Bruno Rodriguez – dwkcommentaries

U.S. Designates Cuba as a “Country of Particular Concern” Regarding Religious Freedom

On January 4, 2024, the U.S. Department of State issued a press statement by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, entitled “Religious Freedom Designations.” According to that statement, he had designated Cuba and 11 other countries as “Countries of Particular Concern” which by statute are those “countries that commit systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.”[1]

This press statement, however, did not have any citations of legal authorities or reports by federal agencies that went into greater depth on this issue. Apparently, without explanation, the Secretary’s designation of the 12 countries was based on the April 2023 Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom which was issued in January 2024 and which designated 17 (not 12) countries, including Cuba, as having the status of “Countries of Particular Concern.” However, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom only is authorized to make “recommendations to the U.S. Government.” [2]

With respect to Cuba that Commission Annual Report stated the following:

The Commission designated Cuba as one of 17 countries as being “Of Particular Concern for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.”
“In 2022, religious freedom conditions in Cuba worsened. Throughout the year, the Cuban government tightly controlled religious activity through surveillance, harassment of religious leaders and laypeople, forced exile, fines, and ill treatment of religious prisoners of conscience. Religious leaders and groups that are unregistered or conducted unsanctioned religious activity—as well as journalistic reporting on religious freedom conditions—faced relentless oppression from the Office of Religious Affairs (ORA) and state security forces.”
“ The Cuban government regularly targeted members of religious communities who refused to abide by strict regulations set out by the ORA. Authorities subjected pastors to detention, interrogation, threats of prison sentences on false charges, and confiscation of property.”
“In February, authorities detained Reverend Yordanys Díaz Arteaga, the president of the Christian Reformed Church of Cuba, after an extensive search of his home and the confiscation of technology belonging to his church. He was later interrogated and threatened with criminal charges at an unknown location and held incommunicado under effective house arrest. Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) reported that Reverend Díaz became a target of the government after his denomination withdrew from the regime-aligned Cuban Council of Churches. He reportedly arrived in the United States in August.”
“In April, evangelical couple Pastors Mario Jorge Travieso and Velmis Adriana Medina Mariño planned an April 29–30 prayer event called ‘Breaking the Chains’ to focus on the wives and mothers of political prisoners. The regime made repeated threats to Pastors Travieso and Medina and several members of their church who planned to participate. Authorities arbitrarily detained the pastors, interrogated them for six hours, and threatened them with imprisonment. The organizers canceled the event due to the regime’s various threats.”
“USCIRF received reports indicating that Cuban authorities detained and interrogated citizens who traveled or planned to travel to the United States in 2022, including Catholic layman Dagoberto Valdés and his son Javier Valdés Delgado as well as Mildrey Betancourt Rodríguez, a member of the Alliance of Non-Registered Churches. Similarly, in October the Office of the Directorate of Identification, Immigration, and Foreigners of Cuba arbitrarily barred Imam Abu Duyanah, imam of the Cuban Association for the Dissemination of Islam, from traveling to Mecca for “reasons of public interest” without any specifications.”
“Additionally, threats and persecution by the government caused several religious leaders to leave Cuba in 2022. In March, Pastor Enrique de Jesús Fundora Pérez of the Apostolic Movement fled the country to seek asylum in Switzerland after state security officials threatened him with up to 30 years in prison for “sedition” and “incitement to commit a crime.” He drew the ire of authorities when he gave monetary and spiritual aid to families of political prisoners from the July 11, 2021 (J11) protests. Pastor Alain Toledano, a prominent Cuban religious leader of the unregistered Emmanuel Church of the Apostolic Ministry, has experienced severe harassment from the Cuban government for over 20 years. In June, Cuban state security presented Toledano with an ultimatum: leave the country within 30 days or face imprisonment. The United States granted him and his family emergency parole in July. In September, Father David Pantaleon, head of Cuba’s Jesuit Order and president of the Conference of Religious Men and Women in Cuba, had to leave the country after the government refused to renew his residence permit. During an interview in his native Dominican Republic, Father Pantaleon reported that the ORA cited his support for political prisoners and the Jesuits’ critical position toward the regime as the main reasons for his expulsion. The Cuban government continued to target independent journalists who report on religious freedom by threatening criminal charges and fines, often under Decree Law 370, and imposing travel restrictions. Cuban authorities twice interrogated and fined young Catholic layman and journalist Adrián Martínez Cádiz this year.”
“RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ■ Redesignate Cuba as a “country of particular concern,” or CPC, for engaging in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, as defined by the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA); ■ Encourage Cuban authorities to extend an official invitation for unrestricted visits by USCIRF, the U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, and the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; and ■ Impose targeted sanctions on Cuban government agencies and officials responsible for severe violations of religious freedom—including Caridad Diego, head of the ORA—by freezing those individuals’ assets and/or barring their entry into the United States under human rights related financial and visa authorities, citing specific religious freedom violations. The U.S. Congress should: ■ Raise human rights and democracy concerns in Cuba and highlight the situation facing religious leaders and organizations persecuted by the Cuban government, among others.
“Key U.S. Policy The U.S. government continued to place robust sanctions on Cuban officials. In January, the U.S. Department of State imposed visa restrictions on eight officials “implicated in attempts to silence the voices of the Cuban people through repression, unjust detentions, and harsh prison sentences” of J11 protesters. Further rounds of visa restrictions came in June and July when the State Department imposed restrictions on an additional 33 individuals for “unfair trials and unjust sentencing and imprisonment” of J11 protesters, plus media and communications officials who “formulate and implement policies that restrict Cubans’ ability to freely access and share information and who engage in the spread of disinformation.”
“In September, the U.S. Embassy in Havana announced the resumption of immigrant visa processing and consular services for the first time since 2017.”
“On November 30, the State Department for the first time designated Cuba as a CPC under IRFA and imposed as the relevant president action the existing ongoing restrictions referenced in 31 CFR 515.201 and the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Helms-Burton Act), pursuant to section 402(c) (5) of the Act. Cuba previously had been on the State Department’s Special Watch List since 2019.”[3]

The Commission ambiguously and erroneously stated that the State Department on November 30 [2002 or 2003?] for the first time had elevated Cuba to CPC status.

Cuba’s Rejection of Its Designation as a CPC[4]

The Cuban Foreign Minister on January 5, 2024, in a text on [the Internet’s “X”] stated that the “repeated inclusion of Cuba in unilateral reports on terrorism, human rights and religious freedom of the US Government is not linked to the exemplary performance of our country.”

A more official Cuban rejection of this designation was published as an international editorial in Granma, the official newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party. It noted that the U.S. had “unilaterally” included Cuba on a list, “of countries that, in the opinion of the US Government, have ‘participated in or tolerated particularly serious violations of religious freedom.’” However, “The repeated inclusion of Cuba in the United States Government’s unilateral reports on terrorism, human rights and religious freedom is not linked to the exemplary performance of our country.”

Conclusion

Anyone with knowledge of what prompted the content and timing of the Secretary of State’s announcement is invited to share that knowledge in a comment to this post.

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

[1] U. S. State Dep’t, Secretary of State Press Statement, Religious Freedom (Jan. 4, 2024);The US keeps the Cuban regime on the blacklist on religious freedom, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 5, 2024)

[2] Annual Report, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (April 2023, issued in January 2024). Before the January 2024 Secretary of State’s press statement the last State Department report on international religious freedom (the 2022 report) was issued on May 15, 2023 and said nothing about Cuba being a “Country of Particular Concern.”

