Would Obama Meet With Castro?

In the Miami Herald today, Sen. Barack Obama sketches his Cuba policy and outlines his plans for diplomacy. Remember that Obama has said he'd meet with Fidel Castro and other dictators without preconditions -- preconditions being Bush-Cheney-lite-esque -- and he hasn't backed down in the face of criticism.

Here's what he writes about diplomacy now:

Accordingly, I will use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades

The contours of Obama's preconditionless diplomatic posture are becoming clear. "Without preconditions" does not mean without prior assumptions or bargaining positions; it does not mean a tabula rasa. He does not expect Castro to live much longer, and he probably would not meet with Castro in the event that the Old Man managed to survive for a few more years.

Is this an injudicious reading of Obama's words? He does write, earlier on:

But as we reach out in some ways now, it makes strategic sense to hold on to important inducements we can use in dealing with a post-Fidel government, for it is an unfortunate fact that his departure by no means guarantees the arrival of freedom on the island.

Comments

Perhaps (I assume) he would agree to meet with Fidel but refuse to normalize relations in other ways.

You raise an important issue.

Note that Obama's position is distinctly different from that of Chris Dodd.

Posted by PaulD | August 21, 2007 10:46 AM

"Note that Obama's position is distinctly different from that of Chris Dodd."

Even more to the point, it would appear that Obama's position is distinctly different from that of Barack Obama.

If I've got the bidding correct, starting with his Florida interview before the debate, Obama was for preconditions (interview) before he was against preconditions (debate) before he was for preconditions (Axelrod clarification post-debate) before he was against preconditions (Obama beating Clinton over the head for the old ways of Wash) before he was for preconditions (today).

Generally speaking, it is helpful in foreign affairs to be clear and consistent so that other countries are not confused by mixed messages. In this sense, Obama certainly does appear to break from the long-standing traditions of "foreign policy insiders". Or, maybe he's just inexperienced and naive.

Posted by hwc | August 21, 2007 10:54 AM

I think people are making too big an assumption on what "normalization relations" are, thinking it means we won't talk until they do "x". But there's more to relations than just dialogu, and part of it is our trade policies, for example the embargo Obama mentions. It sounds to me that he's saying that right now it's the embargo that is one attribute that makes our relations "abnormal". And there is a condition on lifting that embargo. But I don't see he stating there's a condition to have dialogue in general.

Read what he said again

"the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades."

To me it's the embargo he's talking about, not dialog.

Posted by Jeff | August 21, 2007 11:37 AM

How is revoking an executive order a precondition to a meeting with another head-of-state? I'm just not following this argument.

Posted by Honestly Confused | August 21, 2007 11:41 AM

The comments on this blog make no sense. Why don't you just take the man at his words instead of all this mental masturbation you guys are trying to display as articulated thought.

Posted by benabong | August 21, 2007 3:32 PM

Yeah, Obama was not talking about doing anything unilaterally except rescind a immoral, anti-family Bush executive order that disallowed family members from visiting and sending money to their loved ones in Cuba. This is not a concession to the Government in Cuba as they probably quite prefer that the US makes the decision to defect a bit harder. Howver, this would be seen in Havana as a token goodwill measure that sets the stage for real endgame talks that Raul Castro has been harping on. He has certainly given indications that "structural change" is coming but certainly intends to get something from the US in return. This is what dialogue can then accomplish. Hillary is the one who is flip-flopping, as she actually voted for dropping the entire national travel ban to Cuba... but now does not even support talking about getting rid of an idiotic Bush policy.

Posted by av2ts | August 22, 2007 1:16 PM

It's about time a serious presidential aspirant take a stand for change on this issue. For too long, we've been dependent on a failed policy, that has done absolutely nothing to expedite political change on the island, and has caused hardship for so many people. Why haven't we learned from all these decades of failed, useless policy? I commend Obama for being willing to engage all parties, and to change the course of our Cuba policy. And I commend him for being willing to stand up to the small minority of Cuban-Americans still stuck in a cold-war mindset.

We all know it's time for a change.

I, for one, am eager to get back to visiting my family. If Obama stays strong on this issue, he's got my vote.

Posted by Pablo Gaston | August 22, 2007 5:50 PM

Maybe Pablo should realize that the people who have caused hardship for so many people on Cuba is Fidel Castro, not the United States or Bush.

Typical liberals are quick to blame the US for everything that goes wrong in the world.

I can easily see Obama sipping tea with Castro. They are both share the same ideology.

Posted by Bill Jenkins | August 25, 2007 2:00 AM

It's the relationship between the United States and Cuba that has caused hardship for some of the people Cuba, not just one side or the other.

Posted by Craig | May 21, 2008 4:10 PM