US-Cuba: Is the great thaw on ice?

 

By David Roberts



Cuban President Raúl Castro's recent comments at a summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States that before full diplomatic relations can be established with Washington, first the US must lift the trade embargo on the island, pay compensation for the damage it has caused the country and return Guantánamo military base need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

The US quickly ruled out discussing the Guantánamo base, which is a legacy of the Spanish-American war of the late 19^th century, while the embargo cannot be lifted without congressional approval, which given the fact that both houses of the US congress are now controlled by the Republicans will be no mean feat.

So does that mean the end of the US-Cuba rapprochement? That's unlikely, not least because Cuba has a great deal to benefit from the historic agreement announced in December to restore full diplomatic ties, along with President Barack Obama's pledge to work to lift the 54-year embargo and a prisoner swap.

The embargo was, after all, designed to punish the Fidel Castro regime and encourage its downfall, and Obama had said previously he would not support ending the 'blockade', as it is known in Cuba, unless there was political change on the island. While Cuba has partially opened up its economy in the last few years since Raúl took over from Fidel, there has been zero political change.

The thaw in relations involves what Obama's critics have described as a series of concessions to Cuba with nothing in return, such as increasing the amount of money that can be sent to Cubans and allowing exports of telecommunications equipment and building materials, among others. The US also agreed to ease travel restrictions on its citizens wishing to visit Cuba, and allow US credit and debit cards to be used in the Caribbean country.

Obama also promised to review Cuba's listing on the US government's list of state sponsors of terrorism, where it was placed in 1982 and is currently accompanied by Iran, Syria and Sudan. That decision could pave the way for other economic or political sanctions to be lifted.

Despite these 'concessions,' does the agreement amount to a real change in US strategy towards Cuba? Or is it merely an acknowledgement that isolating Havana is not going to bring political change, whereas encouraging economic ties may lead to the communist-ruled country opening up – widespread use of the internet could be key – and eventually regime change? It seems unlikely that Obama has come to accept the existence of the totalitarian regime and, although he may not say it in public, he presumably believes the fresh approach will indeed result in change.

The risk on the part of Obama, therefore, is limited, given the clear failure of past policies and the fact that much now depends on congress, while the risk on the part of Raúl Castro is much greater. The Cuban regime has long used the embargo and the US policy towards Havana as a scapegoat for the country's ills, and an excuse to rule with an iron fist. If that goes, the future of communist rule will be threatened. That is a risk that Raúl Castro (maybe even both Castros) must be well aware of, just as he surely must have expected Washington's predictable response to the Guantanamo demand. So while it's easy to be cynical and cast doubt on his sincerity and willingness to follow through on the agreement, the Cuban leader's courage to enter this period of entente with Washington is something worthy of recognition.

February 10, 2015

BN Americas

The un-revolutionary mending of US-Cuba relations

By David Roberts


The recently announced thaw in US-Cuba relations is a boon to all Latin America and to the region's ties with Washington. The issue of US sanctions against Cuba has dogged relations between Latin America and the US for decades, with even the more liberal, pro-market countries in the region calling for the embargo to be lifted.

Some have speculated that Venezuela, Cuba's closest ally in the region, will now be isolated as Havana looks more to the US, leaving Caracas as something of a lone wolf in its ranting and raving against Washington. That appears to be wishful thinking. Cuba and the US are not suddenly going to become the best of chums.

The decision to restore full diplomatic ties and loosen the economic and travel restrictions (including the ability of US citizens to travel to Cuba, a restriction that smacks of a totalitarian state) is highly significant, even historic as Barack Obama put it. But major change is not going to come overnight, and the likes of McDonalds and Starbucks are not suddenly going to pop up in Havana and Santiago de Cuba.

For a start, the US already has a large diplomatic mission in the Cuban capital, and economic restrictions have been partially lifted in recent years, while Cuba itself has been undergoing a process of gradual and very partial economic liberalization. What is more, to end the embargo altogether will require the approval of the US congress, where the Republicans will now control both houses and will surely not vote in favor.

But the hope and expectation is that, as relations improve during the last two years of the Obama administration, support for the embargo will fade with the benefits of closer political and economic ties becoming evident, and whoever succeeds him will have the backing to end the patently ineffective embargo. That, in turn, would mean the Cuban regime would no longer have an excuse – as the embargo has been for the last 50 years – for stifling democratic change and using it as a scapegoat (with some justification) for the country's economic woes.

At the same time, scrapping the embargo would be good for business in the US and elsewhere – given the dire economic straits that Cuba's oil benefactor Venezuela is in, and with crude prices in freefall, shouldn't US companies help Cuba develop its own hydrocarbon resources?

Finally, and almost as an aside, a big unknown in all this is the role of Fidel Castro. Did he approve of the secret talks with Washington and the agreement between his brother Raúl and Obama? Was he involved in the process? Could the agreement have been reached if he were still in charge? We've heard nothing from Fidel so far.

Whatever the case, many have said that real change could not happen in Cuba while the Castro brothers are still alive. It seems those people could, thankfully, be proved wrong, and that would be of benefit to the whole of the Americas.

December 23, 2014

BNAmericas

...fears that the massive BP oil spill will reach Cuba and wreak havoc on an island still relatively untouched by modernity's environmental ills

Fearful Cuba watches, waits for BP oil spill
By Jeff Franks:


HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters) -- Red flags went up on beaches in western Cuban this week, closing them briefly to swimmers amid rumors that the BP oil spill in the US part of the Gulf of Mexico was forcing sharks into Cuban waters.

The government, through state-run press, quickly denounced the rumors as false and the beaches were reopened, but the incident reflected fears that the massive spill will reach Cuba and wreak havoc on an island still relatively untouched by modernity's environmental ills.

"Cuba, like all the countries in this area, is worried about the situation in the Gulf," said Osmani Borrego Fernandez, a director at the Guanahacabibes National Park at Cuba's western tip.

So far, he said, there has been no evidence of the oil, but "we are alert."

A trip along Cuba's coastline is like a trip back in time where vast stretches of palm-fringed beaches sit undeveloped and sea life abounds in the crystalline waters.

While rampant development and overfishing have damaged coastlines and depleted seas around the world, communist-led Cuba has been largely preserved by its slow economic pace.

As a result, scientists and environmentalists view Cuban waters as a place where they can see how the world's oceans were decades ago.

"Many areas along the coast, and thousands of small keys, are in rural areas or are remote and have simply been left alone," said Dan Whittle, senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund.

"Ernest Hemingway set up a fish camp on Cayo Paraiso (about 90 miles west of Havana) in the 1940s and the area has not really changed since then. If he were still alive, he'd still recognize it today," he said of the US writer who lived in Cuba for two decades.

Cuba's northwest coast is considered most in danger from the oil. It is there that coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves provide major breeding grounds for many fish and sea creatures, including endangered migratory species like sea turtles, sharks and manatees, Whittle said.

All that is at stake if the BP oil finds its way to Cuba. It could also damage Cuba's tourism industry, which is centered on beaches and to a lesser degree eco-tourism.

Tourism brought in more than $2 billion to Cuba last year, or about 20 percent of Cuban's foreign exchange income.

The good news for Cuba is that the spill is still centered about 300 miles northwest of the island and BP may finally be gaining control over the massive leak.

Officials for the oil giant said on Friday their so-called "top kill" solution of plugging the gusher by pumping in "drilling mud" was showing signs of success.

But even if that happens soon, Cuban officials are concerned that the oil already in the water could be swept south by gulf currents.

Cuba is separated from the Florida Keys by just 90 miles of water and despite their disparate political histories, the United States and Cuba are inextricably linked ecologically.

Another rumor that supposedly contributed to the Cuban beach closures this week was that lionfish, which have venomous spikes and have invaded Cuban waters in recent years from Florida, were poisoning swimmers. The government said that rumor also was false.

The United States and Cuba have been at odds since Fidel Castro took power in a 1959 revolution, but they held talks last week about the oil slick, officials said.

Cuba expert Wayne Smith at the Center for International Policy think tank in Washington said he met with Cuban authorities this week in Havana and that they are "fully open" to cooperation with the Americans to stop the oil.

Standing in the way is the longstanding US trade embargo against Cuba, which prevents the use of much US technology in Cuba.

At a conference this week in Washington, oil experts and environmentalists said it was time to allow cooperation with Cuba in oil safety practices.

"We are not talking about a transfer of technology. All we are asking is that, if there is an accident, the Cubans can pick up the phone and call American experts who can bring resources within 24 hours," said oil expert Jorge Pinon.

The issue is becoming a bigger one as Spanish oil giant Repsol prepares to drill for oil off Cuba's ecologically rich northwest coast perhaps later this year. It has contracted for use of an Italian-owned drilling rig now being completed in China.

While the spill is a disaster, it might have one positive result, Smith said.

"It actually could help improve (US-Cuba) relations if we cooperate in the right way and we have the right attitude," he said.

May 29, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Hope for a basic shift in US Cuba policy disintegrates into continued polarization

By COHA Research Associate Katya Rodriguez:


Washington severed relations with Cuba on January 3, 1961 and launched its economic embargo against Havana the following year. Its intended target was to transform Cuba’s political system from being sympathetic to Moscow’s brand of Communism to one more harmonious with the Cold War ideology being proselytized by the White House. However, most regional specialists now dealing with the embargo issue, after forty-eight years in operation, agree that it has not been particularly effective in persuading the island leaders to take steps toward the democratization of the country. Instead, it only has served to damage Washington’s economic, diplomatic and national-security interests affecting Cuba as well as the remainder of the region.

During most of the last half century, discussions aimed at normalizing relations with Cuba have been rare and mainly unproductive. Due to Obama’s optimism for political change toward Cuba during his presidential campaign, there was considerable hope that the sterility and selective indignation that had characterized US policy toward Havana would be altered in a more constructive direction. But his election did not by any means serve to initiate a paradigm shift in US-Cuban relations, and after a year, one could say that when it came to change in Latin America, the direction of the new administration was more in reverse than in fast-forward. Once hopeful attitudes and expectations are now disintegrating, and as a result, there is a growing continuum of hostility between the United States and Cuba. Meanwhile, Washington, if anything, is becoming more isolated from much of Latin America than meaningfully connected to it.

This growing animosity was underlined when news surfaced that Cuba had not been eliminated from the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list, which would be issued in its finalized form in April. Scandalously (given the paucity of incriminating evidence in recent years), Cuba has held a prominent position on that infamous list since 1982, and its ancient tenure in this category represents the second-longest in duration after Syria, despite the Cuban government’s futile protests that it does not in any form deserve to be stigmatized in this manner.

While President Obama acknowledged that the policies made by prior U.S. administrations that were intended to democratize Cuba have come to no avail, he has not put to work a policy aimed at constructive engagement. Although he has been chief of state for over a year now, he has done little to fulfill his campaign promise to meet with Cuban leaders and take necessary steps toward normalizing ties with Cuba. His less-than-significant move to free up remittances allowed to be sent to Cuba as well as lifting travel restrictions against Cuban- Americans visiting Cuba reveal themselves as merely a reversal of nuisance regulations implemented by George W. Bush. If Obama intends to live up to the hype he initiated during his campaign in terms of thawing an otherwise fallow relationship with Cuba, he needs to address a much longer and larger restrictive strategy towards US-Cuban policies than just those put into effect by the previous administration. Furthermore, his executive orders regarding Cuba are not being enforced. On January 21, 2009 he signed orders instructing the CIA to close Guantanamo Bay; a year later, it remains open and Reuters reported that the deadline has been extended to an additional three years.

Obama has ordered that the release of all political prisoners held in Cuba as a reoccurring condition to regain ties. It has been indicated that Raúl Castro is willing to release anyone of importance to the US if the White House sees to it that the Cuban Five are freed. International support against the imprisonment of the Cuban Five remains strong. On January 28, 2010 three Argentinean men climbed Mount Aconcagua, the second tallest mountain in the world, to display a banner that read, “Obama, free the five Cuban heroes now!” The United Nations defended the Cuban Five, stating that the trial was not impartial; it happened in South Florida where anti-Castro sentiments are strong and harsh punishment for Castro supporters is routine. On October 10, 2009 a judge decided that the sentences were excessive and reduced them for three of the five. Antonio Guerrero’s sentence was reduced from a life sentence to a twenty-year term, due to insufficient evidence. The sentence reductions reflect negatively on the US criminal system and raises doubt that their right to a fair and speedy trial was acknowledged. If the United States truly wishes to have better ties to Cuba, the prompt release of prisoners in both countries will stimulate change.

By far the most damaging action taken by an administration supposedly trying to re-establish relations with Cuba was to abrogate the US Practice of almost automatically placing Cuba on the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list. According to Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archives, a non-governmental research library located at George Washington University, the reason for Cuba’s inclusion on the list is punishment for not participating in Washington’s global War on Terror. This accusation is far from legitimate since Cuba has laws against terrorism. In addition, being on the list prohibits Cuba from receiving US foreign assistance, permission to export goods to the US, and requiring special licensing requirements for businesses exports to Cuba. But one would hope that the US possessed a justifiable reason for maintaining Cuba on its list rather than an ideological commitment to political values. For twenty-eight years, Cuba has languished on the list with no action toward democratic change or presenting credible evidence of Cuba supporting the War on Terror. Keeping Havana on the list for another year with no concrete evidence that it benefits the United States leads to the conclusion that it only negatively affects Cuba. Recalling Obama’s words on May 23, 2008 concerning US arrogance towards Latin America, it would appear that the US is in need of a pressing review of a hemispheric policy that brings with it vital new ideas.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Cuba minister says Obama has not met policy change promises

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- President Barack Obama has not fulfilled his promises to change US foreign policy and may not be fully in control of the government, Cuba's foreign minister told the United Nations on Monday.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Bruno Rodriguez said Obama had done little to mend US-Cuba relations and had taken other steps that were at odds with his promises to break with the policies of predecessor George W. Bush.

"The most serious and dangerous aspect about this new situation is uncertainty about the real capacity of current authorities in Washington to overcome political and ideological currents that, under the previous administration, threatened the world," he said.

"The neoconservative forces that took George Bush to the presidency ... have very quickly regrouped and still have the reins of power and considerable influence, contrary to the announced change," Rodriguez said.

The Cuban minister pointed to the June 28 military coup in Honduras, saying that while Obama had said ousted President Manuel Zelaya must be returned to office, "the American fascist right, represented by (former Vice President Dick) Cheney, openly supports and sustains the coup."

Zelaya, bundled into exile by soldiers in the summer coup, secretly returned to Honduras a week ago and is currently sheltering in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa.

"The world reacted with profound optimism to the change in government in Washington," Rodriguez said. But he added Obama's words, including promises to make changes in several US policies, do not "coincide with reality".

"The detention and torture center at Guantanamo Naval Base, which usurps part of Cuban territory, has not been shut down. The occupation troops in Iraq have not been withdrawn. The war in Afghanistan is expanding," he said.

Regarding Cuba, Rodriguez said Obama had taken "positive" steps" by allowing Cuban Americans to travel and send money freely to the communist-ruled island.

He added US-initiated talks with Havana on migration and on the possible reinstatement of direct postal service between the long-time foes had been "respectful and fruitful."

But he said many other issues had not been addressed, above all the 47-year-old US trade embargo against Cuba, which the Cuban government blames for most of its economic problems.

Rodriguez said Obama had acted "contrary to what all the American public opinion polls reflect" when he signed two weeks ago a yearly renewal of the act that imposes the embargo.

"The crucial thing is that the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba remains intact," he said.

The embargo was imposed in 1962 to undermine the Cuban government that turned to communism after the 1959 revolution led by Fidel Castro. Fidel Castro, 83, ceded the Cuban presidency last year to his younger brother Raul Castro, 78, citing health grounds.

Rodriguez said the US embargo would never achieve its goal. "Those who try to put an end to the revolution and bend the will of the Cuban people are suffering from delusions," he said.

September 29, 2009

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog Bahamas