[3] This blogger has not found the source for the Commission’s statements that the State Department on November 30, 2023, had designated Cuba as a CPC and that the Department should “redesignate” Cuba as a CPC.

[4] Havana has an ‘exemplary performance’ in respect for religious freedom, defends Bruno Rodriguez, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 5, 2024); Cuba’s exemplary performance does not fit on any list, Granma (Jan. 5, 2024).

Cuba and European Union Draw Closer Together

On September 9 in Havana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, pledged the EU’s help for development of Cuba’s economy.[1]

At a joint press conference with Cuba Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez, Mogherini said, “The EU is Cuba’s top commercial partner and investor, and we have tripled cooperation in the last two years.” She also said the EU would continue to offer financial support for Cuba’s economic reforms that would encourage foreign investment on the island.

She noted that the two countries already held bilateral talks on topics such as sustainable development and human rights within the framework of the 2017 Political Dialogue and Cooperation pact. She said, “We have also continued the dialogue on the situation in the region and cooperation, on Venezuela in particular.”

There also was discussion of the U.S. intensification of its embargo (blockade) against Cuba, and its extraterritorial effects.

Earlier Mogherini, met with Cuba President Miguel Diaz-Canel. She was accompanied by the EU Ambassador to Cuba, Alberto Navarro; the Chief of Staff of the EU’s High Representative, Stefano Grassi; and the director for the Americas, Edita Hrda. Diaz-Canel was accompanied by Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla; its General Director of Bilateral Affairs of the Foreign Ministry, Emilio Lozada García; and the Cuban Ambassador to the European Union, Norma Goicochea Estenoz.

Last week the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPAC) and CubaDecide called for national protests on Sunday (September 8) against the conference with the EU, and on Sunday Cuban officials arrested more than 100 people who were planning to hold such a protest to demand a stronger EU stance on Cuba violations of human rights. Another Cuban group, the Christian Democratic Party of Cuba (PDC-Cuba), called on the EU to denounce Cuba’s violations of human rights and democratic freedoms. In addition, almost 400 activists sent a letter to Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs commending its criticisms of Cuba’s human rights abuses.

After Mogherini’s visit to Cuba, two Cuban opposition groups– Independent Trade Union Association of Cuba (ASIC) and the International Group for Corporate Social Responsibility in Cuba (GIRSCC)—leveled denunciations of Mogherini’s statements on the island. They said, “It is outrageous to see this commissioner throwing flattery at the Castro dictatorship – one of the bloodiest and most repressive in the world, which for 60 years has violated, cruelly and systematically, the most elementary and precious rights of its population – at a time when that suffocates with renewed commitment to Cuban democratic dissent.”

Moreover, the two groups said, “We still do not understand, otherwise, how the commissioner, in her repeated trips to Cuba, has never approached the organized political expressions of the democratic opposition, not even a single opponent victim of oppressive actions of the dictatorship.”

These two groups recalled that “coinciding with their arrival in Cuba, State Security forces violently broke into the headquarters of the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU), in Santiago de Cuba, arresting 22 of its militants and confiscating all documentary material and solidarity that was in that center.” Moreover, they said that this year “the actions of harassment, trials and arbitrary detentions against independent trade union activists and their families have become even more cruel and systematic, with the aim of suppressing ASIC and arresting its main leaders.”

Conclusion

The increased EU-Cuba economic collaboration is one of the consequences of the U.S. continuing embargo (blockade) of the island and the various Trump Administration’s policies and actions hostile to Cuba. In short, these U.S. policies and actions are also hostile to U.S. economic interests.

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

[1] Acosta, Marsh & Osterman, EU stresses support for Cuba even as U.S. hikes sanctions, Reuters (Sept. 9, 2019); Diaz-Canel received Federica Mogherini, Cubadebate (Sept. 9, 2019); Federica Mogherini: the Government of Cuba ‘is a key partner for us,’ Diario de Cuba (Sept. 9, 2019); Bruno Rodríguez and Mogherini tie loose ends before the Cuba-European Union Council, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 9, 2019); Cuban organizations call on the EU to denounce the omission of Havana’s commitments, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 9, 2019); The EU must demand from Havana the same conduct as the rest of its member states: OCDH, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 9, 2019); More than 30 activists released, ‘some of them very beaten,’ denounces UNPACU, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 9, 2019);Brussels offers Havana more financing to accompany the ‘update’ of its economy, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 10, 2019); Second Cuba- European Union Joint Council held in Havana, Granma (Sept. 11, 2019); Organizations consider Mogherini’s ‘outrageous’ statements in Cuba, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 12, 2019).

Cuba Foreign Minister Denounces U.S. Policies

On April 25, Cuba Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez held a press conference in Havana to issue his usual lengthy statement, this time primarily to denounce U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton’s recent announcement of additional changes in U.S. policies regarding the island nation.[1]

Whereas Bolton honored the survivors of the 1961 U.S. attack on the Bay of Pigs (Playa Girōn), Rodriguez reminded everyone that Cuba defeated that invasion.

Although Bolton said the Monroe Doctrine was “alive and well,” Rodriguez retorted, “No one should forget that the Monroe Doctrine has historically been associated with the use of force by US imperialism in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Rodríguez also said Bolton was a “pathological liar” for having unashamedly stated on April 17 that Rodriguez recently had acknowledged the presence of 20,000 Cuban thugs in Venezuela.

This lie, Rodriguez said, was repeated in a recent communique from the U.S. State Department to all of its embassies around the world asserting that the new U.S. measures of economic, political and communications blockade against Cuba were based upon the alleged presence of Cuban military and intelligence officers in Venezuela. According to Rodriguez, this U.S. document also instructed its ambassadors to urge other governments to publicly condemn Cuba’s behavior and to use all economic and diplomatic instruments against Cuba.

The Cuba Foreign Minister challenged Bolton and the U.S. to prove their statements that Rodriguez said were lies. Implicitly he was saying the U.S. could not do so and, therefore, should rescind such claims and apologize.

Rodriguez attacked the new U.S. restrictions on remittances as not only hurting the interests and incomes of Cuban people, of every family that has those ties; they also harms the freedom and the right of people in the U.S.to send remittances to relatives or others in Cuba. These restrictions also will greatly damage the self-employed sector of the Cuban economy.

The U.S. activation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, the Foreign Minister continued, “will damage Cuban entities and will generate greater difficulties and shortcomings for our people. Its declared goal is to suffocate the economy and punish the Cuban people.”

The Cuban diplomat stressed that despite the adverse economic impact that these measures will have, they will not alter Cuban resistance to this latest U.S. attempt to overthrow the Cuban Revolution.

He claimed the U.S. foreign policy was a real threat to our hemisphere, to turn it into a zone of conflict from a region declared a zone of peace. Such a threat threatens international peace and security. Therefore, the international community needs to stop this folly and irresponsibility, to act before it is too late and to stop this dangerous escalation for the good of the peoples of Cuba, the U.S.,the region and all those of the planet. “The world cannot afford to remain impassive while it is summoned by threats to destroy countries with impunity as has happened in other regions of the planet..”

“Cubans trust in the force of truth, of law and of justice. We appeal to governments, parliaments, political forces, social, popular, protests, indigenous movements, representatives of civil society, writers and artists, academics, scientists, journalists, intellectuals. We await the action of the General Assembly of the United Nations, of the World Trade Organization and of other multilateral entities.

Rodriguez emphasized the vast difference in the sizes of the two countries. U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is more than 200 times that of Cuba, its territory is 89 times larger that of the Island, its population is 30 times greater,. Moreover, the U.S. has a quarter of a million soldiers in 800 military bases in 80 countries and today acts as superpower on the planet.

