Executive Decision - Cuba Responses

President Michael J. Skarpelos, Independent, Option B

I'm a big fan of Fidel Castro. Sure, he's a dictator, but at least he's a paternal dictator who tries to help his people rather than exploit them. And you've got to love the beard and the cigars (although I heard his doctors have forced him to cut back on the latter). He's as much an American icon as Babe Ruth or John Wayne. If I were president, I'd do more than lift the embargo and normalize relations with Cuba. I'd invite Castro to the White House and smoke Cuban cigars with him for old times' sake. We'd play some catch on the South Lawn and then head over to Camden Yards to see an Orioles game that evening. Viva Fidel!

President Richard Schmitz, Other, Option B

Personally, I like Cuba and Castro. Frankly, I don't care if he seized lands belonging to U.S. citizens. They probably didn't deserve the land, just like the Injuns didn't deserve theirs. If I didn't know better, I'd think Fidel was any Ivy Leaguer. At the very least he can pass for a West Point man.

President Ramon Boza, Democrat, Option A

Possibly an A with qualifications. All along we have tried the "second tier" in which contacts are made at the middle management level with technocrats, professionals, economists, and intellectuals. Let's assume we open the financial faucet to Mr. Castro. Having no cash it probably entails an enormous credit. Should it be generously paid by the American taxpayer? Castro has ruined his nation by his very inefficient management and involvement in mischieveous military adventures. Does he have an economic plan? In the past he has had bizarre contraptions such as drying the Zapata swamps to grow rice, or making hybrids of Holstein and Cebu cattle that would generate tons of meat and dairy at the same time. The most crucial obstacle for change and opening is Mr. Castro himself. Our premise of him as a doctrinaire Communist or a representative of the poor is pure mythology. He has the ability to anticipate situations and to create his own public scenario. But he has not shown the flexibility that Lenin had in a similar situation when he opened his NEP allowing farmers and small industries to open up. After he seemed to adhere to this policy, suddenly the micro-entrepeneurs were placed under scrutiny with frequent confiscations of their products, earnings and sometimes jail. He certainly has not followed Mr. Deng's four modernizations.

President Kenya Hudson, Independent, Option B

How have we dealt with most other totalitarian nations? We have traded with them in the belief that democratic, open societies trump closed ones. In addition, maintaining the hardline against Cuba while we wink at North Korea, do major business with China and ignore the trends towards authoritarianism in many other nations is hypocritical.

President Jon Jacobson, Republican, Option B

Every discussion of Cuba seems to be dominated by a small contingent (relative to the population of the U.S.) of Cuban-Americans. This is, of course, perfectly understandable as they are the ones with most vested personally in the future of Cuba. Still, our foreign policy consequently seems to be guided more often than not by emotion than anything else. As the options are presented here, I am confused by the use of the term "Realpolitik." It would seem to me that Option B might be cast as just as much Realpolitik as Option A--that is, to permit our ideological commitment to a free Cuba to fall by the wayside as we adopt to the colder political and economic realities that make it more in our interest to pursue closer relations with Cuba. My own view is that the U.S. is intrinsically a moral nation--truth, justice, the American way, and all that. We always seem to get into trouble when we try to compete in things Realpolitik. At the very least, we seem to end up dissatisified with ourselves after we try to play the game. On the other hand, our moral/ideological inclinations often lead us to make unrealistic demands on the rest of the world. In this light, I think our foreign policy should be guided by our moral sense but tempered by an appreciation of Realpolitik. I would recommend that we jettison the Helms-Burton Act. I'm not sure I would go so far as to lift the embargo, however, as it is undeniable that Cuba does behave in ways of which we disapprove. But if we were to lift the embargo, I would strongly recommend that we deal with Cuba just as we do with China--through strategic tariffs, trade restrictions, the possiblity of MFN status, etc. Often we are alone in how we choose to treat China, with few other countries ready to support our policies. But we sleep better at night believing that we are doing the right thing. This might not be the most efficient policy to pursue politically, economically, or ideologically. But it seems to me to be the one most suited to American sensibilities.

President Thomas E. Tucker, Republican, Option B

Cuba is Cuba. Let her be what she is and in time, just like the USSR of old, her own people will take her the way that they will. Castro too will pass; he, as all men, must. In the meantime we need only to watch for signs of the Cuban people's will and support them as we can without being "The Big Brother" with our nose in her affairs.

