Estimates Increase of Cuban Oil

20bn barrel oil discovery puts Cuba in the big league

• Self-reliance beckons for communist state
• Estimate means reserves are on a par with US

• Rory Carroll, Latin America correspondent
• The Guardian,
• Saturday October 18 2008

A worker walks at an oil rig in Havana, Cuba. Photograph: Enrique De La Osa/Reuters

Friends and foes have called Cuba many things - a progressive beacon, a quixotic underdog, an oppressive tyranny - but no one has called it lucky, until now .

Mother nature, it emerged this week, appears to have blessed the island with enough oil reserves to vault it into the ranks of energy powers. The government announced there may be more than 20bn barrels of recoverable oil in offshore fields in Cuba's share of the Gulf of Mexico, more than twice the previous estimate.

If confirmed, it puts Cuba's reserves on par with those of the US and into the world's top 20. Drilling is expected to start next year by Cuba's state oil company Cubapetroleo, or Cupet.

"It would change their whole equation. The government would have more money and no longer be dependent on foreign oil," said Kirby Jones, founder of the Washington-based US-Cuba Trade Association. "It could join the club of oil exporting nations."

"We have more data. I'm almost certain that if they ask for all the data we have, (their estimate) is going to grow considerably," said Cupet's exploration manager, Rafael Tenreyro Perez.

Havana based its dramatically higher estimate mainly on comparisons with oil output from similar geological structures off the coasts of Mexico and the US. Cuba's undersea geology was "very similar" to Mexico's giant Cantarell oil field in the Bay of Campeche, said Tenreyro.

A consortium of companies led by Spain's Repsol had tested wells and were expected to begin drilling the first production well in mid-2009, and possibly several more later in the year, he said.

Cuba currently produces about 60,000 barrels of oil daily, covering almost half of its needs, and imports the rest from Venezuela in return for Cuban doctors and sports instructors. Even that barter system puts a strain on an impoverished economy in which Cubans earn an average monthly salary of $20.

Subsidised grocery staples, health care and education help make ends meet but an old joke - that the three biggest failings of the revolution are breakfast, lunch and dinner - still does the rounds. Last month hardships were compounded by tropical storms that shredded crops and devastated coastal towns.

"This news about the oil reserves could not have come at a better time for the regime," said Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a Cuba energy specialist at the University of Nebraska.

However there is little prospect of Cuba becoming a communist version of Kuwait. Its oil is more than a mile deep under the ocean and difficult and expensive to extract. The four-decade-old US economic embargo prevents several of Cuba's potential oil partners - notably Brazil, Norway and Spain - from using valuable first-generation technology.

"You're looking at three to five years minimum before any meaningful returns," said Benjamin-Alvarado.

Even so, Cuba is a master at stretching resources. President Raul Castro, who took over from brother Fidel, has promised to deliver improvements to daily life to shore up the legitimacy of the revolution as it approaches its 50th anniversary.

Cuba's unexpected arrival into the big oil league could increase pressure on the next administration to loosen the embargo to let US oil companies participate in the bonanza and reduce US dependency on the middle east, said Jones. "Up until now the embargo did not really impact on us in a substantive, strategic way. Oil is different. It's something we need and want."

Oppostion to travel restrictions grows from 56% to 68%

Zogby/Inter-American Dialogue - 2 October 2008

Cuba

Now that Fidel Castro is no longer officially in power in Cuba, 60% of likely voters believe the U.S. should revise its policies toward Cuba – even more believe all U.S. citizens should be allowed to travel to Cuba (68%) and that U.S. companies should be allowed to trade with Cuba (62%). In a Zogby Interactive survey conducted in July 2007, slightly more than half (56%) of Americans said the U.S. should remove travel restrictions and end the embargo on trade to Cuba.

• More Obama supporters favored revising US policies toward Cuba (84%) than McCain supporters (35%). Forty-seven percent of McCain supporters thought all US citizens should be allowed to travel to Cuba, and 40% thought US companies should be allowed to trade with Cuba.

