Cuba Planning March Challenging Biden To Cancel Hostile U.S. Policies

The Call for a Cuban Combatant March

On December 14 (the last day of the IX Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba) Cuban President Diaz-Canel delivered a speech in which he said that the Cuban people “expect changes and solutions to their problems, which cannot always come from the nation [of Cuba]. But at all levels, we must act with sensitivity to these problems, we must involve them increasingly in the response. Popular participation is simply indispensable.”[1]

Diaz-Canel then said there was the U.S. blockade that “has been intensified, there is an economic war, they despise us, they vulgarly, obscenely and hatefully poison us on social media. In response to this hostile policy, we call on the heroic Cuban people to march in combat on December 20. It will be a strong condemnation of the imperial blockade and the unjust inclusion of Cuba in the list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism.”

Therefore, he called for a “March of the Combatant People for next October 20.”

Granma Editorial Endorsing the Combatant March[2]

 Here is what that editorial said:

“Far from fulfilling his electoral promise regarding relations with Cuba, President Joseph Biden, in his four years in office, has kept in force and in application almost all of the draconian economic coerción mesures imposed by the Trump administration, and has approved others, such as the recent legislation that legalizes the shameless theft of the Havana Club brand in the US market.”

“The policy of maximum pressure applied, the cornerstone of which is the reinforcement of the blockade, has had markedly harmful effects on the quality of life of the Cuban people, their access to food, health services, medicines, decent housing and numerous essential goods, and has caused the migration of thousands of people, sometimes in extremely risky conditions.”

“It is the rigorous concretization of the imperialist action design towards Cuba, outlined in the well-known memorandum of the Assistant Undersecretary of State, Lester Mallory, 64 years ago, who defined that the only way to confront the Cuban Revolution “… is through the disenchantment and dissatisfaction that arise from economic malaise and material difficulties… all possible means must be quickly employed to weaken the economic life of Cuba… a line of action that, being the most skillful and discreetly as possible, achieve the greatest advances in depriving Cuba of money and supplies, in order to reduce its financial resources and real wages, provoke hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the Government.”

“Since then, the strategy has consisted not only of bringing hunger and misery to the Cuban people, but also and, above all, in trying to make it seem that the cause of such misfortunes is the “inefficient management” of the Cuban government, and not the so-called “sanctions” of Washington.”

“But the numbers are clear in showing who is holding back the necessary development of the Cuban nation. The blockade affects our people to the tune of more than 421 million dollars a month, more than 13.8 million dollars a day, and 575,683 dollars in damages for every hour of its application.”

“The blockade is the most comprehensive, complete and prolonged system of unilateral and extraterritorial coercive economic measures ever applied against any nation.”

“”No country, even with economies much more prosperous and robust than Cuba’s, could face such a ruthless, asymmetric and prolonged aggression, without a considerable cost to the standard of living of its population, its stability and social justice,” says the report presented by Cuba this year to the United Nations General Assembly, where the overwhelming majority of UN member countries condemned this policy of force and suffocation.”

“In addition to the considerable damage caused to the economy, finances and trade by this aberrant policy, there are the restrictive measures resulting from the decision to include Cuba, in a malicious manner, in the infamous arbitrary and illegitimate list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism. It was a perverse move by the Trump administration, a few days before leaving the White House.”

“This designation is cynical, because Cuba, far from sponsoring terrorism, has been and is the victim of recurring terrorist activities financed and organized from US territory, with the consent of the authorities of that country.”

“Cuba has a clear and firm position in the fight against terrorism in all its forms. It has served as a key intermediary in the peace talks between the Colombian government, the ELN and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), in the same spirit with which it called on the member states of CELAC a decade ago to declare the region a Zone of Peace, ‘based on respect for the principles and norms of International Law.’”

“It is a cruel act because it is designed to maximize the suffering of the Cuban people. The inclusion of our country on the list of nations that support terrorism not only makes international transactions difficult, has export obstacles and financial restrictions, or hinders assistance to the country with humanitarian aid, but also threatens or penalizes citizens of countries that enjoy the privilege of traveling to Cuba, which includes Cuban nationals. It also interferes with banking transactions of natural persons and new non-state economic actors. It prevents the contracting of online services and restricts academic and scientific exchanges.”

“In May 2024, the State Department removed Cuba from the list of states that “do not fully cooperate” with the United States in the fight against terrorism, further highlighting the nefarious and opportunistic nature of the 2021 designation.”

“In defending the rational change of attitude, Secretary of State Antony Blinken not only cited the current position of the Colombian government, but also highlighted Cuba’s police cooperation and the non-existence of terrorist elements on Cuban territory.”

“But this is not enough. Cuba continues to suffer as a result of its cynical, cruel and illegal exclusion from the international economy and finances, given its continued inclusion on the arbitrary list of alleged sponsors of terrorism.”

“President Biden can put an end to that lie and heed the call of dozens of governments, numerous former presidents and prime ministers, hundreds of members of parliament, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders, and thousands of organizations around the world and in the United States itself.”

“In the days remaining in his term, President Biden can remove Cuba from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism; he has the authority to do so. If he wants to leave some decency as a legacy in the final days of his political life, he can take that symbolic step. There is still time to do so.”

“The Cuban people will continue to fight against unjust aggression, against the genocidal blockade, against manipulation and lies, against spurious and coercive lists, against the million-dollar funds to subvert internal order and feed disinformation operations, and will demand with all their might justice and peace for Cuba and for our world.”

“This is what will happen on December 20, when, in their name, the people of the capital will march in combat along the Havana seafront to express, in front of the United States Embassy, ​​their demand for an end to hostility, their condemnation of imperial ignominy, and their unyielding spirit of struggle and victory.”

“We will march with the profound conviction, instilled by Fidel, that there is no force in the world capable of crushing the power of truth and ideas.”

Reaction

As a U.S. citizen and resident, this blogger was involved in Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church’s establishing a partnership with a Cuban Presbyterian Church in the city of Maranzas over 20 years ago, including making three mission trips to that church, and has maintained contact with fellow Westminster members so involved today and with visits of Cuban pastors to our church. As a result, this blogger has paid close attention to the ongoing bilateral relations and written many blog posts about same.

Although I do not subscribe to the negative comments about the U.S. in the current Cuban effort to promote the upcoming Combatant March, I do support the U.S. in the last days of the Biden Administration cancelling  its current designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism because I think it is not justified and because Cuba has been going through a horrible time, politically and economically, and needs all of the help it can get. I also would like the embargo to be cancelled, but that would take congressional action, which is not possible now.

Tomorrow we will see the actual march.

=============================

[1] With no solutions to the crisis that is overwhelming Cubans, Diaz-Canel calls on them to a ‘combatant march’, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 14, 2024).

[2] Editorial: A march against imperial ignominy, Granma (Dec. 16, 2024); Extreme pressure on Biden: the Cuban regime shows the purpose of the December 20 march, Diario de Cuba (Dec.17, 2024).

 

 

Former U.S. Officials Plead for Biden Administration To Relax Cuba Restrictions     

A group of former officials in the Bush and Obama administrations have sent a letter to President Biden and Vice President Harris. This group inclues former Havana Chief of Mission Vicki Huddleston, former deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes and Jeffrey DeLaurentis, former acting ambassador to Cuba.[1]

Their letter urged the removal of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, an increase of humanitarian aid to the country and streamlining rules for Cuban nationals to access the U.S. financial system. The letter said the following:

  • “As you are aware, the country’s energy grid is failing, child malnutrition is on the rise, basic services are deteriorating and most Cubans have lost hope, precipitating the largest exodus of migrants from Cuba in its history,”
  • “In no uncertain terms do we exonerate the Cuban government for its insufficient and incoherent policy reforms that have in large part caused this crisis. Yet we also believe that current U.S. policy has exacerbated Cubans’ hardship, and thus we respectfully request that you take a series of actions in the remaining weeks of your administration to help alleviate these challenges — in the U.S. national interest and in support of the Cuban people.”
  • “As many of us have said publicly, there is no credible evidence that Cuba sponsors international terrorism. The designation has hindered Cuba’s access to international finance, reduced tourism revenues to pay for imports of food, fuel and medicine and obstructed the arrival of humanitarian relief,” wrote the officials.”
  • “Our closest allies in the region have repeatedly requested we remove this designation to ameliorate the regional impacts of surging Cuban migration, and we are confident the United States will be applauded worldwide for making this fact-based determination.”
  • Jeffrey DeLaurentis added, “In my view the only reason the Trump Administration put Cuba back on the SSOT in its waning days in January 2021 was to make it more difficult for the incoming Biden Administration to reverse Trump Administration reversals of President Obama’s wise and forward-leaning policy.”
  • “Instruct the Office of Foreign Assets Control to guide financial institutions on how to serve qualified Cuban nationals without stepping astride of U.S. sanctions. They also called for a general license to allow U.S. citizens to invest in Cuban enterprises not linked to the country’s government.”
  • “As you said in 2020, Vice President Harris, the U.S. embargo is a failed policy that only emboldens hardliners in both Miami and Havana who do not represent the Cuban people’s aspirations for a brighter and more prosperous future. We commend the steps that you have taken while in office, President Biden, to restore remittances, resume visa processing, support independent Cuban entrepreneurs and expand travel for Cuban Americans.”
  • “However, to address the scope of the current crisis in Cuba, we believe that your administration must pay close attention and act decisively to mitigate the potentially dire implications of having a failed state just 90 miles off our shores.”

Reactions

This blogger agrees with this letter’s requests to the Biden Administration.

=========================

[1]  Bernal, Bush, Obama alumni ask Biden administration to ease up on Cuba before Trump takes office. The Hill (Dec. 17, 2024);Former US officials call on Biden to ease restrictions on the regime before the end of  his term, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 19, 2024)

 

U.S. Blames Cuba for Failure of U.S.-Cuba Reconciliation

On December 16. 2024, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Brian Nichols made a statement about the U.S.-Cuba relationship to the editors of Marti Noticias, a Cuba organization founded in 1983 “to serve as a reliable and authoritative source of accurate, balanced and complete information for the Cuban people,” which is “a closed society where all media outlets continue to be controlled by the State, [while] Radio Martí and Martinoticias.com focus on essentially covering the Cuban issue with an alternative vision that breaks censorship.”[1]

Nichols said, ““The restoration of diplomatic relations under the Obama administration was an important step in trying to improve the lives of Cuban citizens and address challenges such as the lack of democracy on the island. However, the reforms we would have liked to see in Cuba did not occur.”

“Relations quickly cooled after Donald Trump came to power in his first term, mysterious health incidents involving US diplomats in Havana and then the brutal repression of peaceful protests by hundreds of thousands of Cubans demanding freedom.”

“In 2021 we saw a wave of repression that truly stunned the world, a huge setback for the well-being of the Cuban people and the international community. It was a missed opportunity by the Cuban regime,” Nichols added.

“Since mass protests in July 2021, the Cuban regime has imprisoned more than 1,000 political prisoners, many of them young people who took to the streets to peacefully demand fundamental freedoms. The sentences imposed amount to decades of imprisonment. Despite repeated calls from the United States for their release, Havana has ignored these demands.”

“’Our focus in Cuba is to promote private sector development and address some of the humanitarian challenges, such as the lack of economic resources and food,’ said Nichols.”

“’There is hunger, maybe not a famine, but a lot of hunger in Cuba. The economic activity of the private sector supports the well-being of ordinary people, and we have tried to support this with changes in economic regulations.’”

“In May 2024, the Joe Biden administration implemented measures to strengthen the private sector on the island, allowing Cuban entrepreneurs to open bank accounts in the United States and carry out international transactions. Cloud services were also authorized to improve Internet access and financial options were expanded to benefit the population.”

“However, the Cuban regime has hindered this development. It has restricted wholesale trade for private actors, limiting it exclusively to contracts with state entities. In addition, it eliminated incentives for new businesses, imposed higher requirements for entrepreneurship, increased taxes and tightened accounting regulations, further hampering private sector growth.”

“’’The solution to the problems Cuba faces at this time is democracy and increased freedoms,’ Nichols stressed, arguing that greater openness would allow for ‘more economic growth’ and general well-being for the population.”

“’You cannot treat the symptoms, such as the blackouts, without addressing the real disease: the lack of democracy in Cuba,’ Nichols concluded.

Reactions

There is a lot of truth in these remarks by Deputy Secretary Nichols. However, it misleadingly omits referring to U.S. actions that have contributed to the current unpleasant state of the relationship: maintenance of the U.S. embargo of the island and the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Note shold also be made about this blog’s posts about President Obama’s leadership in fostering a normalization of this bilateral relationship and the first Trump administration’s abandonment of these Obama efforts and the failure of the Biden Administration to return to the Obama normalization campaign.

================================

[1] Ten years after the ‘thaw’ with Havana, the U.S. says it was a ;missed opportunity,’ Diario de Cuba (Dec. 17. 2024); Penton, “A missed opportunity,’ says the US a decade after the thaw with Cuba, Marti Noricias (Dec. 16, 2024); Get to know us, Marti Noticias. See also Why Are Cuba and the U.S. Still Mired in the Cold War?, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 16, 2024).

 

Why Are Cuba and the U.S. Still Mired in the Cold War? 

This is the title of a lengthy article in Foreign Policy by William H. LeoGrande, professor of government at American University in Washington, D.C. and a respected commentator on the important topic of this bilateral relation.[1]

Obama’s Normalization Effort

The starting point for his analysis is a review of the 10th anniversary of President Obama’s public announcement of his Administration’s start of normalization of relations with Cuba. Highlights of that effort were “ending the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, reopening of both countries embassies, President Obama’s visit to Cuba, loosening of restrictions on U.S. citizens travel to the island and resumption of U.S. airlines travel to Cuba, resulting increases in U.S. travel to the island, establishing a bilateral commission to oversee the work of 18 diplomatic working groups; and Obama’s prediction of an end to the U.S. embargo” (that did not happen). Nevertheless, this effort at normalization “was immensely popular both at home and abroad. Pope Francis blessed it, the Cuban people loved it, and the general U.S. public supported it, including more than half of Cuban Americans.”[2]

Trump’s First Term’s Return to Hostile Relations

LeoGrande then notes that in  his first term, Trump adopted new regulations to restrict U.S. travel to the island, impose limits on remittances, block business with Cuban companies managed by its military, disband bilateral working groups on various issues plus returned to Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.[3]

Biden’s Failure To Return to Obama’s Normalization

Leo Grande then had these brief remarks about President Biden. “During [Biden’s] campaign, he criticized the impact of Trump’s policies on Cuban families and promised to restore Obama’s policy of normalization ‘in large part.’ But he never did. Biden did adopt some ‘half-measures.’ Most importantly, he left Cuba on the lise of state sponsors of terrorism. The result has been an incoherent hybrid policy . . .and there is little indication that he will use his lame-duck period to finally keep the Cuba-policy promises he made in 2020.” [4]

Trump Redux

Leo Grande says, “Trump’s return to the White House could presage a return to maximum pressure, especially with Rubio as secretary of states and Rep. Mike Waltz as national security advisor. Rubio and Republican Cuban Americans on the Hill will surely push for it, just as they did in Trump’s first term. They will point out that 70 percent of Cuban Americans in Florida voted for him and that a recent Florida International University (FIU) poll found 72 percent of Cuban American respondents support maximum pressure to promote regime change.” [5]

“But resuming maximum pressure would stir a political hornet’s nest. After eight years of intense sanctions exacerbated by the Cuban government’s policy mistakes, the island is suffering an unprecedented economic and social crisis. Life is so hard and prospects for the future are so grim that more than a million Cubans—9 percent of the population—emigrated in the past three years.  Three-quarters of them have come to the United States, 690,000 arrived undocumented at the southern border, another 100,000 admitted under Biden’s humanitarian parole program. If Trump adopts policies that deepen Cuba’s crisis, the new surge of migrants could dwarf these numbers, which would seriously complicate his plans to end irregular immigration.”

Conclusion

LeoGrande concludes his article with the following words:

“[T]he key lesson from the fleeting rapprochement that began 10 years ago on Dec. 17, 2014, is that engagement benefits both countries and that bold and determined leaders can make it happen. The enthusiasm with which Cubans, Americans, and people around the world embraced the prospect of peace between the United States and Cuba underscored just how long overdue reconciliation was. Both Obama and Raúl Castro spoke of rebuilding bridges between their countries, and both acknowledged it would be hard to put decades of animosity to rest. It has proven harder than anyone expected in the halcyon days following Dec. 17, but the ties that bind Cuba and the United States—ties of family, commerce, culture, and the shared interests that come from living next door to one another—will eventually overcome the resistance of even the most recalcitrant politicians. As Henry Kissinger recognized half a century ago, ‘perpetual antagonism’ between the United States and Cuba need not be normal.’”

“Cuban Americans are not likely to support closing the southern border to Cuban migrants, and immigration law prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. If the administration tries to make an exception for Cubans, the policy will certainly be challenged in court. Trump’s plans to deport undocumented immigrants could face even bigger problems. Tearing recent Cuban migrants from their families, many of whom paid traffickers thousands of dollars to bring their relatives here, would cause a political firestorm in south Florida. The FIU poll found that 72 percent of respondents support humanitarian parole for Cuban migrants and that half are planning to bring relatives still in Cuba to the United States in the future.”

“In foreign policy, tougher Cuba sanctions would complicate relations with Mexico. President Claudia Sheinbaum is supporting Cuba by sending it cheap oil. In 2023, her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, warned the Biden administration that Cuban migration spurred by U.S. sanctions was causing problems for Mexico and complicating cooperation with Washington on migration issues. Cooperation with Mexico, as Trump learned in his first term, is indispensable for limiting undocumented migration and narcotics trafficking across the southern border, which are all top priorities for him.”

“Escalating sanctions on Cuba could also complicate Trump’s desire to improve relations with Russia. Moscow has grown closer with Havana in recent years, expanding relations beyond economic cooperation into a ‘strategic partnership,’ as the two countries describe it. Cuba has defended Russia’s rationale for its invasion of Ukraine, making Havana a valuable ally in the Global South. And Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly values having an outpost in the United States “near abroad,” if only as a geopolitical thorn in Washington’s side. In short, Russia has a clear interest in the survival of the Cuban regime.”

“I f sanctions succeed in destabilizing Cuba to the point that the state fails and social violence erupts, the pressure from Cuban Americans for U.S. military intervention will be immense. Cuban American elected officials demanded intervention in July 2021, in response to the Cuban government’s suppression of nationwide demonstrations, even though the largely peaceful protests only lasted a few days. U.S. intervention would poison relations with Latin America for a generation.”

“But the key lesson from the fleeting rapprochement that began 10 years ago on Dec. 17, 2014, is that engagement benefits both countries and that bold and determined leaders can make it happen. The enthusiasm with which Cubans, Americans, and people around the world embraced the prospect of peace between the United States and Cuba underscored just how long overdue reconciliation was. Both Obama and Raúl Castro spoke of rebuilding bridges between their countries, and both acknowledged it would be hard to put decades of animosity to rest. It has proven harder than anyone expected in the halcyon days following Dec. 17, but the ties that bind Cuba and the United States—ties of family, commerce, culture, and the shared interests that come from living next door to one another—will eventually overcome the resistance of even the most recalcitrant politicians. As Henry Kissinger recognized half a century ago, “perpetual antagonism” between the United States and Cuba need not be normal.”

Reactions

This blog recently has been publishing posts about the horrible times currently being suffered in Cuba and hence the need for the U.S. to return to the normalization efforts of President Obama/ [6]

================================

 

[1] Leo Grande, Why Are Cuba and the U.S. Still Mired in the Cold War?, Foreign Policy (Dec. 12, 2024).

[2] See the posts listed in the following sections of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20]: U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2014; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2015; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2016; and U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2017.

[3] See the posts listed in  the following sections of  that List of Posts: U.S. (Trump) & Cuba Relations, 2016-17; and U.S. (Trump) and Cuba, 2018.

[4] I concur in LeoGrande’s analysis and conclusion.

[5] Another concurrence.

[6] E.g., U.S. Congressmen Ask President Biden To Provide Sanctions Relief and Other Aid to Cuba (Nov. 20, 2024); Cuba’s Unstoppable Spiral of Misery, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 4, 2024);Diario de Cuba’s Editorial on Its 15th Anniversary, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 5, 2024); Will Cuba Lose Almost Half of Its Population by 2100?,  dwkcommentaries.com (Dec.14, 2024).

 

Will Cuba Lose Almost Half Its Population by 2100?   

Yes, according to a study by CEU San Pablo University in Madrid, Spain.

The head of this study, Alejandro Macarrón, said that Cuba’s population is “very aged due to the drop in the rate of children per woman and the loss of the young population.” He added, “Those who have left, logically, are mainly young people. That leaves the population older. Cuba has had more deaths than births, for years now. Approximately 2.1 children per woman are needed for what we call population replacement or generational change to occur, and Cuba is well below its threshold.”

===================

Suarez, Cuba will lose almost half of its population before the end of the century, according to a study, Diario de Cuba (Dec,13, 2024).

 

 

U.S. Announces that Cuba Is Still a State Sponsor of Terrorism 

On December 12, 2024, the U.S. State Department released its 2023 Country Reports on Terrorism.[1] its introduction stated the following:

  • “The Department of State has issued the 2023 Country Reports on Terrorism (CRT), which provide a detailed look at how the counterterrorism environment and associated threats have evolved over the past year, fulfilling an important Congressional mandate.  Each year, the CRT provides insight on important issues in the fight against terrorism and helps the United States make informed decisions about policies, programs, and resource allocations as we seek to build counterterrorism capacity and resilience around the globe.”
  • “Amid a constantly changing threat landscape, the CRT provides an overview of how we marshal international efforts to counter terrorism.  Among the many accomplishments highlighted in the 2023 report are our efforts to refine the focus of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS to address new regions of concern; the continued designation of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist groups and their leaders; and the repatriation of more than 5,500 foreign terrorist fighters from detention facilities and associated family members from displaced persons camps in northeast Syria.”
  • “As the United States adapts its counterterrorism approach to keep pace with evolving threats, the CRT continues to serve as a valuable resource in assessing the global terrorism landscape.”

The Report also stated, “To designate a country as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Secretary of State must determine that the government of such country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.  Once a country is designated, it remains a State Sponsor of Terrorism until the designation is rescinded in accordance with statutory criteria requiring the President to certify either a) that a designated country has not provided any support for acts of international terrorism during the previous six months and has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future or b) that there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the designated country, that the country is not supporting acts of international terrorism, and that the country has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.” (Emphasis added.)

That report stated the following regarding Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism::

  • “On January 12, 2021, the Department of State designated Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.  The Secretary of State determined that the Cuban government repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism in granting safe harbor to terrorists.“
  • “Cuba was previously designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1982 because of its long history of providing advice, safe haven, communications, training, and financial support to guerrilla groups and individual terrorists.”
  • “Cuba’s designation was rescinded in 2015 after a thorough review found the country met the statutory criteria for rescission.  In 2021 the Secretary of State determined Cuba had repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism in the six years since its designation had been rescinded.  Citing peace negotiation protocols, Cuba refused Colombia’s request to extradite 10 Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN, or the National Liberation Army) leaders living in Havana after that group claimed responsibility for the 2019 bombing of a Bogotá police academy that killed 22 people and injured 87 others.”
  • “The Cuban government did not formally respond to the extradition requests for ELN leaders Victor Orlando Cubides (aka “Pablo Tejada”) and Ramírez Pineda (aka “Pablo Beltrán”) filed by Colombia.”
  • “In November 2022, pursuant to an order from Colombian President Petro, the U.S. Attorney General announced that arrest warrants would be suspended against 17 ELN commanders, including those whose extradition Colombia had previously requested.  In May 2023 the Colombian government and ELN convened the third round of Colombia-ELN peace talks in Cuba.”
  • “Cuba continues to harbor several U.S. fugitives from justice wanted on charges related to political violence, many of whom have resided in Cuba for decades.”

================================

[1]  U.S. State Department, On the release of the 2023 Country Reports on Terrorism (Dec. 12, 2024). See also The Cuban regime will remain on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism for another year, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 12, 2024).

Analysis of Recent U.S.Immigration Surge        

A New York Times columnist, David Leonhardt, has provided an analysis of the recent surge in U.S. immigration. Here are the seven highlights of that analysis.[1]

“1. The immigration surge since 2021 has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing even the levels of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Total net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — will likely exceed eight million people over the past four years, government statistics suggest. That number includes both legal and illegal immigration.”

“Never before has annual net migration been close to two million for an extended period, according to data from the Census Bureau and the Congressional Budget Office.”

“2. Even after adjusting for today’s larger population, the surge is slightly larger than that during the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States.”

“3. The share of the U.S. population born in another country has reached a record high as a result. That share hit 15.2 percent in the summer of 2023 (and continued rising over the past 18 months). The previous high of 14.8 percent occurred in 1890, and the share remained high for decades afterward.”

“It began to decline after the passage of a tough immigration law in 1924. That restrictive era lasted until 1965, when a new law expanded immigration.”

“4. President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy has been the main reason for the recent surge. During his 2020 campaign, Biden encouraged more people to come to the U.S., and he loosened several policies after taking office.”

“Biden administration officials sometimes argue that outside events, such as the turmoil in Haiti, Ukraine and Venezuela, have been the main cause of the surge, and those events did play a role. But the sharp decline of migration levels since this past summer — when Biden tightened the rules — indicates that the administration’s policies were the biggest factor.”

“5. More than half of net migration since 2021 has been among people who entered the country illegally. Of the roughly eight million net migrants who came to the U.S. over the past four years, about five million — or 62 percent — were unauthorized, according to an estimate by Goldman Sachs.”

“6. The unprecedented scale of recent immigration helps explain why the issue played such a big role in the 2024 election. Polls showed that the sharp rise in immigration was unpopular with most Americans, especially among working-class voters, some of whom complained of strained social services, crowded schools and increased homelessness.”

“The issue appears to have been Kamala Harris’s second biggest vulnerability, after only the economy. Donald Trump made striking gains near the border in Texas, winning six counties along the Rio Grande that he lost badly only eight years ago. And Democrats who outpaced Harris and won tough congressional races — in Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, New York and elsewhere — often criticized Biden’s immigration policies.”

“7. The recent immigration surge has probably ended. Trump has promised to impose even tougher border rules next year than Biden recently imposed. Trump also campaigned on a plan to deport millions of immigrants who entered the country illegally.”

“It remains unclear how far Trump will go and whether his plan will remain popular once he begins to implement it. Either way, the pace at which immigrants enter the U.S. has already fallen significantly from the peak levels of 2022 and 2023 and may continue to fall after Trump takes office. Historically, in both the U.S. and other countries, very high levels of immigration often cause a political backlash that leads to new restrictions.”

==========================

[1]  Leonhardt, The Largest Immigration Surge in U.S. History, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2024). More details are contained in Leonhardt’s longer article, Recent Immigration Surge Has Been Largest in U.S. History, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2024).. See also David Leonhardt (background). 

U.S. Has New Evidence of Chinese Spy Bases in Cuba

On December 6, “the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) revealed more evidence of Chinese espionage activities from Cuba , including information on four sites that are believed to be driving China ‘s efforts to gather intelligence on the United States and its neighbors.”[1]

“The four bases identified as having the greatest potential to serve Chinese espionage are located in Bejucal, Mayabeque province; El Salao, in Santiago de Cuba; Wajay, in Havana; and Calabazar, also in the capital. . . . [A]ll four facilities have equipment capable of collecting signals intelligence (SIGINT), a clear physical security infrastructure (guard posts, perimeter fences, military insignia, etc.), and other features that point to intelligence-gathering activities.”

At one of the baes (Bejucal) may be the “”headquarters of the Cuban military intelligence radio-electronic brigade” with several antennas scattered on the grounds of the facility that “could allow the base to track satellites and intercept their downlink communications. In addition, they could potentially collect data on US rocket launches from the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. This information would provide privileged access to data on flight paths and telemetry from two of the main sites where US satellites are launched into space.” could allow the base to track satellites and intercept their downlink communications . In addition, they could potentially collect data on US rocket launches from the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. This information would provide privileged access to data on flight paths and telemetry from two of the main sites where US satellites are launched into space.”

At another base. El Salao, near the Santiago neighborhood of the same name, has a new SIGINT site that had not been previously reported [and] a large controlled directional array antenna (CDAA) has been under construction in the area since 2021, with a diameter of between 130 and 200 meters, capable of detecting signals between 3,000 and 8,000 nautical miles once operational.”

The Wajay base is now “a robust complex today, housing 12 antennas of various sizes and orientations, significant operations and support facilities, and even a small solar park that could serve during failures of Cuba’s disastrous electrical system.”

The Calabazar base [has] a new solar park, considerably larger than the one in Wajay. . . {and new] vertical and horizontal satellite dishes, which appear to be oriented mainly towards the south, possibly aimed at capturing transmissions from satellites in geostationary orbit over the equator.

The U.S. Center that published the report behind the Diario article said that in light of these developments“the United States and its regional partners should carefully monitor China’s growing role in Cuba, harden sensitive communications, and push for transparency to reduce the likelihood of miscalculation.”  [2]

=========================

[1]  China’s spy bases in Cuba: US investigation reveals new evidence, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 9, 2024).

[2] U.S. Center for Strategic & International Studies, China’s Intelligence Footprint in Cuba: New Evidence and Implications for U.S. Security (Dec. 6, 2024).

 

Latest U.S.-Cuba Bilateral Migration Dialogue 

On December 4, the U.S. and Cuba held its latest bilateral dialogue about migration, this time in Havana.

The short statement about this meeting from the U.S. Embassy in Havana said the following:[1]

  • The meeting was to “review implementation of the U.S.-Cuba Migration Agreements, a series of bilateral agreements dating back to 1984. This was the second of two scheduled bilateral meetings on migration in 2024, reflecting the United States’ commitment to safe, legal, and orderly migration. The U.S. delegation was led by Eric Jacobstein, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, while the Cuban delegation was led by Vice Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío.”
  • “The U.S. delegation addressed key issues related to collaboration on migration procedures and highlighted the challenges to achieving the goals of the Agreements. During the talks, the United States raised issues of interest to the Cuban government, including facilitating family reunification, discouraging irregular migration, and improving respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba.”

A more fulsome account appeared in Diario de Cuba that focused on comments by Fernandez de Cossio, the Cuban official at the meeting. He said that Cuba “expressed its willingness to consolidate and expand bilateral cooperation on migration issues with the United States” and that this meeting “responds to the mutual commitment to try to guarantee that migration between Cuba and the United States is safe, orderly and regular.” [2]

Cossio also made the following comments:

  • “Cuba reiterated its willingness to comply with the commitments it has assumed and is demanding a similar commitment from the United States to comply with the agreements” and that the agreements were “comprehensive” and fulfilled on the basis of reciprocity.”
  • [E]migrants from the island who go to the US “do so motivated by two fundamental causes: the privileged treatment that the US has always granted to any Cuban who tries to enter that country by any means, whether regular or irregular, which is called a pull factor; but there is also a push factor, which is a policy of economic blockade aimed at depressing the living standards of Cubans living in Cuba.”
  • “This combination of factors poses a fundamental contradiction to the purposes of these agreements and to the mutual commitment to ensure that migration is regular, orderly and safe.”
  • The “Cuban government insisted on the need to fully resume the provision of consular services at the U.S. Embassy in Havana for those applying for nonimmigrant visas, which, although partially resumed in August for certain categories, has not yet recovered to the level it had before. We have argued that this is a fact or that encourages many people to want to emigrate to obtain residency and be able to travel between the two countries, something that would not be necessary if multiple visas existed and if citizens who visit were processed from Havana.”
  • “Also, those who have been admitted to the United States but have not been granted a specific legal status. For us, that is an important issue.”
  • “We point out the aggressive treatment that has been taking place for several months in US airports against Cubans residing in Cuba, Cubans residing in the US or in third countries when they travel to the US,”
  • “We believe that for two countries like Cuba and the United States, with geographical proximity and a considerable flow of travelers, plus a large presence of Cubans in North American territory, it is important that both governments maintain cooperation on migration issues,”

========================

[1]  US Embassy Havana, Bi-Annual Dialogue on Migration between the United States and Cuba in Havana, Cuba (Dec. 4, 2024).

[2] US calls on Havana to ‘improve respect for human rights’ in new bilateral migration dialogue,, Diario de Cuba (Dec.5, 2024).

Cuban Human Rights Organizations Denounce Imprisonment of Protesters 

On December 5, the Christian Democrat Organization of America and one of its members (the Christian Democratic Party of Cuba) issued a letter to Miguel Díaz-Canel, the President of Cuba, that was delivered to the Cuban Embassy in Madrid, Spain.[1]

This letter stated, “Cuba, as a nation with a rich history of struggle for dignity and human rights, deserves to move towards a model in which respect for fundamental freedoms and justice are unshakeable pillars of public life. In this regard, we consider that the existence of political prisoners represents a serious violation of human rights and an obstacle to the dialogue and national reconciliation that the Cuban people so need and deserve.”

“Men and women imprisoned for expressing their ideas or participating in civic actions are citizens who have exercised universal rights such as freedom of expression, assembly and association, which must be guaranteed without exception.”

“We firmly believe in human dignity and in dialogue as a way to build a better future. Therefore, we make this call in a spirit of respect and with the conviction that the freedom of political prisoners would be a significant gesture towards reconciliation and a commitment to the well-being of the Cuban people.”

The presidents of this organization and of the Christian Democratic Party of Cuba said that they lamented the death in prison of the young 11J protester Manuel de Jesús Guillén Esplugas and denounced the situation of opposition leader José Daniel Ferrer, the target of another brutal beating on November 18.

Also on December 4, another organization (the Cuban Observatory for Human Rights (OCDH)) “denounced the deaths of four peaceful 11J protesters in prison : Guillén Espuglas, Luis Barrios Díaz, who died after irregularities and negligence on the part of the prison authorities in relation to his serious health situation; Yosandri Mulet Almarales, who died on August 26, 2024, in the Julio Trigo hospital in Havana , after having tried to take his own life four days earlier, during a pass; Gerardo Díaz Alonso, 35 years old, died on October 17, 2024, after suffering a heart attack.”

=====================

[1] The Christian Democratic Organization of America calls on the regime to release Cuban political prisoners, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 6, 2024).The Christian Democrat Organization of America, which was organized in 1947 is an international organization made up of 29 political parties, groups, and associations in North America and South America that promote the principles of Christian humanism. Currently, there are 30 member political parties in 21 countries with a constituency representing 30% of all registered voters in Latin America and 10% of the entire population of the region. Each of the member parties is different, sometimes having differing views of Christian democracy itself. Some of the member parties are in government in their country, others are in the coalition government, and others are not in government. (Christian Democrat Organization of America, Wikipedia.)