No, it wasn’t exactly a stop-the-presses moment. More like another day at the United Nations’ office.
Once again–for the 21st year in a row–it was time for the world to officially, and ineffectually, weigh in on the globally-maligned Cuban embargo. Once again the vote last week was one-sided in condemning this 50-year-old, Cold War relic. The actual count: 188-3-2.
Joining the U.S. in defending the indefensible were Israel and Palau. The abstentions: the Marshall Islands and Micronesia who, as with Palau, are in a compact of free association with the U.S., which provides for their defense. This is the quid pro quo.
Frankly, UN Ambassador Susan Rice deserves more criticism for fronting for this position than for making the post-Benghazi, Sunday morning TV rounds with CIA talking points. But the real embargo outrage, of course, should be aimed at the Obama Administration.
It was pragmatically understandable, albeit disappointing, for the candidate/president-elect/first-term president to take an incremental approach to the embargo. The familiar, Bush-era “Let’s see some serious signs of democratization first” approach. Obama had enough enemies, he reasoned, and didn’t need to gratuitously toss the crazies in South Florida a freebie.
But surely the tipping point approaches. The issue is generational and the ranks of the well-organized, well-financed, influential hard-liners are thinning. As recently as 1988, Democrats were drawing only 15 percent of the Cuban vote in South Florida. According to varying estimates, President Obama drew at least 40 per cent of the Cuban vote two weeks ago.
Obama obviously has no third term scenarios. If he cares about a legacy that truly includes doing the right thing–geopolitically, morally and economically–before it becomes a fait accompli, he can take the lead on normalizing relations with Cuba. This should be a viable part of any meaningful definition of “Forward.”