Rodriguez said Cuba will continue to seek stronger relations with a wide array of U.S. interests, including businesses, in spite of what it regards as a “hostile” Trump administration and the tightening of American sanctions against the island.

“We will continue to expand our ties with all United States sectors … we will use all the tools on hand to intensify communication and cultural relations between our people. So, while the government of the United States attempts to shut off and tighten, Cuba will continue to be even more open to healthy relations,” he said.

Conclusion

On May 1 essentially the same message was delivered by the Cuban Foreign Ministry’s Deputy Director for the United States, Johana Tablada.[2]

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

[1] Cubans trust in the force of truth, of law and of justice..(Live Broadcast), Granma (April 25, 2019); Assoc. Press, Cuba Challenges US to Provide Proof of Venezuela charges, N.Y. Times (April 25, 2019); Reuters, Cuba Dubs Bolton ‘Pathological Liar’ Over Venezuela Troops Charges, N.Y. Times (April 25, 2019).

[2] Mojena, U.S. lies to justify further attacks on Cuba, Granma (May 2, 2019).

Is Cuba-North Korea Cooperation Good or Bad for U.S.?

On November 22-24 North Korea’s Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho was in Havana to meet with Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez and President Raúl Castro. Was this a positive or negative development for the U.S., which has simultaneous strained relationships with both countries?[1]

Background

Since 1960, soon after the Cuban Revolution assumed control of the island’s government, Cuba and North Korea have had close diplomatic relations. It started with a 1960 visit to North Korea by Che Guevara, who praised the North Korean regime as a model for Cuba to follow.

In 1986 Fidel Castro visited North Korea and met with the country’s founder, Kim Il-sung, and his son and successor, Kim Jong-il (the grandfather and father, respectively, of the current North Korean leader).

In July 2013, a North Korea-flagged vessel was seized by Panamanian authorities carrying suspected missile-system components hidden under 10,000 tons of sugar bags upon its return from Cuba. Cuba claimed the weapons were going to North Korea for repairs and were to be sent back. However, the next year a United Nations panel of experts concluded that the shipment had violated sanctions placed on North Korea, although Cuban entities were not sanctioned in the aftermath despite protests from the U.S.

In 2015, Cuba’s First Vice President and foreseeable successor to Raúl Castro, Miguel Díaz-Canel , was received by Kim Jong-un in the North Korean capital.

In December 2016, a North Korean delegation to the funeral of Cuban leader Fidel Castro emphasized that the two nations should develop their relations “in all spheres” — a comment that was echoed by Raúl Castro, according to state media reports at the time.

This year the Kim regime has been strengthening its ties with Cuba with a view to breaking its diplomatic isolation, before the tightening of sanctions imposed by the international community. In January, Cuban Vice President Salvador Valdés Mesa received the number three of the North Korean regime, Choe Ryong-hae. In May the North Korean trade union leader Ju Yong-gil visited Havana as part of a meeting of the World Federation of Trade Unions and reportedly returned with a message of solidarity from President Raúl Castro.

The Ho-Rodriguez Meeting

Ho’s first meeting in Cuba was with Foreign Minister Rodriguez and below is a photograph of the two men at that meeting.

Afterwards Cuba’s Foreign Ministry stated that the two officials had “reviewed the satisfactory status and positive evolution of bilateral relations, which [are] based on the traditional bonds of friendship established by the historical leaders Fidel Castro Ruz and Kim Il Sung and the links that exist between both peoples, parties and governments.” They also asserted their “respect for peoples’ sovereignty, independence and free determination, territorial integrity, the abstention or threat of the use of force, the peaceful settlement of disputes and non-interference in the internal affairs of States.”

They then “strongly rejected the unilateral and arbitrary lists and designations established by the US government which serve as a basis for the implementation of coercive measures which are contrary to international law.” In addition, they “expressed their concern over the escalation of tensions and the increased military activity in the [Korean Peninsula].”

The Ho-Castro Meeting

After the two officials’ meeting, the official note of the meeting released on Cuban official television stated, “In the fraternal meeting both parties noted the historic bonds of friendship that exist between the two nations and discussed international issues of common interest.”

Implications for the U.S.

On November 23 Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau raised the possibility that the North Korea-Cuba relationship was a positive development for the U.S. and the world. He said that last year he had discussed with Castro the possibility of working together to defuse global tensions with North Korea. “Can we pass along messages through surprising conduits?” Implicitly answering “yes” to his rhetorical question, Trudeau said. “These are the kinds of things where Canada can, I think, play a role that the United States has chosen not to play, this past year.”

Canada had an interest in seeking such solutions, not just because of regional security but also because the flight path of possible North Korean missiles would pass over its territory, Trudeau said.

An unnamed Asian diplomat had a similar thought: “We often ask the Cubans if they can talk to [the U.S. about North Korea].”

A more negative assessment was offered by an anonymous U.S. State Department official who said that the U.S. had made clear it wanted a peaceful resolution to the North Korean nuclear issue, but North Korea’s “belligerent and provocative behavior demonstrates it has no interest in working toward a peaceful solution.” Also skeptical was Anthony Ruggiero, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former U.S. Treasury Department official, who said, “A key element of the Trump administration’s sanctions effort is isolating North Korea. The U.S. should warn Cuba about the dangers of a relationship with North Korea.”

Conclusion

Although this blog desperately hopes for a de-escalation of tensions between the U.S. and North Korea and the avoidance of a nuclear war, I doubt that Cuba or Canada via Cuba can make a significant contribution to that objective.

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

[1] Reuters, Castro Meets North Korean Minister Amid Hope Cuba Can Defuse Tensions, N.Y. Times (Nov. 24, 2017); The North Korean chancellor brings to Raúl Castro a ‘verbal message’ from Kim Jong-un, Diario de Cuba (Nov. 24, 2017); MacDonald, North Korea relations could be cooled using Cuba, Trudeau says, Global News (Nov. 23, 2017); Reuters, Cuba, North Korea Reject ‘Unilateral and Arbitrary U.S. Demands, N.Y. Times (Nov. 23, 2017); Cuba Foreign Ministry, The Cuban Foreign Minister met with his counterpart from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Nov. 22, 2017); Gomez, Bruno Rodriguez receives Foreign Minister of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Granma (Nov. 22, 2017); Reuters, North Korean Foreign Minister Heads to Cuba, N.Y. Times (Nov. 20, 2017); Taylor, Amid growing isolation, North Korea falls back on close ties with Cuba, Wash. Post (Nov. 17, 2017).

Cuba Foreign Minister Accuses U.S. of “Lying” About Diplomats in Havana

On November 2 Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez accused the U.S. of “lying” about medical problems of U.S. diplomats who were serving at the U.S. Embassy in Havana.[1]

He said, “I can affirm categorically that whoever affirms that there have been attacks, deliberate acts or specific incidents as a cause of these health damages, deliberately lies. These health damages are being used as a pretext of a political nature, with political objectives, to eliminate the progress made and damage the bilateral relationship” between the two countries.

Rodriguez added, “It is high time for the United States to tell the truth or otherwise present evidence. The Cuban government has no responsibility whatsoever for these incidents.”

