Начальная страница домена drzp.org

Netrat

Ufatrat

Niglrat

Nefiat

Ilfoatrat

Ukglaat

Tifatrat

Olfparat

Rufoarat

Pelfparat

Tigkap



Виртуальные туры для купли, продажи, аренды недвижимости и рекламы

Самые доступные цены для mp3 плееров multi sim flash карт и mp4 плееров

Играть в бесплатные русские детские мини игры

Занятия в Ижевске по магии, эзотерике, цигуну, йоге, экстрасенсорике

Лучший сайт знакомств для интимных встреч среди парней и девушек и любви

Фото и личные дневники девушек, юношей, мужчин и женщин

The relaxation of travel restrictions to Cuba by President Barack Obama has sparked bitter philosophical exchanges in Miami-Dade between old guard Cuban exiles and newer arrivals who pushed for the change. At the core of the debate: the very idea of what it means to be a Cuban ``exile.'' Since Cubans are granted U.S. asylum based on the premise of political persecution on the island, some are asking whether Cubans should return to visit relatives in their homeland, bringing with them cash that will help prop up the very government they fled. Angry members of the ''historic exile'' group -- Cubans who began arriving in the United States after Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution -- have gone so far as to suggest they will support the end of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, the tool that offered them and those who followed instant legal status based on the assumption of political persecution. On Spanish-language radio and television -- where community sentiments are openly aired -- both sides went from polite discourse Monday to out-and-out attacks on Tuesday. ''After all we've done to help get other Cubans out of that inferno, and to have them arrive here and then start pushing for this measure so they can go back to visit, is unforgivable,'' an angry caller to Radio Mambi said. ``They are traitors.'' A few minutes later, another caller countered: ``You Cubans who have been here a long time are a bunch of dinosaurs! You're not going to win. Give it up!'' Even at Marazul Charters, where Cubans came to book direct flights to the island and renew their Cuban passports, there was dissension over whether exiles should travel back to the island. For newer arrivals, like Yarleni Echevarria and her daughter Amanda Castillo who came from Pinar del Rio just two years ago, Obama's plan is an idea worthy of passionate praise. The family is planning a trip home in June and relishes the thought of not having restrictions on what they can bring for relatives. ''It's not a question of politics, it's a question of human rights,'' Echevarria said inside the office. ``If people over there don't have, and you are able to provide, I think you should be able to.'' Then there are those like Mario Fiarro, 61, who left Cuba 15 years ago as a political prisoner. He thumbed through the pages of his blue Cuban passport, proud to show that there are no stamps of entry into Cuba. ''I left as a political prisoner, why would I ever go back there?'' Fiarro said. ``That would be like a slap in the face to this country that let me in.'' Fiarro said lifting the travel restrictions will not bring about democracy, but will allow the Cuban government to benefit from tourism dollars -- a belief shared by many older Cubans. Refereeing some of the hurt feelings Tuesday was radio commentator Ninoska Perez Castellon, who said the eradication of travel restrictions for Cuban Americans has consumed her audience, who voice differing views depending on when they arrived. On her radio show Ninoska en Mambi and her nightly TV show Ultima Palabra on GenTV, Perez echoed a theme put forth by many callers, questioning the future of the Cuban Adjustment Act. ''That is a privilege Cubans were given because of our situation, but can you honestly keep it in place if Cubans can go back to their country whenever they want? What do you need it for?'' she asked. ``Other Latins Americans are asking that question, too. The sprit of the act is being damaged by what Obama has done.'' Considering the hoopla that preceded it, President Barack Obama's decision to relax the rules governing travel and cash transfers to Cuba might seem to some like a daring new policy initiatIve -- but it isn't. Mr. Obama is making a marginal change in U.S. policy to signal that he is open to fundamental revision, but only if the Cuban government reciprocates -- and that has always been the real stumbling block. Policy reverts Mr. Obama's action is a commendable step, to be sure, but it needs to be put in perspective. In removing travel and gift restrictions for Cuban Americans, the president is reverting to rules that prevailed before a change imposed by President Bill Clinton. That came after the Cuban Air Force, in a cowardly act, shot down two unarmed Brothers to the Rescue planes in 1996, killing four innocent men. President George W. Bush tightened the restrictions after Fidel Castro cracked down on dissidents in 2003, sending scores into prisons where most still remain. This history and the strong feelings that surround Cuban policy ensure that any change in policy, no matter how slight, carries political and policy risks for any U.S. president. Mr. Obama has made a calculated decision that the move will be largely welcomed by Cuban Americans who want to see the U.S. government get out of the business of regulating how often they see their families. This fulfills an Obama campaign pledge, and it may give Cubans living under the yoke of the Castro brothers more freedom to act independently, but it hardly amounts to a significant change as far as most Americans are concerned. They are still banned from visiting Cuba; and the trade embargo is still in place. For any further change to occur, the Cuban government would have to make reciprocal gestures. Such as putting an end to the usurious fees and other obstacles it imposes on Cubans who want to leave. Such as freeing more political prisoners. Such as making the Internet more accessible to average Cubans. Such as ending the ''tourism apartheid'' that keeps most Cubans from having contact with tourists. It's up to Havana This is unlikely to happen soon, but we hope Mr. Obama's decision will prompt other leaders in Latin America -- who have been pressing for a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba -- to call for Havana to mend its own ways. That, after all, is where the problem lies and where it must be addressed. It must never be forgotten that the fundamental problem in U.S.-Cuba relations is the absence of freedom and civil liberties under the Castro regime. Until Cuba has a ''normal'' government -- one that acts with the express consent of the governed -- no U.S. government is likely to take steps toward ''normalizing'' relations.