President William L., Republican, Option B

Allowing normalized relations with Cuba will undeniably have more of an impact on their current form of government. American culture, business, politics and, most important, democracy would drown out any Castro-sponsored program. It is a historical fact that American beliefs and culture are more than able to influence native peoples and their governments. This is evident in the former East Germany, USSR, post WWII Japan, the Philippines, Post WWII Europe, Mexico, the Caribbean, and even to a lesser extent in modern day China.

President E. Bondar, Independent, Option B

We came to terms with China. The Cold War with the Soviets has crashed. Vietnam has capitulated in spite of driving us out. Our international successes have overwhelmed us in spite of all our efforts of applying the stick. Something there is that does not like a wall. It is true the military seems to have been essential when power mad anarchy has engulfed a country. Ending atrocities and establishing a semblance of the rule of law with a system of arbitration seems to be what it takes to bring a country into the world community.

President Debra Carey, Democrat, Option B

My decision was a very easy one. What is the difference between Cuba under Castro and Cuba pre-Castro? Under Castro Cuba has a higher literacy rate than the U.S. Medical care has improved greatly. The children of campesinos go to college, something that never would have happened during the Batista era. What has America lost but an exotic watering hole and a little face? No other nation in the world chooses to carry on this ridiculous vendetta. Enough is enough. Let up on Cuba.

President Harry Mee, Democrat, Option B

Despite those comments about beards--I'm quite comfortable with mine. My decision was quite easy, logical, as critical decision-making usually is. In the interests of policy consistency, how can we take one position with China and North Korea and another with Cuba? Get real! The only reason for our past policy against Castro was the expatriate Cuban colony in Florida, which provided us with a great pool of CIA operatives. Well, the Cuban-Americans aren't going to vote for me anyhow, and I don't need any more CIA assets, so let's invite Cuba into the greater American family. Castro isn't going to be around too much longer (isn't he about Dole's age?), so let's allow the market economy to work its magic in Cuba. --Ol' Hirsute Harry

President Tom Crowley, Democrat, Option B

We're crazy to have messed around so long with something that will take care of itself. It's driven completely by a small group of fanatics in Miami, and it's time it stopped.

President Greg Rodgers, Republican, Option A

Although the U.S. tolerates abuse of government in China for trade there, the U.S. has much more to gain with China trading-wise--since it's a bigger market it makes sense. Also, the sheer size of China makes them much more able to survive economically if they were isolated as Cuba is. The U.S.-China policy is such that to bring about Democratic reforms our best hope is to give them a taste of the prosperity capitalism can bring and incrementally change their government. Cuba on the other hand is on the verge of economic collapse and Castro is getting older and cannot live forever. [I may even rescind Ford's Executive Order prohibiting assassinations.] When he dies, Cuba as we know it dies and then the U.S. can step in with normal relations to bring about democratic and capitalist reforms, but not before, UNLESS Castro makes genuine reforms and changes on his own, but don't hold your breath. Also it is worth noting that the domestic political ramifications would be brutal if we were to try to normalize Cuban relations. American politics are obsessed with Cuba and it is a real source of political influence that must be recognized.

President Erika F. Merschrod S., Independent, Option B

It's all well and good for reasonable people to make reasonable decisions (option B, of course!), but does that really mean change? I have less and less faith in the role of voters in deciding US policy as I see more and more harm done in Cuba against the Cuban people because of US government's extraterritorial designs.

President Robert Laposta, Republican, Option B

Why is Clinton practicing this carry-over diplomacy with Cuba? Is it really getting him anywhere? It hasn't seemed to get any of the past five presidents anywhere. The Helms-Burton act, so rashly passed by Congress and signed into law, will prove to be more problem than it was worth far sooner than anyone (in the congressional and executive branches) ever thought.

President Cheryl Smith, Republican, Option A

Quite frankly, I think the U.S. should just bomb Cuba. That's right, and after we bomb it really good . . . then we go in and take it over. The Cubans in Miami and elsewhere will eventually forgive and forget, and we could turn it into a class act vacation hot-spot again. Totally revise Cuba from the dumpy poor state it is in now, give Cuba a whole new make-over. But that's the problem, America never does anything really exciting,"she" just talks about "taking drastic measures" until the next cigar chomping Castro makes a fool out of her.