For content, contact: James Bosworth at Inter-American Dialogue at jbosworth@thedialogue.org or 202-463-2565.

For methodology, contact: Zogby International Communications Director Fritz Wenzel at 315-624-0200 ext. 229 or 419-205-0287 or fritz@zogby.com.

USA Today Calls for Lifting Embargo

Our view on Foreign policy: Cuba embargo support slips

Hurricanes offer opening to lift ineffective ban on trade, travel.

Before Hurricanes Gustav and Ike barreled into the USA, they devastated much of Cuba. With about half a million homes destroyed or damaged, many Cubans are in dire need of help. Food shortages are expected to get worse, as the double whammy wiped out a third of the island's crops.

A U.S. rush to the rescue? Not exactly, but the storms have at least produced a small break from the counterproductive U.S. isolation of Cuba. For the first time since the United States imposed a draconian trade embargo 47 years ago, it offered $5 million in direct aid and allowed $8 million in private aid donations. U.S. officials described the moves as unprecedented. Predictably, though, the Castro regime said no. (Dictator Fidel Castro has stepped aside because of illness, leaving his brother Raul in charge.) "Our country cannot accept a donation from the government that blockades us," Fidel Castro, who remains a domineering presence, wrote in the communist party's daily newspaper.

That's typical. Castro has long blamed the United States for all of Cuba's woes, using the embargo as Exhibit A.

The tactic still works in Cuba, but support for the embargo appears to be shrinking here. As the decades of embargo have worn on, and new generations have been born, opinion polls have found Cuban Americans increasing split on the embargo. Despite the conventional wisdom that it's political suicide in Florida to oppose the embargo, many younger Cuban Americans are less keen than their elders to press for restrictions — and to vote against a candidate who wants to lift them. U.S. public opinion more broadly is in favor of lifting the embargo.

One idea that has been put forward is to abolish restrictions that prevent Cuban-Americans from sending more than $300 every three months to immediate family members or making more than one trip every three years. That makes so much sense that even some hard-line Cuban American groups, normally cheerleaders for new restrictions, are for it.

It has long been plain that the embargo has utterly failed in its original purpose of removing Fidel Castro. As important, the United States is hurting itself. The continued embargo is driving Cuba into the arms of anti-American regimes that are more likely to bolster, not end, the island's dictatorial tendencies. Russia, for example, has sent plane loads of aid. Venezuela has been helping prop up the Cuban economy with cheap oil. Many U.S. farmers say they have been hurt by the restriction. Lifting it could help stem a potential new tide of refugees fleeing to the USA if the hurricane devastation drives them to try the dangerous crossing.

Rather than stick to outdated political games, the United States should deprive the Cuban regime of its scapegoat and lift the embargo. Castro's attempts to hold the United States responsible for his country's woes could then be exposed for what they are: an attempt to shift blame. And millions of Cubans can both be helped and start seeing a different truth from the Castro brothers' insistence that the U.S. is the author of all that goes wrong in Cuba.

Posted at 12:21 AM/ET, September 29, 2008 in Foreign policy general - Editorial, USA TODAY editorial

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/09/todays-debate-f.html

Larry Wilkerson's Righteous Rant

It's National Security, Stupid

Let's chalk up the losses of late in Latin America:

We're being tossed out of Venezuela.

We're being tossed out of Bolivia.

We're despised in Argentina.

Nicaragua looks favorably on Russia's move into Georgia.

Honduras and Guatemala hold their noses when they deal with us.

We're barely tolerated in Mexico and puzzled over in Brazil, the real looming giant of Sudamérica. In fact, the best leader in the Western Hemisphere, Luiz Ignácio Lula da Silva, just ignores us most of the time because to him, I'm sure, we are indecipherably stupid.

The Chinese are going to drill for oil within 60 miles of the coast of Florida; Russia just landed Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers in Venezuela and contemplates building a space launch facility in Cuba; and an international consortium, led by Dubai Ports World, is studying plans to build one of the largest container processing facilities in the Western Hemisphere in Mariel, Cuba. Its throughput capacity will rival or surpass Los Angeles.

