On December 20, Cuba’s Combatant March of more than 500,000 Cubans, representing the people of the entire nation, flooded the Malecón in Havana [in front of the U.S. Embassy]. . . to send a message across the ocean to the United States government to protest against the blockade and to ensure that Cuba no longer remains on the list of alleged state sponsors of terrorism.[1]
Diaz-Canel, the President of Cuba and the leader of its Communist Party, delivered the following lengthy speech at the end of the march:
“The current US administration, which today has exactly one month left in the White House, has done nothing to move away from the line of reinforced blockade and economic suffocation of Cuba that was left as a legacy by the Republican administration that returns to the Oval Office in January.”
“By implementing the 243 additional measures and keeping Cuba on the list of countries sponsoring terrorism, Biden has cruelly and disciplinedly complied with the policy that Trump approved during his term in office.”
“In recent weeks and days, there have been numerous statements by personalities from the United States and other parts of the world demanding that Biden use his power to at least remove from that spurious list the name of a nation that should never have been on it.”
“To point to Cuba as a state that supposedly sponsors terrorism is at the very least false and immoral, no matter where the accusation comes from, but it is doubly so when the accusation comes from US territory, where paramilitary groups are currently training to organize, promote and finance terrorist actions against social and economic structures in Cuba.”
“They are based in South Florida and do not hide away to train. They do it publicly, in plain sight and with the protection of local authorities, even violating their own laws and international treaties.”
“This is how they have acted for many years, sheltering in their territory confessed terrorists from this continent, such as Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, masterminds of the abominable crime in Barbados who, however, died peacefully in the United States without ever paying for their crimes.”
“Knowing such antecedents, no American ruler can classify Cuba as a terrorist state.”
“The current government of that country knows this well. Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged this last May when he told the media that there was no justification for Cuba to remain on that list.”
“They acknowledge this but do not act, because US policy towards Cuba was hijacked more than six decades ago by a mafia stronghold of the Batista regime, based in South Florida, and against which they have shown weakness when it comes to acting coherently towards our country.”
“Cuba’s continued presence on that list and the intensification of the blockade policy are ruthless actions towards the Cuban people that must cease now!”
“When our international trade is persecuted and financial transactions are prevented, the Cuban people are being denied food, medicine, fuel, goods, supplies and merchandise essential to their survival.”
“When obstacles are placed in the way of our exports or when relations with our companies are persecuted and penalized, the country is being deprived of the currency that is essential for our development and for financing our project of social justice.”
“When onlineservices are prevented or academic and scientific exchanges are restricted, a blow is dealt to a nation that seeks to develop and move forward with its own talent and efforts, in the midst of an increasingly interconnected world.”
“When a people are denied medical oxygen in the midst of a pandemic, and even other countries or foreign companies that can do so are intimidated, this is criminal action.”
“This is the day-to-day life in which Cuba, its people and its government struggle to make their way.”
“The United States’ attempt to undermine the dignity of this people by means of the club has been destroyed today with this rally and combat march, which demonstrates how high the honor of our country still is!”
“Since we launched the call for this march, the prophets of anti-Cuban hatred have been hysterically shouting that it would be a failure, calling for a boycott and lying about their motivations.”
“How little they know about the Cuban people! How much they still underestimate our patriotic and revolutionary convictions!”
“Other spokesmen for the US government and the anti-Cuban mafia in South Florida insisted on poisoning the networks with the false idea that this was an anti-American march.”
“We do not profess the slightest feeling of hatred or animosity towards the American people. Towards the noble citizens of that country we have all our respect, and our hand is always extended to strengthen the bonds of brotherhood between the two peoples.”
“It is the same hand that we have extended to all governments of the United States, from the triumph of the Revolution until today, always based on a serious, respectful relationship on equal terms.”
“But if the United States persists in its efforts to undermine our sovereignty, our independence, our socialism, it will only encounter rebellion and intransigence!.”
“Every administration that has tried has outlived the Cuban Revolution, and will continue to do so.”
“This will be a march, yes, a very anti-imperialist one! Against American imperialism and its attempt to impose itself in Cuba by force or seduction, we will march now and always!”
“We are marching now to tell the United States Government: Let the Cuban people live in peace!”
“Down with interference! (Shouts of ‘Down!”)
