FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Politics of the Cuba Embargo

by Tom Crumpacker

An August 17 article by Mark Helm of Hearst Washington Bureau about our House Speaker Dick Armey’s upcoming retirement casts some light on the way our Congress and Administration have been dealing with Cuba issues in recent years. By way of background recall:

(1) under House rules the House leadership–the Speaker and majority whip (Tom Delay, also from Texas)–determine when, where and how bills are voted on;

(2) bills have been introduced every year and have been pending for many years to repeal the Cuba embargo and Helms-Burton blockade–and have had very substantial, increasing support–but votes on the merits with full debate with one partial exception have never been allowed;

(3) the only other Cuba bills voted on have been on amendments to Administration budget requests for money to enforce the embargo and travel restrictions, which have to be voted on each year, and by substantial, increasing margins the travel enforcement money has been turned down in the Hou! se the last three summers and once in the Senate (where it comes up again soon, maybe next month);

(4) in November, 2000 a vote was finally forced on a bill which would allow medicine and nutritional food to be sold to Cuba, which passed in both chambers by large margins only to be gutted in conference by the addition of two provisions tacked on by Miami Congressman Diaz-Balart, apparently appointed to the conference committee by Armey and Delay, which prohibited normal use of credit in sales to Cuba and “codified” the unconstitutional travel restrictions (completely unrelated to the bill which had been voted on), which was then signed into law by Clinton in that form;

(5) regarding this maneuver Rep. Mark Sanford (R, SC) said his leadership had “behaved shamefully” and Sen. Max Baucus called the matter a “travesty of our democracy”;

(6) this summer the House also voted for amendments to the budget requests to end the credit restrictions and the limits on amounts which could! be given to Cuban family members and against amending the budget by ending the embargo, 200– 225.

This latter vote may not be an accurate measure of the full anti-embargo sentiment in the House because some members might have felt it was procedurally improper to do away with all the embargo laws on a budget request amendment, including the lengthy Toricelli (1992) and Helms-Burton (1996) provisions, without amending or repealing or addressing these laws directly.

In other words this vote appears to have been just another “show trial” by Congress to help present members keep their seats or a preliminary testing of the waters never intended to be legal. The Cuban people don’t have lobbyists or numerous people or powerful organizations working for them in the US Congress. Our Constitution provides that foreign affairs are supposed to be in the domain of the executive branch representing the nation as a whole. The August 17 Helm article, titled “Armey’s independence shows as time runs out,” quotes Armey as follows:

“He predicted the 42 year old Cuba trade embargo won’t last long because it’s losing support in Congress. Armey said his own past support for the embargo was based on his loyalty to two (Miami) Cuban-American House members, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Armey also said that House members whose districts could benefit from trade and travel to Cuba should vote against the embargo.”

In other words we are to believe that Armey’s personal loyalty to two House members out of 425–rather than his own policy considerations or his loyalty to the Administration–has brought about two additional unnecessary years of virtual prohibition of food and medicine and continued travel restriction. The question I have of Mr. Armey is this: how many innocent Cubans have become sick or died in the last two years because of your loyalty to your two Miami friends?

A binding vote with full debate on the merits of the embargo or the travel restrictions has still not happened and apparently is not in the cards this year again because of Armey and the well named Delay. Therefore Congresspersons cannot meaningfully vote against the embargo as Armey now suggests. The “demand” of the two Miami congresspersons is the same weak excuse Armey and then Senate majority leader Trent Lott gave for their maneuvering two years ago. Despite what Armey says, it’s obvious from what our President has said about Cuba issues and the way things work in Washington that Armey and Delay have been acting under the direction of the White House. It’s also clear that if Armey were running again, he wouldn’t be trying to take the hit for the Administration. Delay has been uncharacteristically quiet on Cuba issues this summer. He appears to be the choice for our next Speaker if the Republicans keep control of the House in November. If this happens it’s doubtful t! hat the Cuba embargo will be voted on until 2005 if ever.

This is another example of how the people who run this country are using Florida’s Cuban-Americans to take the political heat off themselves for their absurd, genocidal Cuba policy. The Florida Cuban-American community actually is relatively small, less than 9% of the state’s population, and according to the most recent polls I’ve seen, done by Florida International University about a year ago, Miami Cuban-Americans are about evenly divided on lifting the embargo and strongly in favor of lifting the travel restrictions.

