I just posted the text Senator Dodd's Cuba policy speech from this morning. You can read the whole thing here. Here's a small piece of it:
Today, United States policy toward Cuba has been essentially the same for almost fifty years.
I believe the time has come to say publicly what many Americans believe including many Cuban-Americans – our Cuba policy has neither served America’s interests nor brought democracy to Cuba. It has been an abject failure.
I have the deepest respect for the Cuban American community and the pain, hardship and suffering the entire community has been through. I harbor no illusion about the current state of affairs in Cuba and the extreme difficulties Cubans live under.
But, today I believe that we are at a critical moment in Cuba’s changing political landscape, with Fidel Castro having recently turned over day-to-day authority of running Cuba to Raoul Castro and a small number of loyalists.
I believe we must make a choice – the United States can either be players in helping to shape the Cuba landscape for the next fifty years, or remain on the sidelines while the future of Cuba is determined by others.
Read the whole thing, it's a great speech conveying Dodd's bold vision for changing America's Cuba policy.
Comments
I read the senator's speech and his plan for a bold new policy but he offers no evidence for why it should work. He mentions American farmers being shut out of the Cuban market but doesnt mention how much money is at stake or how much could be gained by American farmers $1 million $10 million $100 million? If its only $1million is it reason enough to sustain such a policy?
Furthermore, he mentions that the Cuban economy is bankrupt but yet it can bankroll, according to him, advanced medical technology that is not available in the US. Why isn't it? Is it because US researchers are not as bright or is it because Cuba uses an unethical methodology or is it because its quack science preying on the desperate hopes of the dying? I dont know, who does? The senator doesn't seem to think it needs to be understood.
The Cuban policy seems to be one of those campaign driven ones that, once in power, are ground to a halt by the facts. That he should do this makes me question his leadership.
DM
P.S. I do like the senator's stand on the bringing back the constitution. That is a pressing issue.
Ok, it's not logically possible to offer "evidence" for something that hasn't happened yet, much less for judging it a success.
One of the things we need to keep in mind about health care is that in this country the significant increases in longevity (a result of a reduction in infant and maternal death in addition to people actually living longer) was largely a consequence of public health initiatives and improved sanitation practices (including people washing their hands). High tech medicine has been much less successful in improving people's health, although is has increased the longevity of marginally functioning people and brought significant financial and psychic rewards to the practitioners.
Since I happen to think that technology that extends human life is eminently preferable to that which seeks to end it prematurely, I do not begrudge the health industry its revenues. However, it should actually be possible to do a lot more with the current investment. If 80% of hospital admissions are re-admission because something went wrong the first time and if the significant increase in asthma is the result of environmental pollution, then we are not addressing health care in a comprehensive manner. Perhaps Cuba is doing better.
Both the U.S. and the Cuban economy seem to be bankrupt.