The U.S. record in Latin America is just short of an abysmal failure. (And one suspects that if the Cheney/Bush administration actually had a policy­other than neglect and drugs­the record would be worse.)

In January 2009, what should the new president do about this failure in our own backyard?

The very first action should be to lift the embargo on Cuba and treat that nation just as we do other nations with repressive to partly-repressive regimes that are showing signs of accommodating the needs of the 21st Century­countries from China and Vietnam to Albania and Georgia.

Establishing more or less normal relations with Cuba­after more than a century and a half of paternalistic-imperialistic behavior toward Havana­would be such a stunning signal to the rest of Latin America, that all manner of positive changes throughout the hemisphere might be possible in its shadow.

Once Latin American leaders, from Chavez to Lula, see that the U.S. is serious about Cuba, they will have to get serious about the U.S. Chavez, for example, will have a major plank of his anti-Americanism jerked right out from under him. Lula will have to consider that we may­may, I say­have just regained our composure and our senses.

And in Cuba, there will be a cautious and growing recognition that the future may be a lot brighter than had been thought, particularly now that three hurricanes have ravaged that island nation and it needs a lifting of the embargo, not a hand-out, to recover its footing.

Moreover, unlike almost any other foreign policy challenge now confronting the U.S.­Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or the Israeli-Palestinian situation, for examples­an opening to Cuba will cost the economically-struggling U.S. not a single dollar. Not a single dollar.

The rewards of such an opening, however, are huge: a completely new outlook from our entire hemisphere, from Toronto to Buenos Aires; a sensible policy with an island nation 90 miles from Florida and with many blood-ties to the U.S.; and an opening through which, hopefully, can pour new, positive and productive bilateral and regional relations with nations in our own backyard.

Only a fool would resist.

-Lawrence Wilkerson

http://www.thehavananote.com/

Lee Hamilton Calls for End of Embargo

March 10, 2008, The Indianapolis Star

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080310/OPINION/803100347/1301/OPINION

Lee Hamilton

1st step toward change for Cuba: End embargo

The end of Fidel Castro's rule provides an opportunity to ease the pain of a half-century-long repressive era in Cuban history. Fidel's younger brother Raul's ascension could mean a Cuban opening is on the horizon.

At age 76, whether Raul Castro is a reformer or not will not change the fact that Cuba is entering a prolonged transition period away from one-man, and now dynastic, rule.

The United States wants a free, democratic and prosperous Cuba, but we need the right policies to help Cubans. Real change can begin soon, and we should be trying to influence it. There are two broad options for U.S. policy toward Cuba.

The United States can press on with its 46-year embargo in hopes of finally inspiring a popular revolt against the communist regime. This option insists that Cuba embrace democracy before the U.S. re-establishes bilateral ties. Or it can opt for engagement in hopes of promoting a gradual and peaceful end to one of the Cold War's last lingering conflicts.

My view is that beginning to normalize our relations with Cuba would help, not hinder, those in Cuba who want a change of political direction.

As far as the embargo goes, its major benefactors have been politicians seeking support in this country and anti-American leaders overseas in need of talking points -- not the Cuban or American people. The embargo has failed to achieve regime change in Havana, the Cuban people continue to suffer under a repressive regime, and, furthermore, it has alienated our Latin American allies.

But ending the embargo is hardly a solution in and of itself. Though its repeal would allow Cubans and Americans to trade, invest and travel, we must recognize that Cuba is a closed and repressed society, one that Fidel Castro increasingly victimized throughout his dictatorial rule starting in 1959. The hesitancy with which ordinary Cubans have discussed their country's future in the last few weeks illustrates the constant fear Castro's police state has instilled.

