President Bush announces Freedom Fund for Cuba

[El Presidente]

http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/pr...-fund-for-cuba/

By GINGER THOMPSON | New York Times

President Bush is planning to issue a stern warning Wednesday that the United States will not accept a political transition in Cuba in which power changes from one Castro brother to another, rather than to the Cuban people.

As described by an official in a background briefing to reporters on Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush’s remarks will amount to the most detailed response — mainly an unbending one — to the political changes that began in Cuba more than a year ago, when Fidel Castro fell ill and handed power to his brother Raúl.

The speech, scheduled to be given at the State Department before invited Cuban dissidents, will introduce the relatives of four Cuban prisoners being held for political crimes. The relatives, who fled Cuba years ago for the United States, will attend the gathering. A senior administration official said the president wanted to “put a human face,” on Cuba’s “assault on freedom.”

In effect, the speech will be a call for Cubans to continue to resist, a particularly strong line coming from an American president. He is expected to say to the Cuban military and police, “There is a place for you in a new Cuba.”

The official said Mr. Bush would make the case that for dissidents and others pursuing democracy in Cuba, little has changed at all, and that the country has suffered economically as well as in other ways as a result of the Castro rule.

He will say that while much of the rest of Latin America has moved from dictatorship to democracy, Cuba continues to use repression and terror to control its people. And, the administration official said, Mr. Bush will direct another part of his speech to the Cuban people, telling them they “have the power to shape their destiny and bring about change.”

The administration official said Mr. Bush was expected to tell Cuban viewers that “soon they will have to make a choice between freedom and the force used by a dying regime.”

Some of the sharpest parts of the speech, however, will be aimed directly at Raúl Castro. Mr. Bush is expected to make clear that the United States will oppose an old system controlled by new faces. The senior administration official said that nothing in Raúl Castro’s past gives Washington reason to expect democratic reforms soon. And he said the United States would uphold its tough economic policies against the island.

However, he held out the possibility of incentives for change, including expanding cultural and information exchanges with Cuba, if Cuba demonstrated an openness to such exchanges.

The administration official gave no reason for the timing of Mr. Bush’s speech. However, he did say that another important constituency was the international community, particularly those countries whose trade with Cuba undermined the impact of the United States embargo. In recent months, Raúl Castro has made an open play for more business, suggesting his government is prepared to carry out reforms aimed at opening Cuba’s economy to further foreign investment.

Mr. Bush will urge countries to stand with the United States and stop trade with Cuba. He will call on the international community to work with the United States on the establishment of a “Freedom Fund for Cuba,” to be used for infrastructure and other projects once a democratic transition begins.

“The president will make the point that life will not improve for Cubans under the current system,” the senior administration official said. “It will not improve by exchanging one dictator over another, and it will not improve in any way by seeking accommodation with a new tyranny for the sake of stability.”

[Colt45]

Good read, but I'm not sure what to make of it. I'd be interested to know what members with ties to Cuba think.

I'm inclined to think that it will be viewed as empty rhetoric and fall on deaf ears.

As to the timing, do they know something we don't know?......

[Ken Gargett]

saw this yesterday and my immediate reaction was that the schoolyard bully got his nose thumped by the little kid from iraq and went off to find someone easier to push around. of course, that has worked wonderfully well for the last 50 years.

seriously, i think bush is doing two things. one, if fidel does fall off the perch and there is any move to democracy, bush can claim credit in a sad attempt to give his presidency some legitimacy; and two, help firm the vote for the republicans in florida for next year.

my views on politicians in general have been made reasonably clear on this forum in the past (every single one of them is as likley to lie as to breathe and no one has yet named a pollie who is not in it for his own self interest and tumor ridden ego).

from an outsider, if bush looks like he is bumbling around as though he has lost his white cane, i find hillary the personification of evil, would be more than a bit concerned at the inexperience of obama and would be devastated if thompson got in. law and order would lose my favourite character.

[Colt45]

Perception is certainly subjective. While many may regard President Bush as an inept bumbler, I laud him

as a president who finally had the guts to make a stand, regardless of what the political ostriches think.