These comments were made at a press conference at Washington, D.C.’s National Press Club, as shown in the above photograph. He also essentially repeated some of the comments from his November 1 speech at the U.N. General Assembly in favor of the resolution condemning the U.S. embargo of the island. He referred to the recent U.S. reduction of staffing at that Embassy, the expulsion of Cuban diplomats from Washington and the travel warning against Americans traveling to the island. Such actions, he said, were accompanied by repeated disrespectful and offensive pronouncements towards his country by President Trump, “who takes up the hostile rhetoric of the periods of greatest confrontation.”

The same day Rodriguez met with 12 U.S. senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. Although not identifeid in the U.S. or Cuban media, photographs of the meeting show Senators Patrick Leahy (Dem., Vt), Jeff Flake (Rep., AZ) and Amy Klobuchar (Dem., MN), all advocates of U.S.-Cuba normalization.[2]

Now we await the U.S. response to this accusation.

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

[1] Bruno Rodriguez: There is no evidence of a sonic attack on US diplomats, CubaDebate (Oct. 3, 2017) (transcript of press conference); Bruno Rodriguez: Relations between Cuba and the US have fallen significantly due to the measures adopted by Trump, CubaDebate (Nov. 2, 2017); Havana says that Washington ‘lies’ about ‘acoustic attacks,’ Diario de Cuba (Nov. 2, 2017); Lugo (Assoc. Press), Cuba official accuses US of lying about sonic attacks, Wash. Post (Nov. 2, 2017); DeYoung, U.S. claims of health attacks on diplomats ‘deliberate lies,’ Cuban official says, Wash. Post (Nov. 2, 2017).

[2] Cuba Foreign Ministry, Cuban Foreign Minister meets with US Members of Congress (Nov. 3, 2017); Cuban Foreign Minister meets with U.S. legislators, Granma (Nov. 3, 2017).

Continued Official Uncertainty Over Cause of Medical Problems of U.S. Diplomats in Cuba

There has been lots of news over the U.S. diplomats with medical problems from serving in Cuba. But there is still official uncertainty over the cause of those problems and resulting cooler Cuba relations with the U.S. and warmer relations with Russia.

U.S. Trying To Hide the Attacks?[1]

CBS News on October 10 reported that one of the 22 U.S. diplomats who has suffered from purported “sonic attacks” in Cuba had asserted that the U.S. was trying to hide the attacks.

In addition, this individual reportedly told CBS that the attacks had happened at the Embassy itself, their Havana quarters and hotels, that the State Department “pressured” some U.S. embassy officials who had been injured to remain on the island and “waited too long” to withdraw personnel and that the initial treatment by doctors in Havana and at the University of Miami Hospital in the U.S. was “superficial and incomplete.”

The State Department denied these allegations later the same day.[2] Its Spokesperson, Heather Nauert, at a press briefing, said, “We have an ongoing investigation that’s being spearheaded out of the [U.S.] with our best investigators on that, so they continue to move ahead with that investigation. We still don’t know who is responsible and we still don’t know what is responsible for the injuries of our American staff.” (Emphasis added.)

Pressed by other reporters about the above comments by one of the victims and by the Department’s recent identification of only two Havana hotels where some of the attacks occurred, Nauert said the following:

“I was just speaking with one of our colleagues who served down there in Cuba and is recently back here in the [U.S.]. And I asked this person that very question: ‘How do you feel that we responded?’ And I’ve asked numerous of my colleagues that very question. . . . [W]e all care deeply about how our folks are doing down there. And I asked the question, ‘Do you feel supported by us? Do you feel that we were quick enough to respond?’ And the answer I got back was ‘yes.’ . . . it took a while to put this together, because the symptoms were so different.”
“But this person said to me once we figured out a pattern, . . . the State Department was extremely responsive. This person said to me that they . . . never felt the pressure to stay in Cuba, although they wanted to make it clear that they wanted to serve down there. These folks love what they’re doing, they feel a real dedication to . . .our mission down there in Cuba, the activities that they were involved with on behalf of the U.S. Government with local Cubans, and they were encouraged by the State Department to come forward, please get tested if you feel like you’ve had some sort of symptoms or something.”
“I don’t have the actual timeline in front of me that lays out when attacks took place at different locations, and I’m not even sure that that is something that we’re making public. But once we started to figure out what this was all about and started to investigate and realized that we were not able to protect our people, that’s when the Secretary made [the decision to reduce U.S. personnel at the Embassy in Havana].”

U.S. Government Statements About the Attacks and Relations with Cuba

On October 12 White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly, provided a very unusual press briefing. Unusual because the chief of staff rarely, if ever, provides such a briefing. The apparent major reason for the briefing was to provide a platform for him to deny that he was quitting or being fired as chief of staff. In addition, in response to a reporter’s question, Kelly stated, “We believe that the Cuban government could stop the attacks on our diplomats.” But he provided no bases for that belief and was not challenged with additional questions by the journalists.[3] (Emphases added.)

Later that same day Kelly’s comment was interpreted (or qualified) by the State Department spokeswoman, Heather Nauert, who said, “General Kelly, when he said we believe that they can stop the attacks, I think what he was referring to was, one, we have the Vienna Convention [on Diplomatic Relations]. And under the Vienna Convention, . . . the Government of Cuba, has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our diplomatic staff. That didn’t happen. But there’s also another well-known fact, and that is that in a small country like Cuba, where the government is going to know a lot of things that take place within its borders, they may have more information than we are aware of right now.”[4] (Emphases added.)

The next day, October 13, President Trump addressed the 2017 Values Voter Summit. It included the following comment: “We’re confronting rogue regimes from Iran to North Korea and we are challenging the communist dictatorship of Cuba and the socialist oppression of Venezuela. And we will not lift the sanctions on these repressive regimes until they restore political and religious freedom for their people.”[5] (Emphases added.)

Two days earlier (October 11) Vice President Mike Pence delivered a speech at a National Hispanic Heritage Month celebration at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. in which he referred to meeting people from the Cuban communities here in the U.S., and had seen “the spirit of the Cuban exile community in this country firsthand.” On that same day, the Vice President continued. “President Trump announced a new policy to ensure that U.S. dollars will no longer prop up a military monopoly that exploits and abuses the Cuban people. Under this administration, it will always be “Que viva Cuba libre!”[6] (Emphases added.)

Sound Recording[7]

The Associated Press obtained an audio recording of what some of the U.S. personnel in Cuba heard. Says the AP, it “sounds sort of like a mass of crickets. A high-pitched whine, but from what? It seems to undulate, even writhe. Listen closely: There are multiple, distinct tones that sound to some like they’re colliding in a nails-on-the-chalkboard effect.” The AP adds that it has “reviewed several recordings from Havana taken under different circumstances, and all have variations of the same high-pitched sound.”

Similar Problems at U.S. Embassy in Moscow, 1953-1976[8]

The BBC reports that in May 1953 U.S. officials at the Moscow embassy detected a microwave frequency that oscillated above the upper floors at certain times, sometimes up to eight hours a day, and that autumn some embassy workers felt inexplicably ill. At first it was dizziness, palpitations, headaches, blood pressure too high or too low. But no one understood what was happening.

In 1962, those who were still there or even those who had already left had more severe symptoms: sudden cataracts, alterations in blood tests or chromosomes. In 1965 the U.S. began what was known as the “Moscow Viral Study,” a multimillion-dollar operation in which scientists apparently looked for the potential exposure of workers to an unknown strain of a mysterious and potent virus. The eventual conclusion was the Soviets were “bombing” the U.S. embassy with very low-level microwaves, which the U.S. called the “S ENAL Moscow.” This persisted until April 1976.

Cubans Doubt[9]

From Cuba, the Associated Press reports that “the common reaction in Havana is mocking disbelief” about the attacks.