As we have seen in other countries subjected to despotic rule, the wounds of tyranny are deep, and we cannot treat them brazenly. Also, Raúl Castro and his elite chums will not go to bed tonight communist revolutionaries and wake up Jeffersonian democrats tomorrow morning. Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese may be more likely economic role models. Change will be gradual.

Certainly, we can engage in informal, unofficial exchanges with a country 90 miles from our border that shares some of our cultural fixations, like baseball, as those who followed the World Baseball Classic in 2006 know.

Building up an economic relationship could also pay dividends. The recent pandemonium in Havana resulting from rumors of a shift away from Cuba's failing dual-currency system reveals Cuba's present economic dysfunction. Raúl Castro himself has critiqued a bloated and inefficient public sector, with government salaries unable to cover the costs of living. Commerce is more likely than isolation to inspire positive change.

We could relax the travel ban. Academic exchanges would be welcome too, allowing university students to establish bonds that could form the foundation of a new era of Cuban-American amity.

Cuba remains a communist country, and its governing ideology is irreconcilable with the universal ideals of liberty and self-government. Cuba eventually will need to dismantle communism's failed institutions --this is not something America can, or should try to, initiate.

It is time for responsible, relaxed, non-interventionist approaches in our policy toward Cuba. With so much talk of change in politics this year, our relationship with Havana is an obvious example of where it is necessary, realistic and high time.

Hamilton is the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., and director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He served as a U.S. representative from Indiana from 1965 to 1999.

My response.

Hurrah for Lee Hamilton.

Hoosier voters can help bring about the beginnings of change in US policy by choosing Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.

He favors unrestricted travel and remittances by Cuban Americans as a first step and is prepared for negotiations with Cuba's leaders with no preconditions.

Hillary Clinton's position is virtually the same as George Bush's.

Read here what they said in the Austin debate.

http://candidatecubawatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/clinton-vs-obama-on-cuba-in-austin.html

John McAuliff

Shortrige High School 1960

(now living in Tarrytown NY)

Anti-Cuba Florida Democrats Undermine Party

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_dade/story/449521.html

Posted on Sat, Mar. 08, 2008
Democrats torn between party, GOP friends

BY LESLEY CLARK

Party leaders have tapped Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz to raise money and coach candidates in a high-stakes, aggressive bid to expand the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

That wasn't the case just two years ago when the pair flouted a long-standing Florida delegation agreement to not campaign against colleagues and vigorously backed Ron Klein in his winning bid to oust veteran Republican Rep. Clay Shaw.

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

''At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant,'' Wasserman Schultz said.

The decision comes as Democrats believe they have their best shot in years to defeat at least one of the Cuban-American incumbents with a roster of Democrats that include former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, outgoing Miami-Dade Democratic party chair Joe Garcia and businesswoman Annette Taddeo.

But Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their ties to the three Republicans are personal as well as professional: Both served in the state Legislature with Mario Diaz-Balart and say they work in concert with all three on South Florida issues.

Wasserman Schultz has also played a leading role in persuading the new Democratic majority to sustain the economic embargo against Cuba and has established close ties to the staunchly pro-embargo U.S.-Cuba Democracy political action committee, which has contributed thousands to Wasserman Schultz and Meek's campaigns.

Both Democrats can be ultra-partisan: Meek, a member of Pelosi's 30-Something Working Group, is a familiar face late night on C-Span, hammering Republicans and the Bush administration. He has served as vice chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, traveling the country to raise money on behalf of Democratic candidates.

And Wasserman Schultz, for the second election cycle in a row, co-chairs the campaign committee's Red to Blue program, which raises money for and provides strategic advice to top Democratic House candidates.

The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.

''It needs to be somebody who can roll up their sleeves,'' Wasserman Schultz said. ``I'm just not that person; it's just too sensitive for me.''

She said the situation is not unprecedented. For years, members of Florida's Congressional delegation agreed to refrain from campaigning against each other -- a pact that serves to foster goodwill among lawmakers and potentially bring more federal dollars to Florida. It also can provide incumbents with a measure of protection against challengers.

