—Uncommon Sense: Cuban dissidents wrong on lifting U.S. travel, trade limits:

I believe Americans, because of the values that shaped us as a nation, are special citizens of the world, but it is approaching arrogance to presume that free travel to and trade with Cuba would help bring about the change that the rest of the world’s dealings with Cuba have not.
And presuming we can make a difference, what makes these dissidents and anyone shares their view believe the dictatorship, regardless of the effect on its bank accounts, will allow this kind of change to occur? All the legislation in the world cannot guarantee Havana will budge an inch.
Ultimately, Cuba will change because Cubans demand it, not of the United States, but of their government and of their fellow Cubans.
That these dissidents would take a position something before lawmakers in Washington, D.C., that even if adopted does not guarantee change for Cuba, only distracts them from the task at hand.

—Capitol Hill Cubans: Desperation Is No Substitute For Shame:

Let’s be totally clear, this letter was not based on the volition of Cuban dissidents — its timing, legislative insight and political specificity make that glaringly obvious. This letter was the initiative of U.S.-based organizations, the Cuba Study Group and the so-called Center for Democracy in the Americas, which lobby against sanctions.
But what’s most reprehensible about this letter are growing indications that many of the dissidents that were signed-on have been misled as to its content, purpose and intent. Some have even confirmed that they’ve never heard of, let alone signed, such a letter. That’s scandalous.

—Emilio Ichikawa, en su blog: “Sobre una carta al Congreso de los EEUU:

Y es que en el contexto actual, en “la era Obama”, donde el pacifismo y el diálogo no son discursos de resistencia sino del poder dominante, la defensa de una medida como la señalada sencillamente “no viste”, no tiene elegancia, caché, swing. Para entendernos: en tiempos como los que corren, sobre todo en medios de la “superestructura cultural”, la defensa del “embargo-bloqueo” es algo cheo.
Creo que, dada la relevancia política de algunos nombres que aparecen en la misiva, es casi un sobrentendido el que hayan firmado. Es lo más armónico con las mismas cosas que les hemos venido celebrando hasta ahora. En el caso específico (y para algunos descorazonador) de Yoani Sánchez, ella ha sostenido lo que ahí firmó con anterioridad. De hecho, algunos opositores frontales al castrismo como Martha Beatriz Roque, que no firmaron el documento, no han justificado su renuencia en que favorecen el “embargo-bloqueo” sino en que creen que hay que priorizar otras cosas. Es decir que, dado el caso en que efectivamente haya que escribir algo al Congreso de EEUU, habría que empezar por la libertad de los presos políticos en Cuba.

-NOTA: Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello fue entrevistada en el día de ayer (junio 10 de 2010) por la periodista Ninoska Pérez Castellón en su programa “Ninoska a las 3”, que se transmite por la emisora de Miami “Radio Mambí”. La economista y opositora cubana relató que Dagoberto Valdés se había presentado en su casa con la carta en cuestión, contándole que la había redactado él mismo a petición del empresario cubanoamericano Carlos Saladrigas, quien le indicó los dos puntos a considerar. Roque Cabello afirmó a Pérez Castellón que no firmó la carta, y que tampoco la leyó. Agregando que recientemente había asistido a una reunión junto a Dagoberto Valdés, donde le había dicho que haría público estos hechos, y él estuvo de acuerdo.

—Alberto de la Cruz en Babalu Blog:

Usually, a strong worded statement such as this, created by such a relatively large and well-known group, is a product of a cohesive sentiment that has been jointly expressed in the past by the majority. Other than Yoani Sanchez and a handful of other dissidents making sporadic and anemic statements in favor of lifting the embargo, there has never been a large unified call by dissidents on the island to end the embargo. With no strong statements or unity on the subject ever expressed by the dissidence in Cuba in the past, the letter, and the unity in purpose it attempts to portray, seems to have been an immaculate conception of sorts. From practically nothing came something very big and very meaningful.
Another odd aspect I found after reading the letter both in Spanish and in English was the manner in which it was written; it is obvious that the dissidents themselves did not write it. With little access to news or the ability to research American law, there is very little probability that they would know the actual name of the law being considered in congress, let alone its number, without someone on the outside providing it to them. And I find it hard to believe they were able to find out on their own just where the proposed law stood in the process of passing it and what it would take to push it forward. There is nothing wrong with someone in the US informing them of the proposed law and its status, but reading the letter and the points it expressed, one can see that it virtually touched on every single anti-embargo talking point used by Cuba trade proponents here in the states. That brings me to the next peculiarity of this letter that casts doubt on its authenticity.
The letter was released by the Center for Democracy in the Americas. This dubious organization happens to be the home for the equally dubious Julia Sweig, and an organization that has lobbied for the end of the Cuban embargo for a very long time. It seems strange that an entity that has done little to nothing for dissidents in Cuba suddenly becomes the mouthpiece for the political opposition on the island. Like the immaculate conception of this letter I referred to earlier, the relationship between the Center for Democracy in the Americas and the island’s dissidence also seems magically to appear out of nowhere.