened.

Let's speak the truth here,not half the truth.Half truth confuse people!

Openmind!
I think you chosed a bad example to reinforce your points!
South Africa was forced by most country through out wide spread sactions (Remember the USA Embargo on Cuba now?)to engage into a dialogue and you must remember that their dialogue was between themselves(SouthAfricans) not with foreign countries! In 1990 the National Party government took the first step towards negotiating itself out of power when it lifted the ban on the African National Congress and other left-wing political organisations. It released Nelson Mandela from prison after twenty-seven years' incarceration on a sabotage sentence.
So as you can see the only way it can work is when many countries press the dictators to engage in a dialogue with its own people and starts releasing its political prisoners.Let's force Raul to engage in a dialogue with Dr Biscet and Dr Antunes,Eng. Oswaldo Paya etc! Let's force the Castro brothers to engage in a serious dialogue with all Cubans dissidents and to force the dictatorship to free the dissidents that are actually in prison. If we can force the Castro's dictatorship to do that,then perhaps a dialogue will work! and this my friend is World History 102!
By the way, you are wrong about Chamberlain not being serious in its intentions. British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, even flew to meet Hitler at his private mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden in an attempt to resolve the crisis created by Hitler trying to take The Sudetenland! Chamberlain bowed to Hitller's desires(A dialague?)and handle Hitler(The dictator) on a silver plate the The Sudetenland(The Munich Agreement signed between Chamberlain and Hitler in 1938)! Hitler of course saw Chamberlain actions as a weakness and took the Sudetenland! A few months after, Hittler invaded Czecholovakia,Poland,etc,etc and almost conquered Russia! Chamberlain was forced to resign the premiership on 10 May 1940, after Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France.Another good example with a democracy must never establishe a dialogue with a a dictator was the 'Yalta Conference' in 1945,where Stalin took half of Europe,but of course that O.M would be explained if you wish, on my next World History 103 class!

open mind wrote:

<quoted text>
You only want ONE? OK. Let's start with the oppressive and ruthless Apartheid government of South Africa (late 80's-early 90's). Dialogue and compromise led to a peaceful change and ultimately an election that provided Mandela his stepping stone to a new regime. Dialogue and conversation (with international pressure) led to a peaceful resolution. Whether or not the new government proves to be better or not is, in some ways, beside the point.
Thus, even though North Korea appears once more to be on the edge of creating something unpleasant, everytime we have had a dialogue (Clinton and Bush), it has defused things even if only temporarily. Those moments allow time to build bridges that will ultimately work. Even the current crisis should, hopefully, lead to new opportunities for positive change. North Korea will not survive unless they get international economic help. Their constant rattling of the cage is only self-defeating. Keeping them at the table may provide them a stage on which to act out but it also keeps them in check.
Historically, I think it would be helpful to remind students of history that Chamberlain's 'dialogue' with Hitler was never done with the kind of seriousness or dedication required for a resolution. Chamberlain was more interested in keeping the status quo than he was with really confronting Hitler with the kinds of questions and dialogue that was needed. A serious level of diplomatic dialogue requires serious negotiation and vigilant actors. In the case of England (Chamberlain), that never happened.

Openmind!
I think you chosed a bad example to reinforce your points!
South Africa was forced by most country through out wide spread sactions (Remember the USA Embargo on Cuba now?)to engage into a dialogue and you must remember that their dialogue was between themselves(SouthAfricans) not with foreign countries! In 1990 the National Party government took the first step towards negotiating itself out of power when it lifted the ban on the African National Congress and other left-wing political organisations. It released Nelson Mandela from prison after twenty-seven years' incarceration on a sabotage sentence.
So as you can see the only way it can work is when many countries press the dictators to engage in a dialogue with its own people and starts releasing its political prisoners.Let's force Raul to engage in a dialogue with Dr Biscet and Dr Antunes,Eng. Oswaldo Paya etc! Let's force the Castro brothers to engage in a serious dialogue with all Cubans dissidents and to force the dictatorship to free the dissidents that are actually in prison. If we can force the Castro's dictatorship to do that,then perhaps a dialogue will work! and this my friend is World History 102!
By the way, you are wrong about Chamberlain not being serious in its intentions. British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, even flew to meet Hitler at his private mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden in an attempt to resolve the crisis created by Hitler trying to take The Sudetenland! Chamberlain bowed to Hitller's desires(A dialague?)and handle Hitler(The dictator) on a silver plate the The Sudetenland(The Munich Agreement signed between Chamberlain and Hitler in 1938)! Hitler of course saw Chamberlain actions as a weakness and took the Sudetenland! A few months after, Hittler invaded Czecholovakia,Poland,etc,etc and almost conquered Russia! Chamberlain was forced to resign the premiership on 10 May 1940, after Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France.Another good example with a democracy must never establishe a dialogue with a a dictator was the 'Yalta Conference' in 1945,where Stalin took half of Europe,but of course that O.M would be explained if you wish, on my next World History 103 class!

LIGER OMNI POTENT MAGNUM wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, open, but I think you misuderstand the message. So if sopmeone is going to shoot your wife, or your mother, then you turn the other cheek. You arer taking things too literally old man!

Hermano!
Mirate como O.M.,esta terguiverzando la Historia para confundir a otros!Pero se puso fatal y se encontro conmigo . Le estoy dando al amiguito O.M un poco de Historia Mundial basica!

Marie in Miami Fl wrote:

Jesus also said """- Those what are not for me are against me ...... and Those do not gather...scatter."" """ For him was no neutral way to look at life/faith/and certainty

Exactly, but open conveniently does not see that!