''It's quite a quandary for Debbie,'' said Miami-Dade Commissioner Sally Heyman, a former legislator who roomed with Wasserman Schultz in Tallahassee. ``They've developed this working relationship that has them entirely united on South Florida issues. But Debbie has to maintain or enhance the majority or she's no longer in a position to help us.''

Meek also has told national party leaders that he won't play a role in the races. He and his mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek, are close to Martinez, the former Hialeah mayor. But Meek said the ties between his family and the Diaz-Balarts are deeper.

''I wish Raul the best,'' Meek said. ``As a Democrat, I hope he succeeds. This is the only race I wouldn't get involved in. It's just something I can't do.''

Martinez, whose strained relations with the three GOP incumbents are legendary, played down the pair's decision, noting that politics creates odd allegiances.

''I understand the dilemma they have, and I respect it,'' Martinez said. ``Everyone has to do their own thing, and I'm going to do my own thing for my race.

''If they lived in the district,'' he quipped, ``I would only ask them to quietly vote for me.''

Joe Garcia notes such nonaggression pacts are ``part of why progress is so difficult in Washington. The status quo is hard to move. But when all of this is said and done, we're going to be elected by people who live in the disticts we're running in.''

The three challengers have all been endorsed by former Florida Gov. Bob Graham. Meek said he's confident they'll prosper without a boost from the House members.

However, Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, which tracks political campaigns, said the lack of support from top Democrats could make donors leery.

''Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a favorite of leadership, somebody on the move,'' Rothenberg said. ``When somebody like that doesn't want to be a major player in taking on a Republican, that's a signal.''

Yet Rothenberg says the situation is not without precedent: He noted several Republican and Democratic senators from the same states honor nonaggression pacts.

Both Meek and Wasserman Schultz have benefited from a close affiliation with the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which since its founding in 2003 has contributed $22,000 to Wasserman Schultz's campaign committee and $10,500 to Meek's.

Wasserman Schultz said the PAC support played no role in her decision, but she acknowledges she's closer to the Republican incumbents on Cuba issues than she is to the Democratic challengers, who favor easing restrictions on family travel to the island.

Wasserman Schultz has courted the Cuban-American community since she came to Washington: As a freshman legislator, she helped found the Cuba Democracy Caucus, a bipartisan group of pro-embargo legislators that works to thwart efforts to ease the embargo. She worked last year, Ros-Lehtinen says, ''like a tiger'' to help quash a push to ease travel and trade restrictions, delivering pro-travel advocates one of their biggest losses.

''When she and [Rep. Albio Sires, a Cuban-American Democrat from New Jersey] work within their party and get 65-66 votes to join us, that has made all the difference,'' Lincoln Diaz-Balart told a group of Cuban-American exiles at a recent press conference. His brother, Mario, introduced Wasserman Schultz as ``an incredible advocate who has taken the cause of a free Cuba as her own.''

A day later, Wasserman Schultz and Ros-Lehtinen lavished compliments on each other at a Washington luncheon with visiting Miami-Dade commissioners. ''I can't say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office,'' Wasserman Schultz said, noting that she relied on Ros-Lehtinen's advice to help her balance the demands of elected office and motherhood.

''She's cultivated this enormous political capital, and that's a lot to risk embracing those not entirely in line with her views,'' suggests Mauricio Claver-Carone, a director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC.

The Democratic trio is unlikely to count on another lawmaker: Sires, who like Martinez and Garcia, is a Cuban-American Democrat.

''I'm concentrating on my own race,'' said Sires, who acknowledged close ties to the three Republicans. ``What binds us together is this issue of Cuba. I respect how they have fought for Cuba all these years.''

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My comment:

Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek are betraying confidence Democratic party leaders have put in them and embarrassing their party.

Only Wasserman Schultz knows whether obsessive hostility to Cuba, her personal friendships, $22,000 in campaign contributions or state wide ambitions are trumping her responsibility as co-chair of Red to Blue to win new Democratic seats that are essential for Iraq, tax bills and other closely fought votes. The demographics of her district which is less than 5% Cuban American certainly don't mandate such a hard line single issue position.