Many years ago the two Miami districts in question were gerrymandered, so the two incumbents get to run uncontested there. They are part of the 85% of Congressional seats in this so-called democracy of ours which are uncontested or not seriously contested.

Tom Crumpacker is with the Miami Coalition to End the US Embargo of Cuba. He can be reached at: Crump8@aol.com New Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively to Subscribers:

War Talk As White Noise: Anything to Get Harken and Halliburton Out of the Headlines; First Hilliard, Then McKinney: Jewish Groups Target Blacks Brave Enough to Talk About Justice in the Middle East; Intimidation is the Name of the Game; Smearing “Insane” McKinney As Muslims’ Pawn; The Missing Terrorist? Calling Scotland Yard: “Where’s Atif?” They Never Booed Dylan!: Tape Transcript Shows Famed Newport Folkfest Dissing of Electric Dylan Not True. The Catcalls were for Peter Yarrow! New Shame from the Liffey Shrike

Remember, the CounterPunch website is supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840-3683

home / subscribe / about us / books / archives / search / links /

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

April 26, 2017
Richard Moser
Empire Abroad, Empire At Home
Stan Cox
For Climate Justice, It’s the 33 Percent Who’ll Have to Pick Up the Tab
Paul Craig Roberts
The Looting Machine Called Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
The Dilemma for Intelligence Agencies
Christy Rodgers
Remaining Animal
Joseph Natoli
Facts, Opinions, Tweets, Words
Mel Gurtov
No Exit? The NY Times and North Korea
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Women on the Move: Can Three Women and a Truck Quell the Tide of Sexual Violence and Domestic Abuse?
Michael J. Sainato
Trump’s Wikileaks Flip-Flop
Manuel E. Yepe
North Korea’s Antidote to the US
Kim C. Domenico
‘Courting Failure:’ the Key to Resistance is Ending Animacide
Barbara Nimri Aziz
The Legacy of Lynne Stewart, the People’s Lawyer
Andrew Stewart
The People vs. Bernie Sanders
Daniel Warner
“Vive La France, Vive La République” vs. “God Bless America”
April 25, 2017
Russell Mokhiber
It’s Impossible to Support Single-Payer and Defend Obamacare
Nozomi Hayase
Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech
Robert Fisk
The Madder Trump Gets, the More Seriously the World Takes Him
Giles Longley-Cook
Trump the Gardener
Bill Quigley
Major Challenges of New Orleans Charter Schools Exposed at NAACP Hearing
Jack Random
Little Fingers and Big Egos
Stanley L. Cohen
Dissent on the Lower East Side: the Post-Political Condition
Stephen Cooper
Conscientious Justice-Loving Alabamians, Speak Up!
Michael J. Sainato
Did the NRA Play a Role in the Forcing the Resignation of Surgeon General?
David Swanson
The F-35 and the Incinerating Ski Slope
Binoy Kampmark
Mike Pence in Oz
Peter Paul Catterall
Green Nationalism? How the Far Right Could Learn to Love the Environment
George Wuerthner
Range Riders: Making Tom Sawyer Proud
Clancy Sigal
It’s the Pits: the Miner’s Blues
Robert K. Tan
Abe is Taking Japan Back to the Bad Old Fascism
April 24, 2017
Mike Whitney
Is Mad Dog Planning to Invade East Syria?    
John Steppling
Puritan Jackals
Robert Hunziker
America’s Tale of Two Cities, Redux
David Jaffe
The Republican Party and the ‘Lunatic Right’
John Davis
No Tomorrow or Fashion-Forward
Patrick Cockburn
Treating Mental Health Patients as Criminals
Jack Dresser
An Accelerating Palestine Rights Movement Faces Uncertain Direction
George Wuerthner
Diet for a Warming Planet
Lawrence Wittner
Why Is There So Little Popular Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?
Colin Todhunter
From Earth Day to the Monsanto Tribunal, Capitalism on Trial
Paul Bentley
Teacher’s Out in Front
Franklin Lamb
A Post-Christian Middle East With or Without ISIS?
Kevin Martin
We Just Paid our Taxes — are They Making the U.S. and the World Safer?
Erik Mears
Education Reformers Lowered Teachers’ Salaries, While Promising to Raise Them
Binoy Kampmark
Fleeing the Ratpac: James Packer, Gambling and Hollywood
Weekend Edition
April 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Diana Johnstone
The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail