Why would Cuba follow through on its promises?
I can’t think of a single reason.
Promises, shmomises:
An air of secrecy surrounds the fate of 53 political prisoners whom Cuba agreed to free in its historic deal with the United States last month, as Washington and Havana’s refusal to publicly identify the dissidents is fueling suspicion over Cuba’s intentions…
…[O]fficials said a prisoner release was not a precondition for renewing diplomatic ties. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that not everyone on the list has been set free yet, but it was always understood that they would be released “in stages.”…
The lack of transparency is contributing to a growing sense of concern that Havana will not follow through on its promises.
If there’s “a growing sense of concern,” it’s certainly not on the part of the Obama administration, for which this quid pro quo was only for show. As in many of its “negotiations” with countries hostile to the US, the appearance of getting something in exchange for what we were giving up was only a thin veneer, because the administration was dedicated to capitulation.
But even if the Obama administration really did care about the fate of these prisoners, it has done nothing—absolutely nothing—to convince the Castros or any other government on earth to fear retaliation if they don’t follow through with the terms of any agreement they might make with the US.
This is the Obama legacy. And it goes beyond the time frame of Obama’s presidency. Prior to Obama, although there were periodic changes in the US government and its policies, the world knew it could count on a basic steadfastness, sameness, and reliability. No matter what party the US president was from, or how hardline or conciliatory, with a few exceptions (Vietnam in the 70s, for example) a certain basic commitment was there no matter what changes occurred in administrations.
No longer. Obama has left that assumption in tatters, and the world will act accordingly.
What are the odds of Obama surrendering Guantanamo to the Castros before 1/21/2017? Better than even I think.
@kaba I have read that that is a sure thing !
Following Obama’s 12/17/14 Statement, where he said, “In addition to the return of Alan Gross and the release of our intelligence agent, we welcome Cuba’s decision to release a substantial number of prisoners whose cases were directly raised with the Cuban government by my team,” I have been trying to find the list of the 53 names.
They can not be found. None of the dozens of Latin American or Spanish news sources I constantly consult had any information at all on the names, which is very unusual; unusual enough that I can not recall a news item in ten years of blogging where three weeks’ research turned out nothing.
The State Department Can’t Explain Why Cuba Isn’t Fulfilling Promises Made in Obama Deal http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/01/06/state-department-cant-explain-why-cuba-isnt-fulfilling-promises-made-obama-deal, after saying Cuba Has Released Some of 53 Political Prisoners, U.S. Says http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cuba-has-released-some-of-53-political-prisoners-u-s-says/
Guess what? I STILL CAN NOT FIND NAMES (pardon my yelling).
But it all makes sense, when you realize that lack of transparency equals lack of accountability.
Cause obama is asking mexico to help?
The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties (under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as “national unity,” “middle-of-the-road,” “progressivism,” and “bipartisanship.”) Clever intriguers are reshaping both parties in the image of Babbitt, gone Social-Democrat. When and where this political issue arises, we are, without reservations, on the side of the traditional two-party system that fights its feuds in public and honestly; and we shall advocate the restoration of the two-party system at all costs. – William F. Buckley, Jr 1955
I think it a long stretch to say that pre-Obama US foreign policy was always constant and dependable. Ask Clemenceau and LLoyd George after Versailles, or Thieu in South Vietnam in 1975, and lots of others. Kissinger saying that it is dangerous to be America’s enemy but fatal to be America’s friend was said in 1968 as a caution about what the outgoing Administration might do, in the wake of the Kennedy Admin throwing Diem to the wolves in 1963.
Where Obama differs may be not so much his inconstancy… he is very consistent but with himself rather than previous policies, but the obvious fact that he really does not like America.
Bho admires dictators. We’ve saw this from the beginning in Honduras and his warm hug with Chavez. He doesn’t give a damn about the suffering of Cubans languishing in the junta’s jails because he would love to write an EO to send tea party types to DHS detainment camps.
MHJ:
I did not say it was always constant and dependable, and I specifically cited Vietnam in the 1970s as an example. What I wrote was that there was “a certain basic commitment.” Obama has thrown away that commitment not here and there but nearly across the board—he has almost reversed it.
“No longer. Obama has left that assumption in tatters, and the world will act accordingly.” And, preemptively.
What’s he going to do, other than dither? Make a speech? No more than that.
I find far more disturbing that half of America doesn’t care whether Cuba honors its agreement and they don’t care that the Obama administration will, along with the MSM bury it.
Obama and the left are a given, no chance of a patriotic surprise there. That half of America have drunk of the leftist kool-aid so deeply that they are unwilling to hear the truth is… ominous.
They don’t care. But they will when reality arrives. All too typically, they’ll lash out at those who sought to awaken them.
“What’s he going to do, other than dither? Make a speech? No more than that.”
But that’s exactly the problem Sam. Chamberlain also did nothing but give speeches. And though no Hitler looms, we do have ISIS, al Qaeda, a coming nuclear Iran, a belligerent Russia and a fiercely militarizing, even more belligerent China.
Pingback:About those fifty-three Cuban political prisoners - BitsBlog