If there is a re-vote in Florida, will Senator Clinton align with the "neutral" position of two key supporters or lend real support to Raul Martinez, Joe Garcia and Annette Taddeo? She might recall that the Diaz Ballarts and Ros-Lehtinen were energetic and consistent supporters of Senator McCain. Whether she or Obama is the nominee, it will be in their interest to have the three Cuban American Republicans preoccupied with their own races.

Cuba, Iran travel rules are a trip

By Randy Schultz

Editor of the Editorial Page

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Which country does the United States government believe poses a greater threat to the United States: Cuba or Iran?

Which country is it easier for United States citizens to visit: Cuba or Iran?

The answers are Iran and Iran. Yes, Iran. Suspected-of-concealing-a-nuclear weapons-program Iran. Wipe-Israel-off-the-map Iran. The Holocaust-never-happened Iran. Aiding-terrorists-in-Iraq Iran. Axis-of-Evil Iran.

If you're an American and you'd like to visit Iran, however, the American government won't stand in your way. The State Department will warn you, strongly, about anti-American sentiment. The U.S. doesn't have diplomatic relations with Iran, so if you get in trouble you're probably on your own. The department especially will warn Iranian-Americans that they might not be able to leave when their visit is over because Iran does not recognize dual citizenship.

But travel to Iran is legal for Americans. You can book it online: American Airlines from Miami to New York, then Turkish Airlines to Istanbul and on to Tehran's Imam Khomeini International Airport, named for the leader of the Islamic revolution that took power in 1979 and held 53 Americans hostage for 444 days between November 1979 and January 1981. Fare: $1,500.

Even a North Korea visit is OK

If you want to visit Cuba, though, forget it, in most cases. Unless you fit into one of a few categories - related to journalism or education - Americans can't go. If you have family in Cuba, you can go only once every three years. Here are the State Department rules:

"Regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba. Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities have increased enforcement of these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States."

How weird is that? You can visit a country half a world away that just a few months ago was being talked up as the next place the U.S. would invade. But you can't visit a country less than an hour by plane from Florida that threatens the United States about as much as Puerto Rico, which is part of the United States.

What about North Korea, the third country in Mr. Bush's Axis of Evil? The North Korea that has built several nuclear weapons on Mr. Bush's watch and whose leader the president called "a pygmy"? The U.S. government encourages Americans to register with the U.S. embassy in the Chinese capital of Beijing. Otherwise, have a great trip.

Acting as though it's still 1962

It all seems even more ludicrous, now that Fidel Castro has given up direct control after 49 years - and nearly 10 U.S. presidents. America has diplomatic relations with Vietnam, which killed nearly 60,000 Americans. America always had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, which had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us. America has diplomatic relations with countries that are as totalitarian as Cuba.

With Cuba, though, we live in a time warp. Diplomatically, it's 1962, when Americans watched three channels on Philco televisions, Sam Walton was opening his first Wal-Mart and the Beatles were releasing their first single, when singles weren't just downloads. It's missiles pointed at the United States from 90 miles away. More to the point, it's Cuban-American voters who still consider themselves exiles, and their Florida supporters in Congress.

Just compare the State Department language. Iran is "a constitutional Islamic republic with a theocratic system of government where ultimate political authority is vested in a learned religious scholar, the Supreme Leader." But Cuba is "a totalitarian police state, which relies on repressive methods to maintain control. ...The regime is strongly anti-American yet desperate for U.S. dollars to prop itself up."

It was in our interest to recognize, while strongly disagreeing with, the Soviet government, even during the most polar moments of the Cold War. It would be in our interest to recognize, while strongly disagreeing with, the Cuban government. Which poses a greater threat to the United States: A 50-year-old failed policy, or a new attitude?

_

Randy Schultz is editor of the editorial page of The Palm Beach Post. His e-mail address is schultz@pbpost.com