President Luis Burguillo, Option B

Understanding presidential politics as they are, I believe that the decision to sign Helms-Burton was dictated more by the actions of Miami-Cubans and the Republicans than the President. It's incomprehensible that in an era of unified global economies and common markets, we as a nation are still running around on horses like Teddy Roosevelt beating people into submission with a "stick". It's unbelievable that a nation of eight million poses such a threat to the vastness which is the U.S. We need to recognize the changing world and the corresponding new world foreign policy options. We need to change our policy toward Cuba. A policy of "engagement" will advance democracy and ensure that through the exchange of ideas, technology and basic human needs--both medical and otherwise--will go farther in securing Cuba as an ally in the future. Understanding presidential politics for what they are, leadership based on morality and human pragmatism is not a priority. However, if after the election of the President, a policy change does occur toward removing the embargo, then a compromise between presidential politics and pragmatism is in order. Although this has taken much too long to complete and numerous opportunities were squandered, the chumps have been us for not rising to the occasion.

President Norman Dyer, Option B

My vote is probably invalid as I'm not an American--but, what the heck, I'm voting anyway. How can the US deal with China and the rest and embargo Cuba? Maybe Clinton & Dole should grow beards. They already smoke cigars.

President Doug, Republican, Option B

It's not right for a small minority of the electorate (Cuban-Americans) to dictate foreign policy.

President D. M. Giambattista, Independent, Option B

Let's be serious, this is a non-issue. It shows the paucity of thought in US politics. Lets abandon an idiotic policy of containment and let external forces (investment, trade, education, travel and communication) have at it. Results can't be worse than the current stupid policy. Furthermore, the US trades with all sort of countries with far worse policies than Cuba. Want a list? Look at China, much of the Middle East, some of Africa. So let's end the 'isolation' nonsense.

President Diogenes, Other, Option B

It is time to end this farce that is making the U.S. look ridiculous to non-Americans who care about the country that produced the authors of the Federalist papers.

President Larry Callaway, Independent, Option B

I believe current policy is clearly counterproductive. I believe we can use our leverage to exact change in Cuba (which, in time will probably take place on its own anyway) and derive the benefits of trade with our neighbor. By ending the embargo, we would remove one of Fidel's greatest weapons for garnering support for his policies: blaming the U.S. for all the country's woes, rather than his own failed policies. The major political damage to an administration will come from the Cuban community in this country (one, by the way, which I respect highly and among which I have many friends, having lived in Cuba for many years) and from the political demagogues who get political mileage from their rantings which create misguided legislation such as the Helms-Burton Act. By the way, this course of action will also remove a real thorn in our side with our traditional allies and trading partners who are contstantly amazed at our policy regarding Cuba.

President Donald Gravenor, Other, Option B

We should definitely soften up on Cuba.

President Jim Cravens, Democrat, Option B

Cuba is an outstanding example of inertia in foreign policy. If we can deal with China, we can deal with Cuba. It is the very insignificance of Cuba that keeps some administrations from resolving the issue. How come the public and the press only see the warriors as having balls? A really gutsy leader would resolve such festering wounds and move ahead. Fat chance of that in an election year.

President Andreas Fluetsch, Other, Option B

As an outsider to American politics I am sorry to say this but reducing the issue to two alternatives stinks. In international politics there are no easy answers like A or B. So my conclusion is that this issue has more to do with the ongoing election than with international politics (reduce the issue to the simplest form of multiple choice, which is A or B?) Doesn't it? I tend to support B because a boycott, initiated by a superpower like the U.S., is in the case of Cuba not very credible, given the history the U.S. has had with central and south American dictators, to put it mildly. So, lift the ban and start tough negotiations with Castro; the Cuban population is just waiting for that to happen.