[Ken Gargett]

» Perception is certainly subjective. While many may regard President Bush as

» an inept bumbler, I laud him

» as a president who finally had the guts to make a stand, regardless of

» what the political ostriches think.

i do applaud the removal of saddam, whether or not there were wmd. he was a brutal, sadistic, evil piece of crap and it is one of the few good things any politician has done in decades. how different bush's presidency might have been if his dad had done the right thing and toppled saddam a decade earlier. whatever the death toll in ioraq at the moment, and as tragic as that is, it comes nowhere near the number of his own people that he slaughtered and porbably nowhere near the number that he would have killed in the same period had he remained in power. in the mid/late 80s, an american friend worked closely with the chemical weapons verification people and the photos she showed me (probably shouldn't have) of what he had done to the kurds (iraqi citizens at the time) is something i have never forgotten or forgiven. hundreds of women and children bloated and twisted by chemicals he released on them. one of the most sickening things i ever saw. there was nothing anyone could have done to saddam that was too horrific.

where i think bush an his gang stuffed up monumentally was not in going in. it was in having absolutely no viable exit strategy. that was a huge disservice to everyone, not least american and coalition troops.

[Colt45]

» how different bush's presidency might have been if his dad had done the right thing

» and toppled saddam a decade earlier.

»

I do believe Bush the Elder and General Schwarzkopf would have went in - but our NATO friends didn't

think it would be a nice thing to do. We would have started in alone.

And, I'm pretty sure we'd be happy to exit - if only countries who want to dictate to Iraq would stop

sending in suicide bombers, and the like.

[Ken Gargett]

»

» And, I'm pretty sure we'd be happy to exit - if only countries who want to

» dictate to Iraq would stop

» sending in suicide bombers, and the like.

don't disagree with that but the problem is that the chances are even less than rob dressing up as buzz lightyear and appearing on the forum. but it is only partly outside forces. there are also those inside. one tragic mess and hard to see a way out which doesn't leave iraq a complete mess (though anything is better than saddam).

[El Presidente]

» And, I'm pretty sure we'd be happy to exit - if only countries who want to

» dictate to Iraq would stop

» sending in suicide bombers, and the like.

They won't Colt. They will get bolder as the allies weaken/fall off by the year and the US is left holding the can.

* You can't rely on NATO

* You can't rely on the UN

Brittain is slowly withdrawing and we are about to lose our Government in 5 weeks.

So in the end the US flies the flag alone. GW took a stand. However it was on an unstable base. No-one questions his integrity in taking the stand. We are all judged however on intent, execution and results. You have to question the last two.

He is wrong on Cuba but so were the US presidents for the better part of 50 years so you can't single him out. I have no doubt that engagement with Cuba through that time would have built a middle class which would have taken control long ago. Again...Intent, execution and results. One out of three is a fail.

No easy answers mate. I have none. Terrorism is a plague of our time. It won't be won by unilateral military excursion on a grand scale. It can be contained via intelligent international partnerships and clandestine operarations albeit brutal. No complaints there.

If IRAN is building Nuclear reactors....bomb them. Don't send troops.

Spend millions on paid assassins, informers, turn arab on arab. Don't spend Billions on your own troops.

Have the Arab community put together a multinational peace force to patrol Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government supported by UN decree and dollars (Yes..unfortunately still funded by the US). It takes the wind out of the zealots and brings your boys home.

The whole fight against terrorism is arse about. I can't take a bomb in a shampoo container on board an aircraft....but I can still take it to the check in counter

I am F***** off about living in cotton wool applied by others to protect me and giving away my freedoms in the process.

I don't buy any product which comes from a country which supports or tolerates radical Islam be it schools, mosques etc. Petrol/Diesel is the exception and I would pay three times the amount if I could fill up a tank from a bowser that said "Aussie Fuel" "Mexican Fuel" "Canadian Fuel". Not one cent would go to "Indonesian Fuel" "Arab Fuel".

Hell...I even refuse to fly Emirates or any other muslim based airline.

If the world fought them through their pockets. Then I wonder whether the copious amounts of Muslim government and coporate benefactor support to terrorist groups or "humanitarian charities" would continue.

Now you have got me going

[Ken Gargett]

» Spend millions on paid assassins, informers, turn arab on arab. Don't

» spend Billions on your own troops.

»

while i don't disagree with much of what you have said, you trust paid assassins etc. and what ye reap... if we act like that, very hard to complain when they turn around and do the same thing. and with the greatest respect, arab on arab is a bit too simplistic. there are millions of extremely decent arab and muslim people horrified by what has gone on. and suffered from both sides of it. the all too brief time i spent in the mid east/pakistan/iran etc was one of the most fascinating times i ever had and the hospitality to a stranger was humbling. far exceeded what we would even think of offering strangers (i might add that i find us and the uk low on that scale but places like the mid east, cuba and the usa very high).

»

»

»

»

» I don't buy any product which comes from a country which supports or

» tolerates radical Islam be it schools, mosques etc. Petrol/Diesel is the

» exception

it is extremly easy to pick away at that but one hell of a lot harder in practice to stop. that said, many countries could do more. but let's not focus solely on the muslims for this. fundamentalist christians are fast heading down a similar track. granted much of what they demand or force into being at the moment is just silly but thin end of the wedge. 20 years ago, what i could do and where i could go in places like iran and northern pakistan now seem like a dream. wouldn't last two minutes. look at mcveigh. look at what the imbecilic morons who claim 'intelligent design', possibly the greatest oxymoron of all. look at anti abortionists bombing doctors' surguries etc. long way to go here as well.

» Hell...I even refuse to fly Emirates or any other muslim based airline.

»

so, still banned?

[Cam]

I agree with colt, interesting, maybe disturbing, i think it's the way GWB speaks so bluntly? any how it will be interesting to see what people who spend time (or live inside) Cuba have to say!

Cam -

[Cam]

» Hell...I even refuse to fly Emirates or any other muslim based airline.

»

so, still banned?

and hahahahahah

[JMH]

» Don't send troops.

» Spend millions on paid assassins, informers, turn arab on arab. Don't

» spend Billions on your own troops.

Respectfully, I don't think this is really the answer. Isn't this how bin laden got such a foothold in the first place - funding, training, and weapons from the US?

[El Presidente]

» Respectfully, I don't think this is really the answer. Isn't this how bin

» laden got such a foothold in the first place - funding, training, and

» weapons from the US?

In part as well as support from the Saudi Govt.

Before he became a cave dweller, he could have been taken out numerous times. What a hell of alot of pain that would have saved.

As for Cuba Cam, few Cubanos want a US forced resolution to their problems. They would like assistance, understanding, trade, travel, opportunity. No-one in Cuba wants the embargo. They are in the main a highly educated people. They want to get rid of Fidel and the current Govt. This does not mean they want a free for all void where Democracy leads to 5 governments in 10 years, the influx of developers, ex cubans seeking retribution and compensation. They would prefer a transition period, a controlled evolution formulated by Cubans, for Cubans and without the influence of the US or Venezuela or China or Spain. It may interest members that Chavez and Venezuela are widely despised within the Cuban population.

Yes Ken. Still banned by Emirates ;-)

[anacostiakat]

It is beyond me why the US policy at this time and date is not similar to that of China. I can find no logic in any of the excuses as to why it is different.

[Colt45]

A few last opinions from me:

1. It's usually easier to make a popular stand from stable ground.

2. If nations don't want to see Iran lob a nuke at Israel, or anyone else, then the nations

of the world need to show a unified front. I don't believe most have the stomach for what

this could entail.

3. I agree that as it looks right now, it will be difficult to not leave Iraq a mess. Once again,

unity could have helped immensely, but it seems that conviction has become mere lip service.

4. All I really wanted to know was what people thought of the freedom fund idea. :-)

P.S. I find the take on Chavez quite interesting.

[tigger]

» 4. All I really wanted to know was what people thought of the freedom fund idea. :-)

IF it's privately funded, I'm ok with it. If it's funded by a so-called conservative government borrowing against future generations then I am rabidly against.

[Claudius]

» However, he did say that another important constituency was the

» international community, particularly those countries whose trade with

» Cuba undermined the impact of the United States embargo.

These people cannot be serious! EVERYBODY BUT the USA trades with Cuba. They must have noticed that in 50 years? Oh, that's right, they do know that, but they want to keep the Cuban exiles in FLorida, whom they gave voting rights to, happy so they get re-elected, Florida being a key state in the elections. What a bunch of hypocrites. This attitude in politicians, like Ken mentioned, is the very reason democracy as a system is only good in theory (and in Switzerland), but not in practice.

[Trevor2118]

» Yes Ken. Still banned by Emirates ;-)

Sounds like a story here...............over to you Ken..:-D