Cuba Relations Act

[Bono]

§ 1 The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 is hereby repealed.

§ 2 The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 is hereby repealed.

§ 3 Cuban refugees shall be granted political asylum in Atlasia, conforming with the standart rules of asylum.

§ 4 Radio and TV Marti shall be shut down, and every law related to them shall be repealed.

§ 5 Trade sanctions against Cuba shall be repealed, except in what concerns military goods; Atlasian citizens and companies shall be free to visit and establish business in Cuba as they see fit.

§ 6 The secretary of state shall move to the normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba.

[Bono]

Ok, here's the justification. In this post cold war world, Cuba is not a military threat to us. A 1998 reeport of the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded: "At present, Cuba does nto post a significant military threat to the United States and other countries in the region. Cuba has little motivation to engage in military activity beyond defense of its teritory and political activity."  The only ones sanctions hurt are the cuban people. Castro isn't the least bit hurt by them. Comunist regimes around the world like Vietnam and China were nto compeled to make market reforms due to santions, but due to trade. In fact, trade with Cuba will be more subversive of the system than sanctions.

[Sam Spade]

As you know, I support open and free trade with Cuba, but don't you think our Secretary of State should at least talk to them and see if they'll improve their human rights policies before we just open our trading doors wide open to them.

[12th Doctor]

I won't raise Hell over this, as I am supremely confident of a Presidential veto.

At any rate, I oppose free trade with all represive regimes.  Cuba included.

[Bono]

As you know, I support open and free trade with Cuba, but don't you think our Secretary of State should at least talk to them and see if they'll improve their human rights policies before we just open our trading doors wide open to them.

The objective of trade is improving human rights. Castro would never improve the human rights situation, since not having trade with the US benefits him. He can perpetuate his regime on the basis of the fight of the 'Atlasian enemy'.

[Sam Spade]

As you know, I support open and free trade with Cuba, but don't you think our Secretary of State should at least talk to them and see if they'll improve their human rights policies before we just open our trading doors wide open to them.

The objective of trade is improving human rights. Castro would never improve the human rights situation, since not having trade with the US benefits him. He can perpetuate his regime on the basis of the fight of the 'Atlasian enemy'.

Hey, I was just suggesting having a diplomatic meeting with him before we go full blow on something like this.

After 40 years of total hostility, things aren't going to change in one day by passing this act. 

In fact, it would probably make Atlasia look bad in the long run by giving countries the idea we might change paths suddenly without any real reason.

[Bono]

As you know, I support open and free trade with Cuba, but don't you think our Secretary of State should at least talk to them and see if they'll improve their human rights policies before we just open our trading doors wide open to them.

The objective of trade is improving human rights. Castro would never improve the human rights situation, since not having trade with the US benefits him. He can perpetuate his regime on the basis of the fight of the 'Atlasian enemy'.

Hey, I was just suggesting having a diplomatic meeting with him before we go full blow on something like this.

After 40 years of total hostility, things aren't going to change in one day by passing this act. 

In fact, it would probably make Atlasia look bad in the long run by giving countries the idea we might change paths suddenly without any real reason.

One (game time) year for implementing it?

[Sam Spade]

As you know, I support open and free trade with Cuba, but don't you think our Secretary of State should at least talk to them and see if they'll improve their human rights policies before we just open our trading doors wide open to them.

The objective of trade is improving human rights. Castro would never improve the human rights situation, since not having trade with the US benefits him. He can perpetuate his regime on the basis of the fight of the 'Atlasian enemy'.

Hey, I was just suggesting having a diplomatic meeting with him before we go full blow on something like this.

After 40 years of total hostility, things aren't going to change in one day by passing this act. 

In fact, it would probably make Atlasia look bad in the long run by giving countries the idea we might change paths suddenly without any real reason.

One (game time) year for implementing it?

At least.  Preferably, I'd like to see us come to an agreement with the President that the policy needs to be changed so he can send the Sec. of State over there to try and reformalize relations with Castro (sort of like Nixon with China).  I'm also sure we might have problems with the massive Cuban population in Miami which won't want this at all.   These are all things to take into account.

Of course, the present President will probably veto this legislation.  But if I am successful in my Senate bid, I'd be happy to help reintroduce it and meet with the next President about discussing the change.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I won't raise Hell over this, as I am supremely confident of a Presidential veto.

At any rate, I oppose free trade with all represive regimes.  Cuba included.

Like China?

[12th Doctor]

I won't raise Hell over this, as I am supremely confident of a Presidential veto.

At any rate, I oppose free trade with all represive regimes.  Cuba included.

Like China?

Yeah, like China, exactly.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Didn't you say you did support trade with China in my little questionaire back there? I know most conservatives did.

[12th Doctor]

Didn't you say you did support trade with China in my little questionaire back there? I know most conservatives did.

If I did, it was a mistake.  I think that any trade with China should be heavily regulated and strictly dependent upon their actions in the field of human rights.

[John Dibble]

I support opening trade with Cuba. I don't see how trade sanctions hurt Castro in the least. If anyone is harmed by them, it is the people who are oppressed by him.

Castro, like all communist dictators, ensures that his own belly is full and that he lives a life of luxury - trade sanctions only means that he has to take more from the people than he would otherwise, so the oppressed simply suffer more oppression. I support it when there is resistance to dictators(so long as it does not wish to install a new dictator), and you know, people will normally put food and survival above rebellion - if they are starving the chances of them standing up for themselves is slim.

Opening up trade will benefit the people of Cuba, the oppressed, not the dictator. In truth, it is only to his own detriment to allow trade. Once the people have food in their bellies from capitalist Atlasia, they'll start having time to think about protesting the actions of their government.