The same tone was struck by Miguel Diaz-Canel, the first vice president who is widely expected to succeed Raul Castro when he steps down as president in February. He said, “A few spokespeople and media outlets have lent themselves to divulging bizarre nonsense without the slightest evidence, with the perverse intention of discrediting Cuba’s impeccable behavior.”

Mass Hysteria?[10]

Journalists from the Guardian newspaper in London reported that “senior neurologists” say that ”no proper diagnosis is possible without more information and access to the 22 US victims,” but speculate that the diplomats’ ailments could have been caused by “mass hysteria.”

Cuba-Russia Relations[11]

According to the Miami Herald, “after the election of President Donald Trump, the pace of [Cuba’s] bilateral contact with Russia has been frantic,” even more so after the eruption of U.S.-Cuba relations associated with the medical problems of U.S. diplomats. Here are such examples:

Just days before Foreign Minister Rodriguez’ September 26 meeting with Secretary of State Tillerson at the State Department, the Minister met with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly gathering. The conversation was “confidential,” according to a press release issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry.
On July 26 Cuban diplomat Josefina Vidal, the main negotiator with the U.S., went to Moscow and met with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.
Cuba’s ambassador to Russia has met with Ryabkov at least five times so far, this year.
Last December, just after the election of Mr. Trump, Russia and Cuba signed an agreement to modernize the Cuban army, and this year Russian officials — including military personnel — have made frequent visits to Havana.
In March, the Russian company Rosneft signed an agreement to ship 250,000 tons of crude oil and diesel to offset the decline in Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba.
Rosneft also has discussed other joint projects with Cuba for oil extraction and the possibility of modernizing the Cienfuegos refinery, operated jointly by Cuba’s CUPET and Venezuela’s PDVSA.
In April, Russia offered to fund $1.5 million in U.N. projects in Cuba for hurricane recovery and later pledged to support recovery efforts following damage caused by Irma.
In September, Cuban Vice President and Minister of Economy Ricardo Cabrisas signed a package of agreements with Russia in the energy, rail transport and elevator-supply sectors.
Recently, Cuban news agency Prensa Latina, which has an office in Washington, and the Russian news agency Sputnik signed an official cooperation agreement.

These developments are no surprise to Richard Feinberg, an expert at Brookings Institution and a former U.S. policymaker for Latin America during Bill Clinton’s administration. He says, “[Vladimir] Putin’s message is not difficult to understand. [He] longs to regain the past imperial glory and relations with Cuba follow that same pattern.” Feinberg added, “From the point of view of the Cubans, they are looking to diversify their relationships. As closer economic relations with the U.S. do not seem likely for at least the next few years, they are looking for alternative allies, especially from countries with strong states like Russia and China that can offer favorable payment terms, something very welcome in an economy with poor international credit standards.”

Conclusion

In the above and the many other reports about the medical problems affecting some U.S. personnel serving in Cuba, I find it astounding that there still is official uncertainty about the cause or causes of the medical problems.

It also is astounding that no journalist or other commentator has publicly asked whether the U.S. has investigated whether the problems were caused by a secret and perhaps malfunctioning U.S. program or device and if so, to provide details. Such a possibility would help explain the delay in the U.S. public announcement of this set of medical problems and the apparent U.S. reluctance to share details of its investigation with Cuban investigators, all as discussed in previous posts to this blog. Moreover, this possibility would render various U.S. reactions—reducing the U.S. personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Havana, expulsion of 15 Cuban diplomats and the latest U.S. travel warning—as cover ups and as excuses for additional tightening of U.S. screws on Cuba.

Moreover, Trump’s hostile rhetoric and actions regarding Cuba, which are unjustified in and of themselves, have adverse effects on other important U.S. interests, including the prevention of increasing Russian influence in Latin America.

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

[1] Cuba victim tells CBS News “complaints were ignored,” CBS News (Oct. 10, 2017); ‘Washington was trying to hide the acoustic attacks,’ says one of the victims, Diario de Cuba (Oct. 10, 2017).

[2] U.S. State Dep’t, Department Press Briefing—October 10, 2017.

[3] White House, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and Chief of Staff General John Kelly (Oct. 12, 2017); Assoc. Press, White House Says Cuba Could Stop Attacks on Americans, N.Y. Times (Oct. 12, 2017).

[4] U.S. State Dep’t, Department Press Briefing-October 12, 2017.

[5] White House, Remarks by President Trump at the 2017 Values Voter Summit (Oct. 13, 2017); Reuters, U.S. to Maintain Cuba, Venezuela Sanctions Until Freedoms Restored: Trump, N.Y. Times (Oct. 13, 2017).

[6] White House, Remarks by Vice President Mike Pence at National Hispanic Heritage Month Reception (Oct. 11, 2017)

[7] Assoc. Press, Dangerous Sound? What Americans Heard in Cuba Attacks, N.Y. Times (Oct. 13, 2017).

[8] Lima, The “Moscow Sign”, the mysterious Soviet Union bombardment of the US embassy, which lasted more than two decades during the Cold War, BBC News (Oct. 14, 2017).

[9] Assoc. Press, ‘Star Wars’ Fantasy? Cubans Doubt US Sonic Attacks Claims, N.Y. Times (Oct. 13, 2017).

[10] Borger & Jaekl, Mass hysteria may explain ‘sonic attacks’ in Cuba, say top neurologists, Guardian (Oct. 12, 2017).

[11] Gámez, Amidst growing tensions with U.S., Cuba gets cozier with Russia, Miami Herald (Oct. 13, 2017).

President Trump Condemns Cuba at the United Nations

On September 19, U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the United Nations General Assembly.[1] Most media attention has focused on his bellicose remarks about North Korea and Iran. But he also condemned Cuba and Venezuela. Here the focus is on the general theses he advanced, his comments about Cuba and reactions to the speech.

Trump’s Speech

His fundamental thesis was the U.S.’ “renewing this fundamental principle of sovereignty” and “our success depends on a coalition of strong, independent nations that embrace their sovereignty, to promote security, prosperity and peace for themselves and for the world.” (Emphasis added.)

In short, the world needed strong, effective sovereign nations. As he stated, the U.S. does “not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is the foundation for cooperation and success.” (Emphasis added.)

“Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect. Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God. (Emphasis added.)

President Trump’s subsidiary premise was the assertion that “in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations, we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to seek a future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.”

On the other hand, this was not a universal action item for every sovereign nation. As he stated, “we believe that no nation should have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, militarily or financially. Nations of the world must take a greater role in promoting secure and prosperous societies in their own regions.” (Emphasis added.)

“That is why in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has stood against the corrupt and destabilizing regime in Cuba and embraced the enduring dream of the Cuban people to live in freedom. My administration recently announced that we will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms.” (Emphasis added.)

President Trump then went on at length about Venezuela’s problems, at least some of which he also sees in Cuba. In his words, “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure. Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems.” (Emphasis added.)

Reactions to the Speech[2]

Trump’s comments on sovereignty were criticized by the Foreign Minister of Sweden, Margot Wallstrom: “This was a bombastic, nationalist speech. . . . This was a speech at the wrong time to the wrong audience.”

Vali R. Nasr, the Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies., said, “It looks like we will respect the sovereignty of countries we like, whether they are dictatorships or democracies, but we will not respect the sovereignty of countries we don’t like.” Nasr added, “His definition of sovereignty comes from a very narrow domestic prism.”

This speech generally did not get good reviews. For example, the editorial from the Guardian in London concluded that Trump “brought little clarity as to the wider strategy he contemplates. Threats and grandstanding are just bluster, not policy. Crises require a deftness the Trump administration has failed to demonstrate. He wants allies to back him, but seems oblivious that his lack of personal credibility is an obstacle to international cooperation. An “America First” approach runs counter to the UN’s multilateralism. His credo could be summed up by his claim that nations acting in their own self-interest create a more stable world. The question is what rules would states operate under? Not the UN’s, Trump’s response appeared to suggest. The president may want to speak of “principled realism”, but he is a reckless and dangerous leader, sitting, alas, in a most powerful position.”

These thoughts were echoed by a Guardian reporter, Julian Borger, who said the speech was full of “fulminations” of fear, especially his threat to “completely destroy North Korea,” which came just minutes after the U.N. Secretary General had told those at the Assembly and implicitly Trump himself, “Fiery talk can lead to fatal misunderstandings.” More generally, “Trump punched yawning holes in his own would-be doctrine, singling out enemies, expressing horror at their treatment of their people and threatening interference to the point of annihilation. What was left . . . was a sense of incoherence and a capricious menace hanging in the air.”

The New York Times’ editorial said, “In all this fury, before a world body whose main purpose is the peaceful resolution of disputes, there was hardly a hint of compromise or interest in negotiations.” “Mr. Trump’s dark tone and focus seemed a significant deviation [from previous U.S. presidents], not least his relentlessly bellicose approach to North Korea.” On the other hand, “Mr. Trump’s largely benign comments about the United Nations were encouraging.”

The Washington Post editorial also criticized “Mr. Trump’s schoolboy taunts of ‘Rocket Man,’ his sobriquet for North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, and his threats, if the United States is ‘forced to defend itself or its allies . . . to totally destroy North Korea.’ The leader of a powerful nation makes himself sound simultaneously weak and bellicose with such bluster.” This editorial also said “there was something discordant in using the United Nations podium to proclaim the virtue, essentially, of national selfishness over international cooperation and multilateral organization. No doubt Presidents Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia will welcome this aspect of Mr. Trump’s address. They, too, have insisted on the unassailable ‘sovereignty’ of their formidable states and demanded that others not lecture them about values such as democracy and human rights, which they fear and abhor.” The editorial concluded, “Mr. Trump seemed to repudiate his own advocacy for human dignity and freedom when he said that “we do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions or even systems of government” — as if democracy should be optional under the U.N. Charter.”

Surprisingly the Post’s respected foreign affairs columnist, David Ignatius, had a generally favorable reaction to the speech. He said, “the most surprising thing about President Trump’s address to the [U.N.] . . . was how conventional it was. He supported human rights and democracy; he opposed rogue regimes; he espoused a global community of strong, sovereign nations.”

The editorial by the Wall Street Journal generally approved of the speech, but thought that Trump gave too narrow a definition to “national interest” by failure to include respect for the rights of the nation’s own people. Trump’s concept of sovereignty “also leaves authoritarians too much room to claim dominant [regional] spheres of influence,” such as Chinese and Russian leaders in the South China Sea and Ukraine. In short, Trump needs to learn “there is no substitute for U.S. leadership on behalf of American values and interests if he wants to build a more peaceful world.”

The speech’s negative comments about Cuba were rejected by that country’s Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez, who said that Trump “lacks the moral authority to criticize Cuba, a small and solidary country with extensive international cooperation.” Rodriguez also said in an interview with Telesur that the speech “was an unusual, aggressive, dominating, blatantly imperialist speech. Sovereignty [for Trump] means sovereignty for the United States, enslavement for all others; [it] completely ignores the concept of sovereign equality that inspires the [U.N.].” These comments were echoed by Cuba’s delegation to a Bilateral Commission meeting with the U.S.; the delegation said it protested “the disrespectful, unacceptable and meddling statements” by Trump at the U.N. Rodriguez also condemned the President’s aggressive comments against Venezuela and expressed Cuba’s solidarity with that country and its leaders. Granma, however, did publish the full text of the Trump speech.

Conclusion

There is much to criticize in the President’s speech. Foremost was his threat that the U.S. might have ”no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” (Emphasis added)

His perceived need for “strong sovereign nations” totally ignores all the destruction and pain inflicted on the world by such nations throughout history. This emphasis also ignores the multilateral efforts, especially after World War II, to develop multilateral, international treaties and institutions, including the United Nations, to protect the world against the excesses of strong sovereign nations. Yes, like all human institutions, the U.N. is not perfect and can and should be improved. Although Trump had some kind words for the U.N. and the Marshall Plan after World War II, he said the U.S. could no longer enter into “one-sided alliances or agreements.”

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May, in her September 20 speech to the General Assembly implicitly gave the proper retort to the main thesis of Trump’s speech, that strong sovereign states were the appropriate building blocks for the contemporary world.[3] She said the following:

“The only way for us to respond to this vast array of challenges is to come together and defend the international order that we have worked so hard to create and the values by which we stand. For it is the fundamental values that we share, values of fairness, justice and human rights, that have created the common cause between nations to act together in our shared interest and form the multilateral system. And it is this rules-based system which we have developed, including the institutions, the international frameworks of free and fair trade, agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and laws and conventions like the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which enables the global cooperation through which we can protect those values”
“If this system we have created is found no longer to be capable of meeting the challenges of our time then there will be a crisis of faith in multilateralism and global cooperation that will damage the interests of all our peoples. So those of us who hold true to our shared values, who hold true to that desire to defend the rules and high standards that have shaped and protected the world we live in, need to strive harder than ever to show that institutions like this United Nations can work for the countries that form them and for the people who we represent.”
“This means reforming our United Nations and the wider international system so it can prove its worth in helping us to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. And it means ensuring that those who flout the rules and spirit of our international system are held to account, that nations honor their responsibilities and play their part in upholding and renewing a rules-based international order that can deliver prosperity and security for us all.”

Trump’s comments on Cuba were a reprise of his June 2017 speech in Miami, Florida with severe criticism of Cuba that was enthusiastically received by the many older Cuban-Americans in the audience.[4] Both speeches, however, lacked nuance and failed to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution, especially in health and education. It also is difficult to understand the basis for Trump’s assertion that the Cuban government was “destabilizing” or that it was “thoroughly corrupt.”

Both speeches also ignored the fact that Trump in June was only proposing to change two aspects of President Obama’s normalization policies: (a) banning U.S. persons from doing business with Cuban entities owned or controlled by the Cuban military or secret services and (b) banning U.S. citizens from going to Cuba on individual person-to-person travel, the latter of which has been subjected to criticism in this blog.[5]

The U.N. speech also failed to acknowledge that simultaneously and incongruously in Washington, D.C. the U.S. and Cuba were holding the sixth session of their Bilateral Commission that was established in the Obama Administration as a means to discuss the many unresolved issues that had accumulated in the nearly 60 years of strained relations; this session will be discussed in a subsequent post.

President Trump’s U.N. speech boasted about the U.S. announcing “that we will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms.” This presumably refers to the U.S. embargo (blockade) of Cuba, which no longer serves any legitimate purpose for the U.S. and which, therefore, should be unilaterally terminated by the U.S. Moreover, the embargo soon will be the subject of a General Assembly resolution that again will condemn that U.S. policy and again undoubtedly will be overwhelming adopted.[6]

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

[1] White House, Remarks by President Trump to the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly (Sept. 19, 2017); Landler, Trump Offers a Selective View of Sovereignty in U.N. Speech, N.Y. Times (Sept. 19, 2017); Jaffe & DeYoung, In Trump’s U.N. speech, emphasis on sovereignty echoes his domestic agenda, Wash. Post (Sept. 19, 2017).

[2] Assoc. Press, Reaction to Trump’s UN General Assembly Speech, N.Y. Times (Sept. 19, 2017); Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump at the UN: bluster and belligerence, Guardian (Sept. 19, 2017); Borger, A blunt, fearful rant: Trump’s UN speech left presidential norms in the dust, Guardian (Sept. 19, 2017); Editorial, Warmongers and Peacemakers at the U.N., N.Y. Times (Sept. 19, 2017); Editorial, Trump undermines his own advocacy for human dignity, Wash. Post (Sept. 19, 2017); Ignatius, The most surprising thing about Trump’s U.N. speech, Wash. Post (Sept. 19, 2017); Editorial, Trump Shock at Turtle Bay, W.S.J. (Sept. 20, 2017); Cuban Foreign Minister Condemns Trump’s Aggressive Address at UN, CubaDebate (Sept. 19, 2017); Cuban Foreign Minister in Telesur interview condemns Trump’s aggressive speech at UN, CubaDebate (Sept. 19, 2017); Reuters, Cuba Calls Trump’s U.N. Address ‘Unacceptable and Meddling,’ N.Y. Times (Sept. 19, 2017); Statement by President Trump to the seventy-second session of the United Nations General Assembly, Granma (Sept. 20, 2017).

[3] Theresa May’s speech to the UN General Assembly 2017 (Sept, 20, 2017).

[4] President Trump Announces Reversal of Some U.S.-Cuba Normalization Policies, dwkcommentaries.com (June 19, 2017).

[5] Posts to dwkcommentaries,com: President Trump Announces Reversal of Some Cuba Normalization Policies (June 19, 2017); U.S. Reactions to Trump Reversal of Some U.S.-Cuba Normalization Policies (June 21, 2017); Cuban Reactions to Trump Reversal of Some U.S.-Cuba Normalization Policies (June 22, 2017); This Blogger’s Reactions to Trump Reversal of Some U.S.-Cuba Normalization Policies (June 23, 2017). Other posts have criticised the proposed ban on individual person-to-person travel to Cuba, E.g., Cuban Entrepreneurs Issue Policy Recommendations to Trump Administration (July 19, 2017).

[6] Last year’s U.N. General Assembly resolution against the embargo is discussed in an earlier post. Other posts about the embargo are listed in the “U.S. Embargo of Cuba” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA .

European Union and Cuba Agree To Cooperate on Political Dialogue, Cooperation, Trade and Economic Relations

On December 12, in Brussels, the European Union and Cuba signed the Agreement on Political Dialogue and Cooperation. It will form the legal platform for future relations to support economic development and promote democracy and human rights on the island.[1]

The Agreement is divided into three chapters: (1) political dialogue, covering issues such as governance, human rights, stability and regional and international security and weapons of mass destruction; (2) cooperation, which is the most comprehensive and identifies sectors of cooperation; and (3) promotion of trade and economic relations based on the rules governing international trade, as well as strengthening of existing relations “on the basis of mutual respect, reciprocity, mutual interest and respect sovereignty.” The Agreement also states the goal for both sides is to “engage in dialogue for the purpose of strengthening human rights and democracy.”

The Agreement was signed by the EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, and Cuba’s Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez, and below is a photograph of them on this event.

Minister Mogherini said, “This is a historic day, we’ve turned a page. Today we’re starting to write together a new chapter.” She also stated, “The developments in Washington that will come as of the end of January onwards will not affect in any way the relations between the European Union and Cuba. We are friends, we are partners. We want to work together and we will work together. The impact of this on others, it’s not for me to judge.”

This thought was echoed by Minister Rodriguez. “Relations between the EU and Cuba do not go via Washington and I remain convinced that there is now a very promising opportunity afforded us to further improve” EU-Cuba ties. He also noted “one major obstacle to trade relations between the EU and Cuba” — the U.S. economic and financial blockade.

Mogherini, supporting Rodriguez, said, “The European Union has raised concerns about the extraterritorial effect of U.S. sanctions on Cuba. We will continue to do so because we believe that this is not only in the interest of the island and its people — all of them — but most of all in our case, it’s in the interest of Europeans to tackle this issue.”

This new pact must now be ratified by national and regional parliaments in all EU member states before it can enter completely into force, although the bloc has decided to provisionally apply parts of it immediately.

As a prelude to the signing of the pact, on December 6, the EU agreed to terminate its 1996 Common Position on Cuba that required Cuban progress on human rights and democracy before normal trade relations with the EU.

This development should be a wakeup call to U.S. opponents of normalization of its relations with Cuba. The U.S. is not the only country that has relations with Cuba and delaying our normalization gives our competitors an advantage.

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

[1] Norman, Trump Presidency ‘Will Not Affect in Any Way,’ Relations between EU and Cuba, W.S.J. (Dec. 6, 2016); Assoc. Press, EU, Cuba Sign Cooperation Pact, Vow Trump Will Not Hurt Ties, N.Y. Times (Dec. 12, 2016); The European Union and the regime sign the Agreement on Political Dialogue and Cooperation, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 12, 2016); Cuban foreign minister arrives in Brussels for signing agreement with the EU, Granma (Dec. 11, 2016); The European Union repealing Common Position on Cuba, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 6, 2016); Delegation of the European Union to Cuba, Cuba and the EU, 10/05/2016.

Prominent Latin American Journalist’s Critical Observations About Cuba

Alma Gillermoprieto, a prominent journalist who has written extensively about Cuba and Latin America,[1] in an article dated April 15, 2016,[2] had interesting observations about Cuba, which subsequently have been confirmed by the Seventh Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba and other events. (Her photograph is to the right.)

She was in Cuba during President Obama’s visit and did not disagree with the U.S. media’s declaring “Obama the winner in the encounter” with Raúl Castro, an unsurprising conclusion since “Obama is as skilled at public relations as any U.S. politician, and the leader of a monolithic state hardly needs charm.” Obama and his speech to the Cuban people on live television, as discussed in an earlier post, made a significant impact on the Cuban people with the speech’s content as well as his persona—young, vigorous, handsome and African-American.

The Broken Cuban Economic System

Guillermoprieto noted that everyone in Cuba obviously was aware of the state of disrepair of nearly everything on the island. It prompted the “joke on everyone’s lips,” she reports, “that Obama should stay in Havana for a month, because in preparation for his three-day visit [in March] more had been done to fix up the place than in the previous half-century.” This was but one indication of the broken Cuban economic system.

For Raúl Castro and the other leaders of the Government and the Communist Party of Cuba, Guillermoprieto speculates, the question has been “How many mistakes can safely be corrected? When the house you live in is falling apart, how much can you tinker with the plumbing, the windows, the doorjambs, and the supporting walls before the whole edifice collapses around you?”

Raúl in his April 21 speech to the Party Congress admitted some of the major ways in which the Cuban economic house was falling apart. Economic growth [over the past five years], he said, was “not enough to ensure the creation of the productive and infrastructure conditions required to advance development and improve the population’s consumption.” Indeed, “wages and pensions are still unable to satisfy the basic needs of Cuban families.” (Emphasis added.)

A major problem, Castro admitted at the Congress, was insufficient agricultural production and hence rising prices for basic foodstuffs and the need to maintain consumer subsidies in the form of lower prices with ration books. Such price controls to lower prices on basic foods were instituted on April 22, and on May 3 additional price controls on foodstuffs were implemented.[3]

Moreover, said Castro, “The state enterprise system, which constitutes the main management mode in the national economy, finds itself in at a disadvantage when compared to the growing non-state sector which benefits from working in monetary system with an exchange rate of one CUC to 25 CUP, while the state system operates on a basis of one CUC to one CUP. This serious distortion must be resolved as soon as possible and a single currency reestablished.” (Emphasis added.)

According to Castro, efforts to implement the economic reforms approved five years ago have been delayed due to “slow implementation of legal regulations and their assimilation.” The “main obstacle,” however, has been “out-dated mentalities, which give rise to an attitude of inertia or lack of confidence in the future. There also remain, as was to be expected, feelings of nostalgia for the less difficult times in the revolutionary process, when the Soviet Union and socialist camp existed.”(Emphasis added.)

Incorporating Private Enterprise in the Cuban System

Guillermoprieto further speculates that Raúl “may be trying to modernize Cuban socialism to the point where it is capitalist and open enough to accommodate the restless generations who are now under forty-five years of age . . . . Perhaps he has the sense that the revolution is finished, that there is no future in the old dogmas and failures, that sixty years of poverty and repression are enough, and that he has no real power to control the inevitable future. Perhaps he is simply trying to ensure, finger in the dike, that a newly capitalist Cuba does not slide into a morass of corruption and cynicism.”

At the subsequent Party Congress, Raúl clearly embraced private enterprise as necessary and welcome to Cuba. He said, “Cooperatives, self-employment and medium, small and micro private enterprise are not in their essence anti-socialist or counter-revolutionary.” With non-state employment increasing from 18.8% in 2010 to 29.2% of the economy in 2015, “just over half a million Cubans [now] are registered as self-employed; they provide services and generate much-needed production. An atmosphere that does not discriminate against or stigmatize duly authorized self-employment is being defined. . . . [We] favor the success of non-state forms of management.” (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, according to Raúl, “Recognizing the market in the functioning of the our socialist economy does not mean that the Party, government and mass organizations are no longer fulfilling their role in society. . . .The introduction of the rules of supply and demand is not at odds with the principle of planning. Both concepts can coexist and complement each other for the benefit of the country.” (Emphasis added.)

At the same time, Raúl made it clear that these welcome changes did not constitute an abandonment of the ideals of the Revolution, that state ownership of the means of production would still be the mainstay of the economy, that the changes did not constitute a restoration of capitalism, that the state would not permit concentrations of wealth and property and that Cuba needed to be wary of powerful external forces (i.e., the U.S.) seeking to take advantage of these changes.

Other signs of Cuba’s economic distress are the recent firing of an economist at the university of Havana and the upsurge of Cubans, especially younger people, leaving the island, as mentioned in a prior post.

Internal Cuban Opposition to Economic Reforms

Guillermoprieto notes that Raúl has internal opposition to rapid and significant changes to the economy and government, including brother Fidel in his rambling article in Granma after Obama’s visit that was discussed in a prior post. That article has opened the gates for other opposition, cleverly directed at Obama instead of Raúl.

Indeed, at the subsequent Party Congress, Foreign Secretary Bruno Rodriguez and one of the Cuban Five delivered speeches with harsh criticism of President Obama as the “pied piper’ attempting to lure Cubans down the path of capitalism. This too was discussed in an earlier post.

Guillermoprieto also quotes respected Cuban historian Rafael Rojas, now based in Mexico, about other opposition to Raúl coming from government ministries who believe “change must come more quickly.” A key problem for such rapid change that was recognized in Raúl’s recent report to the Party Congress was the need to eliminate as soon as possible the dual currency system (the CUC and the CUP), but the state’s subsidization of many prices in CUC makes that exceedingly difficult financially.

Inequality in Cuba

Guillermoprieto notes that there already is income and wealth inequality in Cuba growing out of its allowance of self-employment, i.e., private enterprise, in certain occupations over the last five years and the allowance of higher salaries or wages for medical doctors (now $67 per month) versus those employed in state-enterprises ($25 per month). The prospect is that there will be more inequality contrary to the ideals of the Revolution.

The recent allowance of higher salaries for Cuban physicians apparently was justified on the theory of a pyramid of workers with those with higher skills like doctors at the top of the pyramid earning higher salaries. Indeed, in Raúl’s speech to the Party Congress he complained about the inversion of the pyramid where lower-skilled workers like hotel bus boys and gas pump operators earn more through tips In hard currencies and illegal sales of gasoline than highly-skilled workers like physicians. This lamentable situation, said Castro, “does not allow work to be compensated in a fair manner, in accordance with its quantity, quality and complexity, or living standards to reflect citizens’ legal income.” This situation also generates “an unmotivated workforce and cadres, which also discourages employees from seeking out positions of greater responsibility.”

Guillermoprieto also reports that physicians who go on Cuba’s famous foreign medical missions are paid $500 per month ($300 while in the foreign country plus $200 deposited in a Cuban bank to encourage their return to the island). Because this is less than the Cuban government is paid for their services, she apparently regards this as unfair. I, however, draw the opposite conclusion while assuming her numbers are correct. The $500 per month is over seven times higher than the physician’s salary in Cuba and clearly is economically attractive to the physician. It totally negates the U.S. State Department contention that the Cuban doctors on foreign missions are engaged in illegal forced labor as discussed in a prior post.[4]

Conclusion

I am grateful for Guillermoprieto’s sharing her observations about Cuba. She provides additional evidence of the brokenness of the Cuban economic system and the difficulties of reforming or restructuring that system to include the advantages of free enterprise while simultaneously controlling its disadvantages.

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

[1] Alma Guillermoprieto, Wikipedia. In her memoir, Dancing with Cuba: A Memoir of the Revolution, she recounts moving in 1970 from New York City to Havana to teach at Cuba’s National School of Dance. For six months, she worked in mirrorless studios (it was considered more revolutionary); her poorly trained but ardent students worked without them but dreamt of greatness. Yet in the midst of chronic shortages and revolutionary upheaval, Guillermoprieto found in Cuba a people whose sense of purpose touched her forever.

[2] Guillermoprieto, Cuba: The Big Change, N.Y. Rev. Books (May 12, 2016).

[3] New measures announced to regulate prices of agricultural produce, Granma (May 3, 2016) Such price controls, however, are seen by most economists as misguided ways to cope with supply and demand issues.

[4] That earlier post pointed to a study by Indiana State University’s Emeritus Professor of International Politics and Latin America, Dr. H. Michael Erisman, who said, “most evidence indicates that the overwhelming majority [of Cuban doctors on foreign missions] are motivated by philosophical and/or pragmatic considerations. In the first instance, one needs to understand that the Cuban medical profession . . . is permeated by norms which stress self-sacrifice and service to the community, both at home and abroad. At the core of this ethos is the principle, which is firmly entrenched in the curriculum of the island’s medical schools and reinforced throughout one’s career, that health care should not be seen as a business driven by a profit motive, but rather as a human right that medical personnel have an unconditional duty to protect. Such convictions often underlie participation in the medical aid brigades. There are, however, also some pragmatic factors that can come into play. Overseas service could . . . help to further one’s professional aspirations and for some assignments the total remuneration involved is more generous than what is available back in Cuba. . . . [T]hese are the considerations which apply to the vast majority of people” in such programs, not involuntary servitude. Also relevant is the fact that Cuban medical education is free and in a quid-pro-quo the student agrees to serve in such missions upon becoming a doctor.