The Foreign Affairs Symposium began its 2005 lineup of speakers Wednesday with a discussion on the political and economic future of Cuba, featuring a panel of experts on the subject.
Titled "Recognizing Cuba?," the panel addressed the troubled relationship between the United States and its island neighbor since the rise of Fidel Castro decades ago.
"Since at least 1898, the U.S. has been the primary threat to Cuban independence," said Hopkins professor Wayne Smith, one of the panelists. "The pressures...over the past 40 years have been counter-productive. Castro loves it; he plays David to our Goliath."
Smith stressed the need to increase the level of contact and engagement between the two nations if the hope is to bring about change.
"The Bush Administration's... objective is regime change, and their primary mode of doing this would be to support the dissidents. But this is exactly the wrong way to do it."
David Mutchler, senior advisor on Cuba at the U.S. Agency for International Development, focused more on the role and motivations of Cuban dissidents than the nation's relationship with the U.S.
"If you look at the past 10 or 15 years in Cuba, you'll see that this very small group [of dissidents] has been growing -- not only in numbers but in courage," said Mutchler.
He added that the same motivations bringing students to the presentation in Mudd Auditorium drive the growing number of dissidents in Cuba to risk incarceration or worse in search of political freedom.
"They don't have a chance against this government," Mutchler said. "You can't just sit back and say [that] the way things are in Cuba right now are fine because they've been there for 46 years."
He claimed that ideological disunity among the dissidents has led to problems, but he cited several examples of highly motivated individuals who have made a difference by taking advantage of available political avenues.
The remaining speaker was John S. Kavulich II, the president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, a private, not-for-profit and non-partisan organization. Through an outline of the economic history of Cuba, he sought to demonstrate that U.S. policy toward Cuba was largely driven by campaign politics.
In 1992, 1996, and 2000, Congress passed laws regarding sanctions against Cuba, but in each of these years an election was held, Kavulich noted.
He also commented on the recent announcement of the Bush Administration about changes to the ways in which companies are paid for exports from the U.S. While this policy has the potential to be somewhat problematic, "U.S. companies still know that they've been able to sell billions of dollars worth of product that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to sell.
Following the speakers' presentations, students questioned the panelists as to what the death of Fidel Castro will mean for the future of U.S.-Cuba relations.
"I have the sense that he wants to hold on to what he has," Smith said. "The Cuban economy is not doing all that well. It's not going to collapse and we certainly aren't going to bring it down."
Mutchler added, "In my view, if they don't begin to address peoples' basic human rights, they're going to have the potential for a social explosion in Cuba, especially once Castro's gone."
The 2005 FAS lineup presents the theme, "Enduring Responsibility: America and the Politics of Conflict Resolution," focusing on regional and ethnic strife and the role the U.S. has chosen to play in their resolution or aggravation.
The next event is titled, "Defining Genocide in Africa," and will be held Tuesday, March 8 at the Great Hall in Levering, at 8 p.m.
