It had the feel of a boxing match — and a grudge match at that. In this corner: Ralph Fernandez, Cuban exile; attorney; advocate of Cuban political prisoners, dissidents, defectors and exiles; and champion of the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba.
In this corner, the challenger: Albert A. Fox Jr., founder of a non-profit organization to establish trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba; leader of dozens of delegations to Cuba (including one that got former mayor Dick Greco into hot water last year); and opponent of the embargo.
In the audience: outspoken activists on both sides; businessmen sniffing around for a piece of the action; politicians; pundits; people looking to mold an informed opinion; other interested parties — and some people who just came looking for a good fight.
All it lacked was busty, half-naked women holding up signs between rounds.
The bout, organized by the Trenam Kemker law firm and held at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Tampa, was called "Cuba: the Great Trade Debate." The subtitle posed the question: "Should the U.S. Cuba trade embargo be lifted?" I lost track of the number of times someone characterized the ongoing debate about the trade sanctions as "passionate."
A man at my table said with a smirk that he loves introducing the topic of the embargo at parties where there are Cubans so he can watch them argue. I'll call him Mr. Baiter. I hope his lack of empathy is more the product of ignorance than of callousness, even though it makes little difference in the end.
I wish Mr. Baiter would go to Cuba and see for himself why people feel so strongly about this issue. He needs to see the extent of Castro's repression on one side, how people are afraid even to speak his name in certain contexts, how he has ruined a once magnificent place. Mr. Baiter needs to see what people lost when Castro forced them from their homes and seized everything they worked lifetimes, even generations, to build. On the other hand, Mr. Baiter needs to see how the embargo has contributed to the desperate shortages of everything from milk and medicine to absurdly simple things like plastic bags and nails — things we throw away in volumes without a second thought. Those who suffer most were not even alive when Castro came to power. Many who were malnourished during their developmental years will continue to have physical problems for the rest of their lives — even after they have enough to eat.
If Mr. Baiter saw these things, then perhaps the passion of those on each side would be sad to him, rather than amusing. There is real pain on both sides, the kind of pain that he probably has never known.
The event seemed designed to capitalize on the appetites of people like Mr. Baiter for the drama of combat, rather than to explore solutions. It was, after all, labeled a "debate" rather than a discussion. The presenters made certain it would be combative by selecting two people at opposite extremes, both of whom have a personal stake in the issue. As a sort of Jerry Springer show for the suit-and-tie set, the debate succeeded fairly well. The two primary opponents traded insults and innuendoes with each other and with some audience members who came with their dukes up as well, although there were no physical scuffles or threats.
The debate has become more civil during the past few years, but still neither side was inclined to tell the whole truth and explore the gray areas that comprise the incredibly complicated and byzantine politics that keep the embargo in place. Rather, both sides brought up only the facts that supported their polarized viewpoints.
Yes, Castro is a violent, murderous despot, as Fernandez insists. But it's also true that by depriving the people of Cuba, we punish them, not him, and in doing so we give him even more power over them. In addition to his human rights abuses, Castro has laid waste to Cuba's once magnificent cities and bountiful agriculture. However, in the embargo, we have given him a very convenient excuse for many of the problems he himself has caused. Everyone knows the embargo is not accomplishing anything productive on any level for either side, but no one knows how to get out of it. And we never will if we're more interested in clinging to our viewpoints and smashing anyone who disagrees with us — or worse, acting like a bunch of junior high school kids cheering on a fight.
It is also true, as Fox said, that Tampa is the closest port city to Havana — if you doubt this, check your maps — and that trade will open to Cuba eventually. It's just a matter of time. The embargo is already sprouting cracks large enough to drive a tour bus through. It's also true that if Tampa officials don't act now to open lines of communication, which other port cities already have, we will lose a tremendous opportunity for trade and cultural exchange. It's unfortunate that Fox is more interested in characterizing his opposition as greedy than in trying to find a way to work out the differences that keep officials so fearful of controversy that they don't move forward.
It would have been more useful, though perhaps less entertaining, to host a panel of scholars and humanitarian workers who are interested in exploring ways to accomplish the aims of the embargo without penalizing thousands of innocent people. Instead, events like these tend to further emotionalize the issues, promote personal agendas and polarize the debate, rather than promote discussion.
I don't mean to totally condemn the efforts of Trenam Kemker. We need to talk about this issue. It is possible that some people who attended the breakfast will be moved to learn more about what's really going on in Cuba and what part the U.S. foreign policy in general and the embargo in particular play in it.
I can't really blame people like Mr. Baiter for their glibness. I had some pretty facile opinions about the embargo, the revolution and the Cuban exiles before I went to Cuba. Now I at least understand how complicated the situation is and what price the Cuban people — both those who stayed and those who left — have paid for the brutal follies of Castro and the U.S. government. That is the best argument I can think of to end the embargo — to promote communication and understanding.
Senior Editor Susan F. Edwards, who spent a week staying in a typical Havana neighborhood in 2000, can be reached at ed@weeklyplanet.com or 813-248-8888 ext. 122.
This article appears in Jul 3-9, 2003.