“Down with the blockade!”(Shouts of “Down!”)
“Down with unilateral coercive measures against Cuba!” (Shouts of ‘Down!”)
“Down with Cuba’s continued presence on the list of state sponsors of terrorism!.”” (Shouts of: “Down!”)
“Down with the genocide against the Cuban people!“ (Shouts of: “Down!’)
“Socialism or Death!”
“Homeland or Death!”
“We will win!”(Exclamations of: “We will win!”)
Reactions
Although this blogger wants as soon as possible to see the end of the U.S. Cuba embargo (blockade) and designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, this march was not a reason for that opinion.
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.
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]
[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.
The Latin American Conference on Investigative Journalism (COLPIN) is holding its 2024 sessions in Madrid, Spain, October 23-26, with participants from more than 15 countries.
A major event at this Conference on October 24 and 25 was the production of the “DDC Forum: For the Cuba of Tomorrow” organized by Diaria de Cuba (DDC), the Cuban daily Internet diary about Cuba (in Spanish and English).[1] Here is a list of 20 of the Forum’s programs:[2]
“We are experiencing a national crisis that affects all families”
“The recovery of historical memory and the status of citizen in Cuba is essential”
“Cuban citizens want a change of system”
“Creating spaces for dialogue is one of the fundamental roles of civil society”
“I hope Cuba will be free soon, the current situation is decisive”
“Cuba, democratic transition and international panorama”
“It is the political system model that is hindering Cuba’s development and the beginning of its recovery”
“Cuban society is democratizing itself in a fast, open and plural way”
“The situation in Cuba is unsustainable, we are getting closer to change”
“Changes in Cuba depend on our ability to articulate”
“Is the current crisis in Cuba an opportunity?”
“Cuba needs to reconcile with itself and its diaspora”
“The crisis taking place today in Cuba is induced and irreversible”
“Cuba: What moves or paralyzes citizens today?”
“Power in Cuba is undergoing mutations that deepen its most negative features”
“If we do not analyze today’s problems, we will not be able to think of solutions for the Cuba of tomorrow”
“The system’s narrative is exhausted and it is imperative to approach the formation of a possible Cuba”
Trying to negotiate a transition with Miguel Diaz-Canel today would be a farce”
“Achieving a sustainable energy matrix depends on a progressive economy”
“With GAESA there is no country”
Reactions
These programs deserve careful study by everyone who is interested in the future of Cuba as it struggles with its many problems, including its current electrical crisis. These programs also indirectly and strongly support the United States ending its embargo (blockade) of the island and its designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism and returning to the Obama Administration’s many decisions to normalize U.S. relations with Cuba.[3]
[2] [Details on 20 of DDC Forum’s Programs], Diario de Cuba (10/25/24). [Actual details on these programs will be discussed in future posts as they are revealed on Diario de Cuba.]
[3] See list of posts to dwkcommentaries in U.S. (Obama) & Cuba (Normalization), 2014; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba (Normalization ), 2015; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba (Normalization), 2016; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba (Normalization), 2017 in List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: Cuba [as of 5/4/20].
On June 26, 2024, the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva Switzerland issued a declaration signed by 123 countries demanding that the U.S. remove Cuba from the list of countreis that allegedly sponsor terrorism. [1]
Cuba’s President, Miguel Diaz-Canel, expressed his gratitude for this expression of support. He also pointed out out that the unjust accusation goes against the fundamental principles and the imperative norms of International Law, and that the process through which the designation for that list is made is neither clear nor transparent. In addition, he said this U.S. designation also causes extraordinary negative consequences, due to its intimidating effect and the obstacle to economic-financial operations of third parties, for fear of being fined. It also hinders access to food, medicines, fuel, medical equipment and other basic goods.
In addition, this U.S. designation was condemned by Alena Douhan, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures; Cecilia M. Bailliet, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity; and George Katrougalos, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order.
On May 10, 2024, the U.S. State Department published a Reviewed and Updated Integrated Country Strategy for Cuba (and other countries in the world). For Cuba It listed the following Chief of Mission Priorities: (1) Ensuring Consistent American Citizen Services; (2) Supporting Human Rights; (3) Encouraging an Empowered, Innovative, and Inclusive Cuban Society; (4) Protecting the Security of the United States and its Citizens; and (5) Building a Management Platform to Best Support U.S. goals and Future Mission Growth.[1]
Supporting Human Rights (Cuba)
“A generational transition to a post-Cuban Revolution leadership has failed to create significant changes: the Cuban government continues to use repressive measures, including incarceration, coercive economic policies, and misinformation to suppress the Cuban peoples’ freedoms. Approximately 1,000 political prisoners remain unjustly imprisoned in Cuba. Cuban authorities regularly harass, imprison, or force into exile those who express dissenting opinions.”
“In an environment where the state has criminalized dissent, the embassy continuously seeks to advance the cause of human rights in Cuba and hold the Cuban government accountable for its dismal human rights record. The Mission engages regularly with human rights activists, dissidents, and members of civil society, and we will continue to support independent media, access to information, and capacity building for independent civil society organizations. Additionally. the Embassy regularly presses the Cuban government for the release of political prisoners and works with the press and nongovernmental organizations to shed light on the lack of fundamental freedoms in Cuba.”
Encouraging an Empowered, Innovative, and Inclusive Cuban Society
“Cuba is experiencing the worst economic crisis in its history. Food scarcity, electricity and water shortages, and inflation make life difficult for Cubans. Incremental reforms of Cuba’s centrally planned economy – including the legal recognition of micro, small, and medium enterprises – have been insufficient to align Cuba’s economic needs with the realities of doing business in a global economy. The Embassy will continue to seek new ways to engage Cuba’s independent economic actors, foster Cuba’s entrepreneurial eco-system, while expanding outreach to improve the economic outlook for Afro- Cubans, women, and other historically disadvantaged groups.”
Reactions
These two Chief of Mission Priorities are worthy of support. It, however, was surprising at first glance that there was no mention of the problems created for Cuba by the U.S. embargo and listing Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. But those are U.S. actions in Washington, D.C. by the President, Congress and State Department; they are not actions for the U.S. Embassy in Cuba.
Cuba recently has been the subject of many related news reports. First, the island is suffering from many economic problems, including many younger Cubans abandoning the island for life elsewhere. Second, many private enterprises on the island are being successful. Third, this year Russia and China have been increasing their connections with Cuba to support that country and oppose U.S. actions against the island. Fourth, the above developments pose challenges to the U.S., which needs to return to its positive relationships with Cuba that were started in the Obama Administration.
“With sanctions tightened by the Trump Administration (and not repealed by the Biden Administration), Cuban economic mismanagement and the impact of the pandemic and other events, Cuban inflation has soared, basic foods and medicines have become scarce, and money transfers from Cubans in the U.S. have dwindled. The flow of foreign tourists has also dried up.”
In July 2021, this “economic crisis sparked a wave of protests across the island, which prompted a harsh response from security forces. In the following months the government brought charges against 930 protesters and sentenced 675 of them to prison terms, some as long as 25 years, according to Laritza Diversent, director of human-rights group Cubalex.”
In August 2022 a “fire destroyed 40% of the fuel storage capacity at the port city of Matanzas, leading to increased electricity outages that even before the disaster were lasting up to 20 hours a day in many places.”
Cuba’s economic difficulties also were exacerbated by the Trump Administration’s 2019 imposition of the harshest economic sanctions against Cuba in more than a half-century. It ended virtually all non-family travel to Cuba and placed new limits on the money Cuba-Americans could send to family on the island. This Administration also began implementing an old law aimed at blocking both U.S. and foreign investment on the island that had been on hold because of immense opposition from U.S. allies. This move unleashed a law allowing Cuban Americans to sue in U.S. courts any company that benefits from their property on the island that had been confiscated by Fidel Castro’s regime. More significantly, the Trump Administration re-designated Cuba as a state-sponsor of terrorism.[2]
In response to these problems, as of August 2022, “More than 175,000 Cuban migrants were apprehended in the U.S. between last October and July, six times as many as in the previous 12-month period, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Most are young, single adults, according to government statistics. Many are relatively well educated, say people who work with the migrants.” This “exodus reflects the desperation, the lack of hope, and the lack of future people on the island feel,” said Jorge Duany, head of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University.”
Recent Expansion of Cuban Private Enterprises on the Island[3]
According to Miami Herald, “over the past two years . . . [p]rivate businesses, banished from the island by Fidel Castro more than 60 years ago, are making a strong comeback, employing more people than state enterprises, gaining trust from foreign creditors and helping put food on Cubans’ tables at a time of widespread scarcity.” Recently Cuba’s economy minister, Alejandro Gil, in a speech at the National Assembly reported that “the private sector is on track to buy over a billion dollars in goods by the end of [this] year—outpacing the government as the country’s largest importer.”
“[P]rivate grocery stores are taking the place of the empty-shelf government supermarkets, and all sorts of [private] businesses are filling the space once monopolized by the state. Some restaurant owners are now opening chains or franchises. Others are entering partnerships with cash-strapped local enterprises owned by the state and paying in foreign currency for the supplies needed for their production lines.”
“Cuban [government] leaders have long resisted [such a development] because it aims at the heart of the state-controlled Marxist economy.” But “[t]they’ve had no choice but to allow it amid the most severe economic crisis.” As a result, Cuba is looking “less like the highly centralized socialist economy . . . and more like a country in transition, where a nascent business community coexists with inefficient state companies.”
According to Ricardo Herrero, executive director of the Cuba Study Group, a Cuban-American organization that helps train entrepreneurs on the island, who “share similar value sets with entrepreneurs here in the United States.” They “want the government off their backs and want to see better relations between the United States and Cuba, particularly between Cuba and the diaspora.” Moreover, “some Cubans living in Miami are even owners or partners in some of these private companies.”
The Cuban “private sector now employs around 35% of Cuba’s work force, about 1.6 million workers, surpassing the 1.3 million employed by state enterprises, according to Cuban economist Juan Triana, a professor at the Center for the Study of the Cuban Economy at the University of Havana.
These non-state actors through the end of this April were responsible for $270 million of Cuba’s imports or 61% of its total imports according to Pedro Monreal, a Cuban economist who works for the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
On August 2, 2023, however, Cuba’s Central Bank announced new regulations that will require small private businesses to offer their customers ways to make digital payments and promptly to deposit all cash revenue in their bank accounts while banning cash withdrawals to pay operating expenses. This also will ban private enterprises from using their Cuban pesos to buy U.S. dollars in the informal market to pay for goods purchased abroad while the government is unable to provide food and essential goods for the people. As a result, these regulations are another government attempt to regulate the private sector and are expected to cause immense practical difficulties in the state-owned banks and system to implement the regulations and regulate increases in retail prices on the island.
Starting in February 2023, “high-level Russian officials began a steady stream of public visits to Cuba. Barely a month went by without a high-profile Russia-Cuba visit.” And high-level Cuban officials also were visiting Russia. Here is at least a partial list of those visits this year:
“In March, Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Russian Security Council and Igor Sechin, the powerful director of the Russian state oil company, Rosneft, met with leaders in Havana.”
“In April, Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, visited the island as part of a regional tour that included two other American adversaries — Venezuela and Nicaragua.”
“In June, Cuban Prime Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz visited Russia for more than ten days, including a meeting with Putin.
More recently, “Alvaro Lopéz Miera, the Cuban defense minister, traveled to Moscow . . . for discussions with his Russian counterparts — including Sergei Shoigu, one of the notorious architects of the war in Ukraine.” And Shoigu announced that “Cuba has been and remains Russia’s most important ally in the [Caribbean] region.” Shoigu promised that Moscow was “ready to render assistance to the island of freedom and to lend a shoulder to our Cuban friends.”
Similar comments came from “Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Gerardo Peñalver, [who] described the two countries as ‘strategic allies’ cooperating against ‘unilateral coercive measures’ from Washington.”
These contacts have resulted in a memo of understanding whereby Russia will invest in Cuba’s agricultural lands to produce goods for the Russian market, Russia will increase its commercial flights to Cuba’s eight airports, will modernize Cuba’s major industries and reduce tariffs and costs for Russian exports to the island and will construct an all-Russian hotel, shopping mall and banking facilities in Cuba.
“Cuba now receives direct flights from Russia (flights had been suspended after the invasion of Ukraine), and it has joined the ’Mir’payment system that Moscow created to facilitate the conversion of rubles to pesos and other currencies for tourism, trade and aid. Over 1,000Russian oil executives and staff are expected to the visit Cuba by year’s end.”
In early July, “the Russian naval ship, Perekop, diverted to Cuba from the country’s Baltic Sea fleet more than 7,000 miles away. The ship carried approximately 100 Russian naval cadets, humanitarian assistance and various equipment to Cuba. The Russian ambassador and the deputy commander of the Russian Navy attended the ship’s elaborate arrival ceremony, symbolizing that this was the beginning of deeper collaboration.”
China, on the other hand, is Cuba’s largest trading partner, and plays a role in the island’s agricultural, pharmaceutical, telecommunications and infrastructural industries. Beijing also owns a significant measure of Havana’s foreign debt.
In early June 2023, there were reports that China was planning to build an electronic listening station in Cuba in exchange for paying Cuba billions of U.S. dollars and that U.S. officials were concerned that such a station could be capable of spying on the United States by intercepting electronic signals from nearby U.S. military and commercial facilities and could amplify Beijing’s technological capacity to monitor sensitive operations across the Southeastern U.S., including several military bases. This Chinese base is part of what the US intelligence community identifies as a wider Chinese effort to intercept American communications, steal secrets and prepare for increased competition.” However, on June 10th an anonymous Biden official said that before 2019, the U.S. knew there was an operating Chinese spy base or facilities in Cuba that could intercept electronic signals from nearby U.S. military and commercial buildings.
In any event, Evan Ellis, a Latin America analyst at the U.S. Army War College, saw such an electronics facility as “a sign of the island’s financial desperation. China gives money to Cuba it desperately needs, and China gets access to the listening facility.” However, Michael Bustamante, a Cuba expert at the University of Miami, said aside from Cuba’s financial dire straits, the deal with China may reflect that the Cuban government feels it has little to lose given how poor its relationship is with the U.S.
Moreover, according to the Wall Street Journal, in later June 2023, Cuba and China were negotiating to establish a new joint military training facility on the north coast of the island that would be “part of China’s ‘Project 141,’ an initiative by the People’s Liberation Army to expand its global military base and logistical support network. It also is a sign that China now sees its struggle with the U.S. as global and that it must operate around the world to fend off Washington and protect Chinese interests.
U.S. and Cuban Exchanges About Chinese and Russian Connections with Cuba[5]
On June 20, 2023, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the U.S. would “have deep concerns” about Chinese military activity on Cuba, and that he made this message clear on his recent visit to Beijing.
The next day at the June 21 State Department Press Briefing, , the Department’s Principal Deputy Spokesperson, Vidant Patel, said, “The Secretary raised the serious concerns the U.S. would have about any intelligence or military facility in Cuba, saying that we will continue to defend our interests here.” Then in response to a reporter’s question, Patel added, “[W]e we are monitoring and responding to any PRC attempts to expand its military or security presence around the world, and we watch how potential PRC actions may impact the United States. Our experts assess that our diplomatic efforts have slowed the PRC down, and there of course continue to still be challenges, but we continue to be concerned about the PRC’s longstanding activities with Cuba. The PRC will keep trying to enhance its presence in Cuba and we will keep working to disrupt it.”
These U.S. assertions were strongly denounced by Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, in the following statement:
“The assertions made by the US Secretary of State about the presence of a Chinese spy base in Cuba are false, totally false. Cuba’s standing on this subject is clear and unequivocal.”
“These are unfounded allegations.”
“The [U.S.] aim is to use them as a pretext to maintain the economic blockade against Cuba and the measures of maximum pressure that have strengthened it in recent years, and which have been increasingly rejected by the international community, as well as inside the United States. The rejection includes the demand to remove Cuba from the arbitrary list of States Sponsors of Terrorism.”
“Cuba is not a threat to the United States or any other country. The United States implements a policy that threatens and punishes the entire Cuban population on a daily basis.”
“The US has imposed and owns tens of military bases in our region and also maintains, against the will of the Cuban people, a military base in the territory that it illegally occupies in the province of Guantánamo.”
“We are witnessing a new disinformation operation, similar to the many others in the United States throughout its long history of hostility against our country.”
On August 2, Granma, the official organ of Cuba’s Communist Party’s Central Committee, reiterated Cuba’s denunciation of the U.S. embargo (blockade) of Cuba, with the following words:
“The Ministry of Communications (MICOM) is the target of the brutal blockade of the United States against Cuba, according to confirmation of damages that only in the period August 2021-February 2022 caused economic damages and losses that exceeded 104 million dollars.”
