THE United States, conceived in revolution itself, has seldom been too comfortable with other states taking similar action, especially when the chosen route diverted from their own.
Nor, since President Monroe, has it been comfortable with the notion that independent Latin American states followed independent foreign policies.
Castro's Cuba, which chose Communist revolution and backed the Soviet Union in world affairs, offends the United States on both counts and seems to have blinkered both the White House and the State Department even when nominally liberal Presidents, from Kennedy to Clinton, run the country. President Clinton's attempt to bully Cuba into conformity with what he thinks is good for it has reached a new stage when he now wants to bully all who trade with it.
It clearly must be election time. And so it is.
And there must be votes in the President's behaviour, which has upset so many of its trading partners, especially in Europe, who are threatened with various penalties for seeking to trade with a Communist state, admittedly a small one. Well, there are votes in it in Florida, a state which used to be unimportant politically until lots of older people migrated there in search of a sunny retirement.
They did so in such numbers that Florida became worth winning in the American electoral system which gives each state a varying electoral vote but delivers it en bloc to which ever party wins a majority. Older people tend to vote for right-wing candidates, and so Florida, which used to be solid for the Democrats, can easily vote Republican nowadays, a tendency reinforced by its large Cuban emigre minority.
President Clinton's motives deserve little more examination, but they expose unpleasant hypocrisies (do not all the same criteria as disqualify Cuba apply equally to China?) and suggest a degree of immaturity: the Americans took the huff when Castro came to power - and have never recovered.
The best way to promote democracy in Cuba is the way found for Russia by President Reagan, but then Reagan was never short of supporters anywhere between Miami and Tampa.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article