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 /

Weekend Edition
April 29-31, 2016
Andrew Levine
What is the Democratic Party Good For? Absolutely Nothing
Roberto J. González – David Price
Anthropologists Marshalling History: the American Anthropological Association’s Vote on the Academic Boycott of Israeli Institutions
Robert Jacobs
Hanford, Not Fukushima, is the Big Radiological Threat to the West Coast
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
US Presidential Election: Beyond Lesser Evilism
Dave Lindorff
The Push to Make Sanders the Green Party’s Candidate
Ian Fairlie
Chernobyl’s Ongoing Toll: 40,000 More Cancer Deaths?
Pete Dolack
Verizon Sticks it to its Workers Because $45 Billion isn’t Enough
Richard Falk
If Obama Visits Hiroshima
Margaret Kimberley
Dishonoring Harriet Tubman
Deepak Tripathi
The United States, Britain and the European Union
Eva Golinger
My Country, My Love: a Conversation with Gerardo and Adriana of the Cuban Five
Peter Linebaugh
Marymount, Haymarket, Marikana: a Brief Note Towards ‘Completing’ May Day
Moshe Adler
May Day: a Trade Agreement to Unite Third World and American Workers
Vijay Prashad
Political Violence in Honduras
Paul Krane
Where Gun Control Ought to Start: Disarming the Police
David Anderson
Al Jazeera America: Goodbye to All That Jazz
Rob Hager
Platform Perversity: More From the Campaign That Can’t Strategize
Pat Williams
FDR in Montana
Dave Marsh
Every Day I Read the Book (the Best Music Books of the Last Year)
David Rosen
Job Satisfaction Under Perpetual Stagnation
John Feffer
Big Oil isn’t Going Down Without a Fight
Murray Dobbin
The Canadian / Saudi Arms Deal: More Than Meets the Eye?
Gary Engler
The Devil Capitalism
Brian Cloughley
Is Washington Preparing for War Against Russia?
Manuel E. Yepe
The Big Lies and the Small Lies
Robert Fantina
Vice Presidents, Candidates and History
Mel Gurtov
Sanctions and Defiance in North Korea
Howard Lisnoff
Still the Litmus Test of Worth
Dean Baker
Big Business and the Overtime Rule: Irrational Complaints
Ulrich Heyden
Crimea as a Paradise for High-Class Tourism?
Ramzy Baroud
Did the Arabs Betray Palestine? – A Schism between the Ruling Classes and the Wider Society
Halyna Mokrushyna
The War on Ukrainian Scientists
Joseph Natoli
Who’s the Better Neoliberal?
Ron Jacobs
The Battle at Big Brown: Joe Allen’s The Package King
Wahid Azal
Class Struggle and Westoxication in Pahlavi Iran: a Review of the Iranian Series ‘Shahrzad’
David Crisp
After All These Years, Newspapers Still Needed
Graham Peebles
Hungry and Frightened: Famine in Ethiopia 2016
Robert Koehler
Opening the Closed Political Culture
Missy Comley Beattie
Waves of Nostalgia
Thomas Knapp
The Problem with Donald Trump’s Version of “America First”
Georgina Downs
Hillsborough and Beyond: Establishment Cover Ups, Lies & Corruption
Jeffrey St. Clair
Groove on the Tracks: the Magic Left Hand of Red Garland
Ben Debney
Kush Zombies: QELD’s Hat Tip to Old School Hip Hop
Charles R. Larson
Moby Dick on Steroids?
David Yearsley
Miles Davis: Ace of Baseness
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail