Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama further elaborated on his “accidental foreign policy” agenda Friday in a speech before the Cuban American National Foundation, the Cuban exile group that historically has been a bastion of hard-line anti-Castro sentiment. In his remarks, Obama called for a “new strategy” towards Cuba and other Latin American nations and contrasted his position with those of the Bush administration and presumptive GOP nominee John McCain:

It’s time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It’s time for a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. That’s why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island. It’s time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It’s time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.

I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations. That’s the way to bring about real change in Cuba – through strong, smart and principled diplomacy.

And we know that freedom across our hemisphere must go beyond elections. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. But we also know that he does not govern democratically. He talks of the people, but his actions just serve his own power. Yet the Bush Administration’s blustery condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chavez have only strengthened his hand.

We’ve heard plenty of talk about democracy from George Bush, but we need steady action. We must put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond the ballot box. We should increase our support for strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law. That is how we can support democracy that is strong and sustainable not just on an election day, but in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas.

Steven Taylor suggests that the risk associated with offending the Cuban-American lobby is lower than in past elections, in part because even the Cuban exile community has realized that the current policy is largely ineffective given the commercial relationships the Cuban regime has developed with most other developed countries since the fall of the Soviet Union, its former patron.

Given the divisions in the Cuba lobby, the (largely symbolic) shift of power from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul, and the likelihood that Florida will not be as pivotal a battleground in 2008 as in past elections, the days of our Cuba policy being dramatically at odds with the opinions of most Americans may be approaching their end, no matter which major party candidate is elected in November.

Richard Fernandez argues that the rioting by Kosovar Serbs was entirely predictable:

The wider impact of the Kosovo crisis is the precedent that it sets for many of the “frozen conflicts” of the world, ranging from Azerbaijan to the Basque region. Remarkably, many Muslim countries have refused to recognize Kosovo. And their reluctance is fueled in part by the desire to avoid stirring up separatism. Therefore Kosovo has been sold by the EU and the US as an “exception” to the general rule.

The problem is that the Serbs are taking the cue from the Kosovars. If Kosovo can split from Serbia why can’t Serbian regions split from Kosovo? The EU believed that by throwing a protective blanket of “suits” around the Serbs in the north that Kosovo might be held together. But as the experience of Iraq shows, stabilization can only occur where security is guaranteed. The crisis that will face Western policy in Kosovo is whether they are up to providing “security” which is another word for military force, to back up their “army of suits”. The suits can’t deploy without the uniforms.

Commenter Peter invokes Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis.

If the Clash of Civilizations occurring along Islamic fault lines is indeed the defining civilizational issue of the 21st Century then recognizing the extra legal independence of Kosovo is a major bonehead move.

[...]

Ideas mean something. Every confrontational success or failure validates the ideas of one side or the other in a zero sum game. What do we benefit by handing a victory of any kind to Islam? There are many arguments that could be made about the vicitmhood of the Kosovors but the creation from nothing of a new Islamic state in Europe is the real story. How many times have we heard of the necessity to fight jihadism on many levels? How is shooting Taliban in Afghansitan while surrendering at the state creation level a good thing?

[...]

As I see it the USA is again trading its goodwill with the Orthodox countries, which are at least in a position to help put the squeeze on Iran and limit long term Islamic influence in the Caspian Basin, for the illusion of goodwill with Islam which has a proven value of exactly zero. In 1999 Sandy Berger admitted that NATO was intervening “for the Muslims.” What did that goodwill get us?

On the more personal level many Serbs consider Kosovo the birthplace of their unique Serbian identity. One of Huntington’s intriguing thoughts was that you could more easily grasp the concepts behind the Clash of Civilizations by overlaying today’s maps with a political map of Central Europe in the 1500s. What we are doing today is kicking the Serbs, and indirectly the other Orthodox countries, in the teeth to expand the Islamic empire. How does that make sense? Do we say “poor little misunderstand Kosovors” and just watch them start (continue) tearing down 1,000 year old Christian monasteries?

While I agree that there is such a thing as Christendom and that it is at odds in parts of Europe with Islam, it seems like more than a stretch to conflate the Albanian Muslims of Kosovo with the Taliban of Aghanistan.

As to the rhetorical question, “What did that goodwill get us?” it’s not entirely clear. Certainly, intervening on the part of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo didn’t make al Qaeda like us any more; indeed, it was likely not on their radar screen. But who knows what would have happened in Bosnia and Kosovo — or among Muslim communities elsewhere in Europe — had we not intervened? Perhaps tensions would have exploded and Christian-Muslim relations would now be much worse? (And I say that as one who opposed intervention in both instances.)

During the Cold War, we mistakenly presumed that because nationalist leaders in places like Vietnam and North Korea and Cuba and China deemed themselves “Communist” they were part and parcel of the same global threat as the Soviet Union. To some extent, that became a self-fulfilling prophecy, as our behaving as if that were the case isolated them and sent them scurrying to the USSR for support. But Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and Mao Tse Tung didn’t give a damn about Karl Marx or Joe Stalin; they were nationalists looking for a message with which to rally the support of a nation.

Let’s not make the same mistake again. While there are jihadists who dream of restoring the Ummah, they are a relatively small subset of Muslims. The vast majority of the latter are, as with non-Muslims, more concerned with their daily lives and communities than global aspirations.

As to the particular question of an independent Kosovo, I’m rather torn. As an American — and a Southerner — I’m predisposed to sympathy towards claims for national self-determination. But, as my colleague Dave Schuler frequently asks, “What’s the unit of measure of national sovereignty?” Aside from attempting a case-by-case analysis as with Potter Stewart’s famous definition of pornography, I don’t have an answer.

Story via Kate McMillan. Photo credit: Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Senator John McCain declared our policy of containment towards Cuba a success and declared his support for an independent Kosovo in a conference call with bloggers this afternoon.

He made some opening remarks focusing on foreign policy before taking questions and I had the opportunity to ask him to expand his thoughts.

He challenged Barack Obama’s statement in last night’s debate that he would sit down and talk with Raul Castro without precondition. McCain said he’d be happy to hold talks once they have free elections and release their political prisoners but not before.

In my questioning, I noted that we had managed to have unconditional talks with the likes of Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao. While conceding that point — although noting that our marriage of convenience with Stalin quickly fell apart once our common foe was defeated — he thinks Raul is a particularly bad fellow[1] and that, more importantly, our holding talks would increase his legitimacy and possibly extend the reign of Communism over that country. I noted that we’d been trying to change Cuba’s regime by isolating them since well before I was born and that I’m not a particularly young man anymore. McCain begged to differ, saying our policy was containment and it had worked. He noted that Cuba’s ability to expand their influence to far-flung places in Africa and even inside Latin America had been eliminated.

In his opening remarks, the Senator noted the rioting in response to Kosovo’s independence declaration but stated that he believes it will taper off and Kosovo will be a free society. I asked where one draws the line on national sovereignty claims. McCain said there was no cut-and-dried rule that he could apply. He agreed with me that micro-states could be a problem and that tribalism, particularly in East Africa, had created much misery. At the same time, he believes the long history of human rights abuses against the Kosovar Albanians made them a special case.

Pat Curley asked about the possibility of a McCain-Obama race breaking the mold in terms of Electoral College competitiveness and, specifically, which Red and Blue states in recent years would be in play. McCain stated that he thought he would be “very competitive” in California and thought he had a good chance in New Jersey and even New York. On the down side, he thought he would have more trouble with New Mexico than has been the case in recent years. (See Curley’s write-up for more detail.)

Other questions focused on the New York Times allegations, his issues with the FEC, and the Native Hawaiian bill [see Fausta Wertz on the last]. Nothing much newsworthy came of those discussions.

Note: I made some minor additions to the above account to more fully flesh out the conversation in the first few minutes after initial publication.

__________

[1]He cited Brian Latell’s prize-winning book After Fidel: Raul Castro and the Future of Cuba’s Revolution. See also Latell’s TIME 100 piece, “Raúl Castro.”

Photo credit: The Scratching Post

Fidel Casto may have stepped down but the embargo aimed at his ouster is staying put.

The Bush administration is ruling out any changes in its Cuba policy — including lifting a five-decade trade embargo — after Fidel Castro’s resignation, deriding his brother and heir apparent, Raul, as “dictator lite.”

[...]

“They’re the ones who suffered under Fidel Castro,” Bush told a news conference in Rwanda. “They’re the ones who were put in prison because of their beliefs. They’re the ones who have been denied their right to live in a free society. So I view this as a period of transition and it should be the beginning of the democratic transition in Cuba.”

“Eventually, this transition ought to lead to free and fair elections — and I mean free, and I mean fair — not these kind of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off as true democracy,” Bush said. “The United States will help the people of Cuba realize the blessings of liberty.”

Fundamentally, of course, he’s right. The only thing that’s changed here is the name on the door. And not even the last name, for that matter.

Still, our policy has been an embarrassment. Not only has it not helped lead to freedom for Cubans but it’s made their economic lives much more miserable and given the Castro regime a scapegoat. Steve Clemons observes that,

Of all the low cost opportunities to demonstrate a new and different US style of engagement with the world, Cuba is at the top of the list. Opening family travel — and frankly all travel — between Cuba and the US, and ending the economic embargo will provide new encounters, new impressions, and the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that George W. Bush, John Bolton, Richard Cheney, and Jesse Helms run scared of.

Kevin Drum adds,

The accession of Raul Castro is unlikely to appease the electorally important (but less important all the time) Cuban exile community in Florida, but why not try pandering to the nation’s cigar smokers instead? “Vote for me and Montecristo #2s will be legal again!” I’ve heard worse campaign slogans.

Partisan sniping about a bipartisan policy started by a Democrat and carried out through nine administrations notwithstanding, this is right. Fidel is gone. It’s time for this policy to go with him.

Fidel Castro has finally resigned the presidency of Cuba.

Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro said on Tuesday that he will not return to lead the country as president or commander-in-chief, retiring as head of state 49 years after he seized power in an armed revolution.

Castro, 81, who has not appeared in public for almost 19 months after undergoing stomach surgery, said in a message to the communist nation that he would not seek a new presidential term when the National Assembly meets on February 24.

“To my dear compatriots, who gave me the immense honor in recent days of electing me a member of parliament … I communicate to you that I will not aspire to or accept — I repeat not aspire to or accept — the positions of President of Council of State and Commander in Chief,” Castro said in the statement published on the Web site of the Communist Party’s Granma newspaper.

The National Assembly or legislature is expected to nominate his brother and designated successor Raul Castro, 76, as president. Raul Castro has been running the country since emergency surgery to stop intestinal bleeding forced Castro to delegate power on July 31, 2006.

Since the United States placed sanctions on Cuba in 1962, Castro has managed to outlast John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Another year, and he’d have been able to add George W. Bush to the list, too.

The formal announcement of that which has been all but obvious for well over a year won’t change much of anything. The good news is that Raul is unlikely to last 49 years in office. Hopefully, a real transition will happen soon.

As an aside, an Aididas track suit is far less imposing than his traditional combat fatigues. Then again, he looks pretty good for an 81-year-old in deteriorating health.

The blogosphere is roiled up over the flag issue again. No, not that flag. This one:

That’s the Cuban flag with the image of Ernesto Che Guevara superimposed on it. It’s tacked onto the wall of an office in Barack Obama’s Houston campaign headquarters. An office belonging, apparently, to a low level staffer who’s in charge of setting up the office.

I’m immediately reminded of a line from Charlie Daniels’ breakout hit, Uneasy Rider: “I betchya he’s even got a commie flag tacked up on the wall inside of his garage.” The classic response: “I ain’t even got a garage, you can call home and ask my wife!”

But I digress.

Here are the headlines of some select reactions to the Obama flag flap:

• Ed Morrissey: “A Flag Obama Supporters Salute?”

• Charles Johnson: “Che Guevara Flags in Obama’s Houston Office”

• Texas Communists For Obama (Apparently They Were Out of Himmler)

• Matt Bramanti: “Obama office adores psychotic Marxist thug”

• Ed Driscoll: “Sixties Radical Chic, Frozen In Amber”

• Curt@Flopping Aces and Don Surber weigh in with “Che Obama”

• Michael Goldfarb: “Che You Can Believe In”

Morrissey is simultaneously fair and not:

Does Obama know his Houston supporters honor a terrorist in his campaign office? I’m sure he doesn’t. However, it would behoove him to ensure that the flag gets taken down and that he renounces any affinity for Che and the Fidel Castro regime.

He’s right that Che is a terrorist who shouldn’t be honored by decent people. Che worship (or, alternatively, the wearing of Che t-shirts as a statement without the slightest clue of who he was) seems to be a phase that certain left-leaning activists go through in their youth; it generally passes. Driscoll’s characterization of it as “juvenilia” is spot on.

But, surely, Obama doesn’t need to publicly weigh in on the decorating choices of every low level staffer? Let alone “renounce” affinities which he’s never shown?

Johnson’s insinuation is simply beyond the pale: “Barack Obama won’t wear an American flag on his lapel, but on the wall of his Houston campaign office: a Cuban flag with a picture of Communist mass murderer Che Guevara.” As I noted when the ridiculous flap over Obama’s calling flag pins “a substitute for true patriotism” emerged,

I don’t mind people wearing pins or putting stickers on their cars as a show of support for their country or their cause. I am, however, irritated by the notion that so doing makes them somehow superior to those who don’t.

The suggestion that Americans need to start swearing loyalty oaths, though, is light years beyond irritating.

CORRECTION: The original contained the sentence “John Cole’s suggestion that the flag is merely a statement on our Cuba policy strikes me as giving credit where it decidedly isn’t due.” Cole responds in the comments below that the discussion of Cuba policy was merely an aside rather than an attempt to analyze the motivations of the office worker. My apologies for the inference.

UPDATE: Johnson responds here arguing that I’m attributing something to him that he doesn’t believe. It seems to me, though, that the implication of juxtaposing Obama’s refusal to wear an American flag pin with supporters displaying a Che flag is plain enough.

The “loyalty oath” goes to the whole notion — implied by Johnson and others quoted above — that Obama is under some obligation to declare that he’s anti-Communist and pro-American. Neither of those should be in doubt.

As to my “rushing to do damage control for Barack Obama,” regular readers can decide for themselves on that one. New readers can feel free to check through my Barack Obama archives.

UPDATE: Ace disagrees with me but has a reasonable take. I’m sympathetic to the “Lie down with dogs and you get fleas” sentiment. But the nature of Big Tent politics is that both sides are going to attract some yahoos. Ronald Reagan was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan, after all. I don’t think it serves anyone’s interest to play the “whose crazies are crazier” game. Ultimately, it’s just guilt by association.

Yes, I’m “interested in rejecting what seems to be easy pandering and hackery.” But not simply out of high-mindedness, drug induced or otherwise. Frankly, there are plenty of good reasons for conservatives to oppose electing Obama president. Making mountains of aspiring molehills weakens our case rather than strengthening it.

Via the BBC: Castro ‘well enough for election’

The health of Cuban President Fidel Castro is good enough for him to be a candidate in next month’s parliamentary elections, his brother Raul has said.

Which raises the question: apart from breathing, how healthy is “enough” to run, given that he won’t have to campaign or do much of anything else?

We often say that candidates “run” for office or “stand” for election. In Fidel’s case it may not necessarily be that either is the appropriate term (although Raul reports that Fidel is doing two hours of exercise a day, whatever that may mean).

Cuban dictator Fidel Castro is dead. Unless he’s not.

Val Prieto had a flurry of updates yesterday reporting Castro’s death, with imminent announcements expected. Half the political blogosphere linked the post and his server couldn’t handle the strain. In a Communist plot, no announcement was forthcoming.

Meanwhile, celebrity blogger Perez Hilton got into the act with one, two, three, four announcements about impending announcements that are, as of this writing, still impending. (Apparently, Miami has a particularly long rush hour.)

The Cuban government has denied that Fidel Castro is dead, which is exactly what you’d expect if Fidel Castro really were dead. Then again, if he’s not dead, they’d likely deny it, too.

Breaking the tension with a rather obvious joke that’s still funny, Wonk reports that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

The Miami Herald thinks it’s a false alarm but until we see Castro alive somewhere — or his dead body, for that matter — we won’t know for sure. All we know at this point is that Fidel Castro is either dead or he’s not.

I was apparently the only political blogger who didn’t watch the YouTube debates last night. My conscience is clear, though, in that I’m exceedingly unlikely to vote in the Democratic primaries, Virginia doesn’t hold primaries for six and a half months (February 12), transcripts would be available online in short order, and I found the whole “have journalists choose from among thousands of video questions and then pretend that this is somehow a grassroots thing” premise rather gimmicky.

Still, it appears some substantive exchanges took place. Ben Smith highlights the foreign policy debate:

Amid the entertainment of a talking snowman and rapping education advocate, however, the candidates drew clear distinctions on crucial questions of foreign policy in a debate that circled repeatedly around Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s positions on the war in Iraq. “We don’t want more loss of American life and Iraqi life as we attempt to withdraw, and it is time for us to admit that it’s going to be complicated, so let’s start it now,” the New York senator said. “I have done extensive work on this. And the best estimate is that we can probably move a brigade a month, if we really accelerate it, maybe a brigade and a half or two a month. That is a lot of months,” she said, offering rare detail on the difficulty of a rapid withdrawal.

President Bush’s “surge” calls for stationing 20 combat brigades in Iraq, numbering between 3,500 and 5,000 troops each, along with thousands of support personnel.

Clinton was agreeing with Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who ridiculed New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s goal of bringing all the soldiers home within six months. “Let’s get something straight. It’s time to start to tell the truth,” Biden bellowed in response to Richardson’s optimism, appearing to thrive in the looser atmosphere of the YouTube debate.

That Biden is speaking with candor on this issue isn’t surprising; he’s been doing it for years and, frankly, he’s got nothing to lose. Clinton certainly gets points, though, for doing it as the frontrunner. The temptation to tell the base what they want to hear is awfully difficult to resist.

Also interesting:

Clinton also took criticism from Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois for her pre-war judgment. “The time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in,” he said. “And that is something that too many of us failed to do.”

What might have been a clean blow to Clinton on an important distinction between the two, however, suffered when Obama agreed to a demand from a bearded YouTube user, Californian Stephen Sixta, that candidates promise to meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran within the first year of a presidency.

Obama promptly received lectures on foreign policy from Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. “Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year,” Clinton said. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. … Certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.”

Elsewhere, some pretty smart people fell for the debate’s premise.

Spencer Overton: “A significant number of questioners were people of color and/or addressed issues of race and class, and I was pleasantly surprised. Perhaps because of the digital divide, one might have assumed that this debate would have overlooked issues critical to people of color. That was not the case.”

Andrew Sullivan: “If you’re sick of people like me on television, or worse, then the direct questions from regular voters and non-voters must have been a breath of extremely fresh air . . . . More, please.”

Ed Morrissey: “YouTube and its citizen journalists missed the boat. The questions ranged from the inane to … well, the inane.”

John Podhoretz: “[T]his YouTube debate is so far and away the best of the Democratic debates, with interesting questions and answers, that it may actually be revolutionary.”

But the questions weren’t randomly selected; they were picked by the same people who would have been doing so, anyway. The only thing “revolutionary” was that “ordinary people” recorded the questions on YouTube.

Foreign Policy has published the latest edition of The Failed States Index 2007. It is not a cause for celebration:

Few encouraging signs emerged in 2006 to suggest the world is on a path to greater peace and stability. The year began with violent protests that erupted from Indonesia to Nigeria over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. February brought the destruction of Samarra’s golden-domed mosque, one of Shiite Islam’s holiest shrines, unleashing a convulsion of violence across Iraq that continues unabated. After Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last July, southern Lebanon was bombarded for a month by air strikes, sending hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing into neighboring states. And in October, the repressive North Korean regime stormed its way into the world’s nuclear club.

What makes these alarming headlines all the more troubling is that their origins lie in weak and failing states. World leaders and the heads of multilateral institutions routinely take to lecterns to reiterate their commitment to pulling vulnerable states back from the brink, but it can be difficult to translate damage control into viable, long-term solutions that correct state weaknesses. Aid is often misspent. Reforms are too many or too few. Security needs overwhelm international peacekeepers, or chaos reigns in their absence.

The complex phenomenon of state failure may be much discussed, but it remains little understood. The problems that plague failing states are generally all too similar: rampant corruption, predatory elites who have long monopolized power, an absence of the rule of law, and severe ethnic or religious divisions. But that does not mean that the responses to their problems should be cut from the same cloth. Failing states are a diverse lot. Burma and Haiti are two of the most corrupt countries in the world, according to Transparency International, and yet Burma’s repressive junta persecutes ethnic minorities and subjects its population to forced resettlement, while Haiti is wracked by extreme poverty, lawlessness, and urban violence. For a decade, Equatorial Guinea has posted some of the highest economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa, yet its riches have padded the bank accounts of an elite few. And in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the inability of the government to police its borders effectively or manage its vast mineral wealth has left the country dependent on foreign aid.

The most hopeful signs are largely a statistical artifact:

The year wasn’t all bad news, though. Two vulnerable giants, China and Russia, improved their scores sufficiently to move out of the 60 worst states. That is in part due to the fact that 31 additional countries were assessed this year. But some credit must be paid to the countries themselves. China’s economic engine continues to propel the country forward at a breakneck pace, but the growing divide between urban and rural, as well as continued protests in the countryside, reveals pockets of frailty that the central government is only just beginning to address. Russia’s growing economy and a lull in the violence in Chechnya have had stabilizing effects, despite fresh concerns about the country’s democratic future.

This isn’t merely a shame for the inhabitants of these countries most of whom, frankly, are the usual suspects. As the editors note, “The world’s weakest states aren’t just a danger to themselves. They can threaten the progress and stability of countries half a world away.”

Still, there’s precious little that can be done about these things from afar. Indeed, despite financial backing by The Fund for Peace, the authors do not seem to blame the Bush Administration for any of this, aside from a tangential aside:

That is not to say that all failing states suffer from international neglect. Iraq and Afghanistan, the two main fronts in the global war on terror, both suffered over the past year. Their experiences show that billions of dollars in development and security aid may be futile unless accompanied by a functioning government, trustworthy leaders, and realistic plans to keep the peace and develop the economy. Just as there are many paths to success, there are many paths to failure for states on the edge.

The poor, it seems, are always with us.

Via the BBC: Cuban TV shows Castro interview

Cuban President Fidel Castro has appeared on TV in his first interview since undergoing surgery 10 months ago.

In the recorded interview, the 80-year-old was seen in a tracksuit and looking relatively healthy.

The question on everyone’s mind is, of course: can’t they give the man something to wear other than a tracksuit? Every picture since his surgery has had him in a tracksuit. (And no, it isn’t always the same tracksuit–but it is always a tracksuit).

Via the BBC: Cuba shows new images of Castro

Cuban TV has shown brief video images of President Fidel Castro meeting the head of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Nong Duc Manh.

[...]

These were the first video images for four months.

He is shown in a tracksuit, standing, and appearing less frail than in previous official images – and fit enough to give his guest a warm hug.

Of more significance:

Many Cubans assume that that is the way things will remain, with Fidel Castro in an elder statesman role, far less visible than he has been for most of his 48-year rule of Cuba.

As such, the transition away from Castro is underway, and perhaps already 3/4th complete. The next key moment will be when the rest of the leadership linked directly with the Revolution dies off.

Cross-posted from PoliBlog:

Via the BBC: Castro almost ‘fully recovered’

Cuban President Fidel Castro has almost completely recovered from the stomach surgery he had last year, says the head of the country’s national assembly.

Speaking in a US TV interview Ricardo Alarcon gave no indication of when the Cuban leader might return to power.

But he said Mr Castro was over the worst after a series of operations, including what he described as very delicate surgery.

Mr Alarcon also said Mr Castro was reading and writing a lot.

The Cuban leader has not been seen in public since undergoing intestinal surgery in July 2006 and has temporarily ceded power to his brother Raul.

I love whole he is kinda, sorta, almost fully-ish recovere hedging. Is it so Soviet Union circa 1982–makes me nostalgic. For example:

“I think, in a way, he practically has fully recovered,” Mr Alarcon told the CNN network.

Classic.

Smash infiltrates the ANSWER anti-war rally and comes away thinking the socialist front group may be sponsored by Fidel Castro.

Mitt Romney used a famous line from Fidel Castro in support of a “free Cuba,” creating a minor stir with a Miami audience.

People chuckled when presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon raised in Michigan and elected in Massachusetts, bungled the names of Cuban-American politicians during a recent speech in Miami. But when he mistakenly associated Fidel Castro’s trademark speech-ending slogan — Patria o muerte, venceremos! — with a free Cuba, listeners didn’t laugh. They winced.

Castro has closed his speeches with the phrase — in English, ”Fatherland or death, we shall overcome” — for decades. ”Clearly, that’s something he was ill-advised on or didn’t do his homework on,” said Hialeah City Council President Esteban Bovo. “When you get cute with slogans, you get yourself into a trap.”

[...]

Romney delivered a speech to the Miami-Dade Republican Party March 9 that was heavy on anti-communist rhetoric but light on policy details. He also condemned the Venezuelan president who has embraced Castro. That’s when he tripped. ”Hugo Chávez has tried to steal an inspiring phrase — Patria o muerte, venceremos,” Romney said. “It does not belong to him. It belongs to a free Cuba.”

No, it doesn’t, said University of Miami Professor Jaime Suchlicki. ”It belongs to Fidel,” said Suchlicki, an expert on Cuban history. “I don’t know where [Romney] got that.”

Bill Jempty notes that, “Courting the Cuban vote by quoting Fidel just won’t work.” On the other hand, the fact that this is just making the Miami papers ten days after the speech is probably a pretty fair indication that it’s not that big a deal.