Beautiful Words Mean Nothing
When They Ring Hollow
January 25, 2005 - In the old days, when American presidents spoke of the “ending tyranny” and lighting the “fire of freedom,” we Cuban-Americans began packing our luggage to return to Havana.
Naively, we though we were about to receive the U.S. support we needed to overthrow the Fidel Castro Communist dictatorship. But we were always heartbroken– eventually realizing that we had based our hopes on hollow promises. And it happened so often – with almost all of the 10 presidents who have lived in the White House during the 46 years Castro has been in power – that the rhetoric turned us into cynics. Even President Bush’s seemingly uplifting inaugural speech, mostly devoted to the goal of advancing the ideals of freedom around the world, made me depressed. Don’t get me wrong. The speech was beautiful, eloquent. Its message was so precisely on the mark that it could have been written by a Cuban-American. But while the words rang so true, there is a history that tells me they are likely to be just as hollow as the ones Cuban-Americans have heard from nine other U.S. presidents – both Republicans and Democrats. It took me back to December of 1962, the day my father took me to Miami’s Orange Bowl stadium to see President John F. Kennedy as he received the veterans of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. After promising them aerial support and then leaving them stranded to be captured by Castro’s forces, Kennedy had bartered with the Castro regime to obtain their release from prison and their return to the United States. I was a 12-year-old Cuban refugee, having arrived from Havana only eight months earlier, but I distinctly remember how Kennedy took the veterans’ Brigade 2506 flag and promised to return it to them in a free Cuba. Since then, we have seen many other presidents make similar empty promises, especially when they visit South Florida seeking votes from Cuban-Americans. Of course, Ronald Reagan was the master. He took anti-Castro rhetoric by an American president to a new level. When he went to Miami, wore those guayabera shirts and expounded on the evils of communism, Reagan had Cuban Americans believing that he was their savior. But in the end, although he won the Cold War against the Soviet Union, Reagan left Castro dangling there – perhaps as a purposeful reminder to all Americans that we still have enemies. And now comes Bush, not even mentioning Cuba by name, but speaking new words of hope – words that are painful to hear when you no longer believe them. Bush said that advancing the ideals of liberty is “the calling of our time” and that “we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.” He said that “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” This is especially significant since it came only days after Condoleezza Rice had identified Cuba as one of the world’s remaining “outposts of tyranny” in a hearing before the Senate committee considering her nomination to succeed Colin Powell as secretary of state. But considering the track record of Castro versus American presidents, forgive me for being skeptical. Talk is cheap, even if its part of the inaugural address. “Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world,” Bush said. “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” The people of Cuba have been pleading for liberty for more than four decades, and they are only 90 miles away. Does that mean they are next? Or do we keep waiting for Castro to die while American troops go halfway around the world to depose other dictators? Again, don’t get me wrong – I’m not advocating U.S. military intervention in Cuba. But many Cuban-Americans are rightfully asking why more strenuous economic and diplomatic measures are not implemented to drive him from power. Why does the U.S. government continue to stop Cuban Americans when they try to organize to fight for their homeland’s freedom? Since no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and since the Bush administration now claims the war was justified only because it got rid of a repressive and abusive dictator, there are questions many Cuban-Americans keep asking: • "What about Fidel?" • "Why do the Americans go around the world to get rid of one dictator and then leave another committing crimes against humanity only 90 miles away? • Why don’t we openly support Cuban dissidents who want to fight – yes, fight – for their freedom, as we do with other pro-American insurgents throughout the world? If you listened to Bush’s inaugural address, you might think he was about to turn his attention to the tyranny that stands closest and longest than any other. He said events and common sense had led him to one conclusion: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.” If I had heard this a few decades ago, I would have started packing my bags for my flight home to Havana. But this time, I think I’ll wait. |