Fidel is Out

“Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba’s history. Fidel Castro’s stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba.”- Obama

Most people alive today don’t remember a time when Fidel Castro didn’t rule over the island of Cuba with his iron fist. We must wonder what’s next, but for the moment we can hope – this seems to be the theme of world politics in 2008 – for a better future for all Cubans.

“Cuba’s future should be determined by the Cuban people and not by an anti-democratic successor regime.” – Obama

No mas Castro! Well.. not quite yet. Fidel’s 76 year old brother Raul Castro has been running the country for the last 19 months, and is likely to be elected the next President of Cuba by the General Assembly on Sunday. Raul has shown interest in subtle economic reforms, and is open to talks with the US – just not while G.W. Bush is in office.

“If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades.” – Obama

The next American president will have the best opportunity to normalize relations with Cuba in over 50 years. Whoever that person maybe will have to lift the embargo completely. This will allow the free exchange of goods, people and ideas. The Department of State should issue orders to begin construction on a new embassy in Havana, whose staff’s first charge will be to transition from our disastrous and illogical embargo to an open and free relationship. Should certain segments of the Cuban government feel this threatens their leadership and the credibility of the ongoing revolution, the United States will need to take a more measured approach to normalization. This means opening trade and investment ties but keeping political progress flexible and reactive to internal developments in Cuba.

“The freedom of the Cuban people is a cause that should bring Americans together.” – Obama

Most importantly, the next president will need to bring Americans together in order to do what’s best for the Cuban people. This means negotiating, but not caving to the interests of right-wing Cubans in South Florida, as well as the American oil and gas business.

The End of Cowboy Diplomacy (maybe)

It should come as a great relief to Americans that the two remaining Democratic candidates for president have converging understandings of foreign policy. They both agree that the last seven years have been incredibly harmful to our prestige and great-power status. They agree that repairing the grave damage caused by the hands of George W. Bush and his inner circle of stubborn hawks will require an ideological u-turn and a return to reason. Together, they represent a full repudiation of neoconservatism. The Democratic convention in August would do well to sound a symbolic bell to mark the end of the era of Rumsfeld.

Other similarities abound, and stand in marked contrast to the rhetoric of John McCain. For one, they have both articulated the need to confront international terrorism forcefully – not just the Muslim variety but all different sorts. The war on terror lacks both direction and focus such that the next president will have a mandate to review and refine its central purpose: to prevent terrorism. This is not a simple effort: it requires a multi-tiered push that ties together diplomatic, economic, political, intelligence and military missions into a unified project led by a president of both competence and vision. One without the other will not do.

These efforts must draw from the best practices of past administrations. Diplomatic channels must be open, flexible and responsive to immediate political exigencies in service of a greater goal, and our national interests must be defined broadly and in a manner that restores faith in the Pax Americana. Our economic security must be addressed in terms of our dependence on oil from the Middle East, and unlike the past five or six presidents, the next one will need to face the problem squarely, and begin the process to fix it. And our military forces will need to be shored up, redeployed and modernized to deal with asymmetrical threats from non-state or para-state entities. Its ability to operate effectively in the twenty-first century depends in large measure on political negotiations that relieve pressures in non-critical regions, such as central Europe and parts of the Far East, which in turn allows our forces to focus on emerging threats.

Both Democrats have done well to recapture the high ground in foreign policy debates, stemming in part from their unwillingness to cede the strong rhetoric. They have repelled the right’s disingenuous but effective criticisms that Democrats are weak on national security. The public now seems willing to accept that Democrats are not anti-war per se but simply reluctant to use force as a primary tool of our foreign policy. This is good, because it means the muddy era of peace-at-all-costs is finally over.

The differences between Clinton and Obama on foreign policy are subjective and difficulty to prove. Obama’s supporters claim he is best-prepared to restore America’s standing in the world, in part because his multi-cultural background somehow appeals to people of other nationalities and colors. Clinton’s supporters, on the other hand, believe she has the experience and will to effect change, and that it will take more than a pretty face and high-flying rhetoric to get things done.

Obama’s argument is as blurry as Clinton’s is implausible – and both are inane. When did formal foreign policy experience, such as negotiating treaties or fighting wars, become a litmus test for great presidents? Ronald Reagan had none, and Republicans credit him with ending the “evil empire.” Neither did Bill Clinton, aside from a brief stint working for a senator on the foreign relations committee. The point is not that both candidates are making bad arguments: it’s that their arguments don’t matter right now.

They will matter against John McCain, whose idea of a foreign policy is to repeat the word “victory” until voters decide he can actually accomplish it in Iraq. Rest assured: John McCain is unfit to lead this country when he says he will commit our troops for 100 years. He may feel comfortable thumbing his nose at conservatives on a few key issues, but his views on the war are untenable. Better Clinton’s brass knuckles or Obama’s velvet diplomacy than McCain’s strategy of victory by denial.