President Stefano Monti, Unregistered, Option B

My choice is of course for option B, but on grounds that are quite different from the ones illustrated in the memorandum. Plain and simple, we (U.S.A. and Europe), given our past and present history, are in no position to teach any moral lessons to anyone. We hide ourselves behind Manichaean and rather restrictive definitions of freedom, dishonestly equating free-market policies with democracy. Latin America, among others, is full of "economic miracles", where the purported "invisible hand" of the free market has brought happiness for the very few, and sorrow and despair for the majority. And not only do we not enforce embargos on many of those rogue states, but we hold them as examples to be emulated. Since Noam Chomsky was mockingly mentioned, I'd like to call your attention to one of the always enlightening comparisons that Chomsky so effectively uses to expose the overt bias and double-standard we are so accustomed to. He reported two interesting leaks from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS. One was from a "Haitian desk officer who had been working in the Port-au-Prince embassy. He described how they were not even making the most perfunctory efforts to check the credentials of people who were applying for political asylum because they don't want them. At about the same time there was a leak of a document from Cuba, from the U.S. interests section in Havana, which checks asylum, complaining about the fact that they can't find genuine political asylum cases. The people who are claiming asylum can't really claim serious persecutions by international or even U.S. standards. At most they claim various kinds of harassment that wouldn't qualify them. They're worried about this." (Noam Chomsky, "Keeping the rabble in line").

President Paul Golden, Democrat, Option B

Our current policy of attempting to isolate Cuba has only one benefit: it attracts domestic votes. Throughout the rest of the world it increases resistance to American leadership and detracts from initiatives which are far more essential to our national interest. As President, I would end this senseless policy and willingly accept the consequences at the polls.

President Dave Bogart, Unregistered, Option B

Friends of the USA like me (a Canadian) can't understand why the USA sees such a threat from a small, weak nation like Cuba. It's time to remember the nobility of the Marshall plan and apply the same enlightened self-interest to Cuba. Open up the trade routes and watch enlightened self-interest help the Cubans to make the decisions about the government they want and need. If China can get that treatment from the USA, surely Cuba can.

President Len Edgerly, Democrat, Option B

The sad fact is that Dole could choose the soft road, like Nixon did with China. Clinton is more hemmed in by where he comes from on the political spectrum. But in a second term he will have a chance to do the right thing.

President Jeff Henningsgaard, Independent, Option B

Not a hard decision. It's not okay to do something stupid just because you're in the habit of doing it.

President Kevin Wilson, Independent, Option B

The United States has a responsibility to its own security. A boycott does nothing to improve our security. Boycotts are historically ineffective measures even when most of the world agrees. Iraq remains a viable political entity. The only real point in boycotting a country is symbolic. This office does not have the time for symbolism, it is concerned with reality. In reality Cuba is desperate. Castro knows that socialism is a failure. Cuba's small population has allowed socialism an extended stay in our world. That will change. Either Castro will make sweeping changes to save his tiny empire, or he will be ousted. As long as America stays out of the way our national security will remain uncompromised. Cuba cannot afford our true ire. Our best policy is to leave the nation's fate to its people. When they feel that they can take no more of socialism's foolish falacies they will bring the changes seen in Russia.

President Lawrence Renbaum, Democrat, Option B

We cannot continue to conduct foreign policy as if it is still 1962. It is time to take a stand for the people of Cuba, to normalize relations, and force the Castro government to join the Western world, with a carrot, not a stick.

President Jim Stiles, Republican, Option B

While my favorite candidate, Bob Dole, would probably have disagreed with me, I chose the soft road because of the relative strategic unimportance of Cuba after the fall of the USSR and the end of USSR handouts.

President David S. Black, Democrat, Option B

Our foreign policy is theoretically determined by the genuine security, economic, and international political interests of the the United States. Our continued punishment of this tiny and helpless nation and its suffering people does nothing to advance or protect those interests. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, only partisan electoral politics steers our course vis-a-vis Cuba.

President F. Gary Knapp, Democrat, Option B

We should force Cuba to normalize relations with DISNEY. They could take over the country and turn it into a 1950's theme park complete with period buildings, cars and clothes. And more lucrative. Think of all the unskilled jobs they would create. And the labor pool is used to working hard for low wages--they would have to learn to smile and learn English. Of course Disney is no democracy, but really it would be a more fun kind of dictatorship. Oh yeah, and all those beards would have to go.

President D. Rust, Independent, Option B

Fun to read! Thanks.

President Evelyn Clark, Independent, Option B

The "real" issues about Cuba are related to recognizing national sovereignty even when we don't agree with a country's leader. In addition, our policies on Cuba are molded by Cuban exiles who have been throwing money at our politicians at a time when it costs ever more money to get elected or reelected. Campaign reform might help stop the insane US foreign policy toward Cuba and other "enemies."

President Mark Smircina, Democrat, Option B

If there was the slightest scintilla of evidence that option A would bring Castro down, I might vote for it. If, however, nearly 40 years of attempted isolation hasn't done the trick, maybe its time to try a different path.