[12th Doctor]

And opening trade will only further feather Castro's nest, as all trade will go through the state, right?

Perhapes I should propose an opposing bill calling for the invasion of Cuba.

[John Dibble]

And opening trade will only further feather Castro's nest, as all trade will go through the state, right?

Temporarily, yes. But, at the same time the people of Cuba, who are not in the wrong, will be better able to get food in their bellies. Eventually, this will no doubt lead to greater dissent against the government, and reform will become a greater possibility.

Besides, Castro is on his last legs, he's gonna die somewhere in the near future, so why hold off the benefits of free trade to the Cuban people because of a single person?

[Gabu]

I'm leaning towards support for this bill.  As others have said in the past, not giving anything to Cuba is not going to hurt anyone in control; Castro is going to take the same chunk for himself no matter how much is available.  All that free trade will do, really, is increase how much is subsequently left over for the Cuban people.

Given that it's in Castro's own benefit that his people be fed (once he's taken care of, of course), I personally don't trust assertions that he'll just hoard absolutely everything for himself.  I am, of course, assuming that Castro has at least a tiny semblance of rationality, but from what I've seen, I don't think that Castro is the completely insane type of brutal dictator, so I don't think that that's an unfounded assumption to make.

Regarding what people have said about Atlasia's image, I don't see why we can't just stress the truth that this is done to benefit the Cuban people, not to give some sort of concession to Castro.

[Sam Spade]

I'm leaning towards support for this bill.  As others have said in the past, not giving anything to Cuba is not going to hurt anyone in control; Castro is going to take the same chunk for himself no matter how much is available.  All that free trade will do, really, is increase how much is subsequently left over for the Cuban people.

Given that it's in Castro's own benefit that his people be fed (once he's taken care of, of course), I personally don't trust assertions that he'll just hoard absolutely everything for himself.  I am, of course, assuming that Castro has at least a tiny semblance of rationality, but from what I've seen, I don't think that Castro is the completely insane type of brutal dictator, so I don't think that that's an unfounded assumption to make.

Regarding what people have said about Atlasia's image, I don't see why we can't just stress the truth that this is done to benefit the Cuban people, not to give some sort of concession to Castro.

I'm fine with that, Gabu.  I just think that if this were to be passed, it should be passed in combination with some thawing of relations with regards to the Secretary of State making a trip or two and some mutual agreements (and certaing concessions for both sides) being worked out.

Otherwise, I'm still in support of free trade with Cuba, as I have said in my campaign speeches and would support this bill in combination with those thawing measures. 

I'm sure Jake can GM a scenario or something on that and in a month (year) or so, we can have normalized relations with the Cubans in hope of bettering their peoples and deterring what I think would otherwise be a bloody civil war when Castro dies.

[12th Doctor]

And opening trade will only further feather Castro's nest, as all trade will go through the state, right?

Temporarily, yes. But, at the same time the people of Cuba, who are not in the wrong, will be better able to get food in their bellies.

According to BRTD Cuba is a paradise.  I mean, they have socialized medicine, right?  According to Ted Kennedy, that makes them better than us.  What do they need our trade for?

[John Dibble]

And opening trade will only further feather Castro's nest, as all trade will go through the state, right?

Temporarily, yes. But, at the same time the people of Cuba, who are not in the wrong, will be better able to get food in their bellies.

According to BRTD Cuba is a paradise.  I mean, they have socialized medicine, right?  According to Ted Kennedy, that makes them better than us.  What do they need our trade for?

Sorry, you lost me at 'According to BRTD'.

[PBrunsel]

An Iowan sat in the Presidents Chair singing, "Veto, Veto, Veto!"

[The Duke]

The arguments for this bill make no sense.  Castro doesn't prop himself up by playing on the Atlasian enemy, he props himself up with a very efficient secret police.  The Cuban people are not fooled by the "Atlasian enemy" line, as they are streaming into Miami by the raftload.  Anyone who thinks lifting sanctions will hurt Castro's ability to stay in power or improve our image with the Cubans is sorely mistaken, since Castro's power base is independent of trade policy and the Cubans already like us just fine.

If anyone can name a country where free trade led to greater human rights or democratization, I'd like to hear of that nation.  So called "constructive engagement" seems to limp from one abysmal failure to the next without loss for enthusiasm, and that is exactly what this is.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Conversely, can you name one instance in which economic sanctions has caused a dictatorship to topple?

[The Duke]

Conversely, can you name one instance in which economic sanctions has caused a dictatorship to topple?

Does it matter?

The anti-sanctions folk are claiming that exposure to the global economy will result in a freer Cuba politically over time.  I disagree.  I've never said sanctions would topple the Castro government, I simply don't think people should make assertions in favor of the bill that they can't support.

[The Duke]

And also to add, I can't understand why Radio or TV Marti would be offensive to anyone.  Its basically radio free cuba, why is it targeted for death in this bill?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Conversely, can you name one instance in which economic sanctions has caused a dictatorship to topple?

Does it matter?

The anti-sanctions folk are claiming that exposure to the global economy will result in a freer Cuba politically over time.  I disagree.  I've never said sanctions would topple the Castro government, I simply don't think people should make assertions in favor of the bill that they can't support.

As for myself, since they don't actually achieve any worthy policy goal, why should we pay the costs associated with implementing them?  It would be different if they actually achieved anything, but they don't.

And also to add, I can't understand why Radio or TV Marti would be offensive to anyone.  Its basically radio free cuba, why is it targeted for death in this bill?

Because it's a waste of taypayer dollars, especially given the mostly successful jamming of these signals by Cuba.  Now if the Cuban exile community wants to fund these, I have no problems, but why should we fund this piece of ineffective pork designed not to free Cuba but to secure the Cuban exile vote?