A death in Cuba exposes business as usual - Foreign Policy

Sadly, the tragic death of another Cuban dissident hunger striker will not change conditions in that island-prison nor provoke governments to reassess their historical indulgence of the Castro regime's crimes. Business as usual will continue.

In fact, this week, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is in Cuba promoting business opportunities for Brazilian companies. She plans no meetings with Cuban dissidents.

But the Jan19 death of 31-year-old dissident Wilman Villar Mendoza will not be in vain. Indeed, when decent people arrive in Cuba to pick through the rubble left by the most oppressive regime this hemisphere has ever seen, his sacrifice -- and that of thousands of Cuban martyrs before him -- will be rightly honored on Cuban soil.

But if there is one immediate purpose that the tragic death of Wilman Villar can serve, it is to put the definitive lie to the currently fashionable meme that Cuba, under Raúl Castro, "is changing."

For example, according to the Associated Press, Cuba just wrapped up a "dramatic year of economic change." The BBC informs us, "Cuba expands free-market reforms," while Reuters adds, "Cuba to free 2,900 in sweeping amnesty."

Frankly, the only thing sweeping Cuba these days -- besides the ongoing state repression -- is the hyperbole in foreign correspondents' dispatches.

I have dealt with Cuba's smoke-and-mirrors reforms in this space before, but to briefly summarize, all interested observers need to know about Cuban "reforms" are two things:

They signify no new recognition of the inalienable rights of the Cuban people by the regime. "Allowing" a few new bits of heavily circumscribed individual economic freedoms is hardly indicative of fundamental change. The relationship between state and citizen remains the same -- although instead of controlling 100 percent of the economy, the regime will now control 99.5 percent.

Secondly, recent changes are not meant to reform the system but to save the system. Allowing Cubans to repair children's dolls outside the purview of the state does not mean Cuba is on the road to a free market; it means the regime is looking for new ways to generate revenue through confiscatory taxes of limited private economic activity.

Raul Castro himself serves as the best spokesman that the regime is not contemplating any kind of fundamental reform. Speaking recently at a party conference, he said, "There has been no shortage of criticism and exhortations by those who have confused their intimate desires with reality, deluding themselves that this conference would consecrate the beginning of the dismantling of the political and social system the revolution has fought for more than half a century."

To be sure, the hyperbole surrounding recent changes in Cuba has an ulterior motive. It is meant to apply pressure on U.S. policymakers to make unilateral changes in U.S. policy, because Cuba is ostensibly "reforming." Thankfully, the Obama administration so far hasn't taken the bait. In fact, last September, the President took the matter head-on, saying, "They [the Castro regime] certainly have not been aggressive enough when it comes to liberating political prisoners and giving people the opportunity to speak their minds."

Indeed, at a time when no quarter is being given to undemocratic regimes in the Middle East and North Africa, the suggestion that the U.S. should lessen pressure on an undemocratic regime ninety miles from our shores strikes a wholly discordant note and is unlikely to be entertained by any serious policymaker. The Cuban people deserve no less than what the peoples of those regions deserve: the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. Clearly, that concept was as alien to Muammar al-Qaddafi as it is to the Castro brothers -- which is why they deserve the same fate.

View the original article here

End business as usual, voters - Miami Herald

Complain, complain, complain. Miami-Dade voters have been complaining for years — no, for decades — that their elected officials are more beholden to special interests than to the people who voted them in. More beholden to developers or sports teams or highway companies or port contractors.

They complain that Miami-Dade County Commissioners put their own selfish political interests ahead of what’s right for the people those commissioners are supposed to serve.

They complain that there are commissioners who work for companies that do business with the county. And even though those commissioners don’t vote on those deals because ethics rules prohibit them from doing so, they may be greasing the bids behind the scenes. Same goes for commissioners past and present who work for nonprofit groups that receive some of their money from county government.

They complain that commissioners have slush funds (more than an office budget) — money they hand out to constituent groups to court favor come election time instead of having those projects voted up or down in the open by the entire commission.

They complain that commissioners ride luxury cars paid for by struggling taxpayers. They complain of corruption or at least the smell of it.

Many of those complaints are spot on. So what are you going to do about it?

Voters of every political persuasion have a chance to send the strongest signal yet to commissioners that public service isn’t business as usual. How? By voting for charter amendments that would make the petition process easier (not ideal but better than we have now) and, most important, set term limits so that commissioners would serve no more than eight years once the amendment passes — and be barred from holding outside employment.

This would be the first time since the 1950s that an eight-year limit has made it to the ballot, even though polls keep showing voters want new blood and fresh ideas on the dais. Past commissions refused to offer voters term limits that add up to less than 12 years. This time, commissioners stopped short of making the eight-year proposal retroactive. That’s a shame, but if you vote “no” on this eight-year compromise you will likely miss the opportunity of a lifetime.

That’s not to say that all commissioners are corrupt and deserve to get booted. Many serve admirably, true public servants. But today’s system invites corruption or at least the appearance of it. It also entrenches incumbents whose campaigns are packed with special-interest groups’ cash for a job that pays $6,000 a year. That’s a salary set in the 1950s back when there were more McArthur cows than people in Miami-Dade.

The problem boils down to fair pay for a day’s work. Fulltime county commissioners across Florida earn salaries based on their county’s population. But in Miami-Dade, which is a home-rule county, only the voters can make that salary change in the county’s charter, which sets the rules for government to operate.

If voters want to kick the rascals out, they can do so starting in the next election. But right now, if they vote against term limits because they think a $92,000 a year salary is too much for what should be a fulltime job, they will shut the door on future reforms (such as ending the leased cars and slush funds). They will close the opportunity for people who want to serve but can’t leave their current jobs for poverty wages. On Tuesday, vote YES for reforms.

View the original article here