President Stephen M. Ryan, Republican, Option B

I think the true realpolitik approach is Option B. It recognizes that the embargo is a failed policy and the best way to collapse a Communist regime is to give its people a taste of the more comfortable life that can be had in an open, capitalist society. I feel sympathy for those whose property was taken by Castro, but it has been over thirty years--time to move on. More can be gained by normal relations than a continuation of an ineffective policy.

President Clem Wang, Other, Option B

Without the help of the former USSR, Cuba is a toothless shadow of its former self. By exporting capitalism into Cuba, the transformation will be complete. Furthermore, I will not tolerate the hypocricy of embargoing Cuba and not other countries whose regimes are worse. Nor will I bend towards one-issue pressure groups.

President Tami L. Duggan, Independent, Option B

Let's kill Castro with Levi's and Coca-Cola. Everytime we try to whack Castro with a big stick, it just bounces off his head and smacks us. Initiate a limited diplomatic relationship and encourage enonomic development - Castro won't live forever.

President Eleazar Gonzalez, Independent, Option A

Fidel Castro always will be a danger to the security of the U.S.; also he always will work for the destabilization of the Latin-American governments. We can't say to the world that we are the leaders of freedom and democracy when we are permitting a tyranic goverment 90 miles off our shores. Also we know the goverment of Cuba has tight relations with the Drug Cartels and helps them to import drugs into the U.S. (as a tactic to destroy the U.S.). There are thousands more reasons to destroy Castro in the interest of the U.S. without mentioning the moral and ethical ones. Have the people of Cuba the right to be free? Have the people of Cuba the right to live? If the answer is "YES," that answer is incompatible with the existence of Fidel Castro

President Karl Kaeten, Independent, Option A

From a business perspective, I'd wait for Cuba to take the initiative in turning its economy to some semblance of free market practice before endorsing Option B. Taking a somewhat cynical perspective, the reemergence of Cuba means the demise of the south Florida economy. Keep Option A! Castro gets his deal and we get ours.

President Don Flowers, Jr., Democrat, Option B

Our current policy towards Cuba is isolated, not only from the rest of the world, but from the rest of our foreign policy. We have helped maintain the Castro regime by prohibiting the free flow of ideas and goods into that country. If the downfall of the Castro regime is the ultimate goal of American foreign policy, perhaps we should promise a Major League Baseball team to Cuba in return for Castro's demise. My guess is it would be instantaneous (unless we promised to send them the Tigers!)

President Charlee Lambert, Democrat, Option B

Ignoring anything does not make it go away. I grew up in Florida and Cuba was a much closer neighbor than most of the U.S. I went to college with them and they are just like all of the rest of us. When we recognized China it did not destroy us. Nor will Cuba. Castro will die eventually and things will change whether he plans for them to or not. Let's get in step with the rest of the world and realize we are not in this alone.

President Jens Pettersson, Democrat, Option B

Legalize American investments in Cuba, and Cuban cigars in America. How do you think American telephone calls end up in Cuba without some payment flowing in the same direction? How do you think selected spectators watching baseball in Atlanta got hold of their "puros"? After some punitive action against a few big American telephone operators, and the incarceration of a few highly visible American quality smokers it should be easier to explain a policy U-turn to the electorate.

President Pedro J. Diaz, Independent, Option B

I'd favor an "in-between" road, beginning with cancellation of Helms-Burton and followed by gradual lifting of trade restrictions in return for progress by the Cuban government in carrying out democratic reforms (hopefully this can happen with the cooperation and support of our post-H-B "appeased" trading partners ).

President M.N., Democrat, Option A

Although letting by-gones be by-gones may seem a noble thing to do, there is more at stake than simply reestablishing "profitable" relations with "this" dictator and "his" country. Sure, I'd like us to expand our country's economy into Cuba, but for starters, not without repayment of the millions (billions?) of dollars worth of American property and assests that were "liberated" (stolen) during the Castro Revolution--property now being used by our "allies" in competition against American companies. I say "stick" with the boycott--I vote with Teddy and his BIG stick. After all, Cuba ain't got a BILLION people (potential customers) like China got. And if we're gone "cowdown," I say there had better be a silver, no, a golden lining in return for it.

Click here to return to the Executive Decision index page.