Jim Devine wrote: > > Julio Huato wrote: > > http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000005CsS > > I hope that you're right that the word "respect" has a role in US > foreign policy. > > This depends, of course, on the specifics of the balance of political > forces. With the "Cuban-American community" in Florida fading, maybe > Obama will loosen up on Cuba. With fewer representatives of the oil > industry in positions of power, maybe he'll be nicer to Venezuela.
I do not believe the "Cuban-American" lobby is the chief element in u.s. cuba policy, just as I do not believe that the Israeli lobby is the chief element in U.S. policy in the Middle East. Did those political blocs not in fact merely give support to policy otherwise grounded their influence would suddenly disappear. In so far as there is a specific "U.S. Empire" (as contrasted with the "Empire of Capital" that Ellen Wood analyzes, that empire (as Sartre noted 40+ years ago) is essentially Latin America. Threats to 'stability' there, even purely symbolic threats (as with Cuba) are intolerable. But even beyond the immediate interests of particular sector4s of u.s. capitalism (and imperialism has never, in any nation, been a _national_ interest but only the interest of particular blocs of capital), the interests of global capital depend on 'responsible' governments in each state, and the U.S. is the military power entrusted de facto with disciplining governments that fail in their 'responsibilities' -- hence the condition of endless war we now find ourselves in as this or that nation is disciplined. And there again, the example (symbol) of Cuba is intolerable. Hence it seems to me _probable_ though of course not at all certain, that U.S. efforts to destabilize Cuba will continue. LIke you, I hope not. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