“This was denounced by the first deputy minister of the sector, Wilfredo González Vidal, who specified to the Cuban News Agency (ACN) that the cruel economic, commercial and financial monstrosity reduces the dynamism and speed of the digital transformation process of our country.”
“The set of actions developed by the United States, he said, ‘continues to be the main impediment to a better flow of information and broader access to the Internet and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for our people.’”
“However, in Cuba the expansion of access to the network of networks and knowledge continues, and today it has 7.8 million mobile phone users and of them almost seven million access the Internet through this important channel, he noted.”
“This, he asserted, is due to the effort and will of the State to advance in the information society, creating a responsible culture on the use of new technologies in favor of the economy and society.”
“The official pointed out that the economic damages and losses caused to the Communications System, as a consequence of the blockade, are evident throughout the sector, that is, in Telecommunications, Information Technologies and Postal Services.”
“Likewise, according to the ACN, it described as significant the effects due to the limitations of supplies of technologies and equipment produced under license, or using North American components, which forces it to go to other markets, much further away, an obstacle for which the greatest effects are quantified to sector.”
In July 2023 the U.S. went beyond words by sending “a nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Pasadena, to the American-held base at Guantanamo Bay. Officially a ‘logistics stop,’ this was a warning and a show of strength. The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the submarine visit as a ‘provocative escalation.’ The US Navy said the move was ‘not without precedent.’”
U.S. Should Return to Positive Engagement with Cuba[6]
Only a few years ago, the government of Cuba was pursuing closer ties to Washington. According to William LeoGrande, a Latin America expert at American University, “Every major component of Cuba’s economic strategy in the last two decades had been premised on long-term expectations that the relationship with the U.S. would improve.”
In December 2014, this Cuban effort paid off when the two countries presidents (Barack Obama and Raul Castro) announced that their countries would be pursing efforts to improve relations, and that effort produced positive results for the rest of Obama’s presidency ending in early January 2017. Everyone from Conan O’Brien to Andrew Cuomo to Steve Nash began showing up in Havana. As a University of Miami’s Cuba expert, Michael J. Bustamante, noted at the time, “the American flag has even become the most stylish national standard, appearing on Cubans’ T-shirts, tights and tank tops.”
However, the Trump presidency (2017-21) and the Biden presidency since early 2021 have been engaged in U.S. policies of hostility toward Cuba.
Now the emergence of an important private enterprise sector of the Cuban economy has provided the opportunity for the two countries to return to better relations that improve the living conditions of the people on the island. This argument was well put in an op-ed article in the Miami Herald by Miguel “Mike” Fernandez, the Chairman of Coral Gables, Florida’s MBF Healthcare Partners, who said the following:
“It is time to shift our focus toward uplifting the Cuban people, primarily by supporting and empowering the emerging private sector, to restore hope and a bright future for the nation.”
“By promoting and facilitating engagement and collaboration with Cuba’s emerging private sector, the United States can foster positive change, enhance regional stability and tap the vast potential of Cubans’ entrepreneurial spirit, while reducing the vast numbers of Cuban immigrants arriving at the southern border.”
“A notable, and not so quiet, course change has begun as the Cuban government has had to accept the reality that it’s broke. Hence the emergence of a private sector, which can use our support because of our know-how and capital resources as a viable alternative to a punitive strategy. . . . [This private sector] is providing solutions for Cubans where the government no longer can. . . . [and] presents an opportunity to transform the country’s economic landscape.”
“It is crucial for the United States to support and engage with Cuba’s private sector to reduce emigration to this country and promote stability and prosperity within the island. . . . By redirecting our efforts toward supporting the growth of entrepreneurship, small businesses and foreign investment, we can foster an environment of economic independence for Cubans.”
At the top of the “to do” list for the U.S. is cancelling (1) the U.S. embargo [blockade] of Cuba; (2) the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, which the Obama Administration had done in 2015; and (3) the ban on U.S. tourist visas for Cuba. The U.S. should also initiate diplomatic discussions with Cuba regarding many issues, including U.S. positions on Cuba set forth in U.S. annual reports on world-wide trafficking in persons; religious freedom; and human rights.[7]
[7] This post does not comment on the multitude of issues regarding U.S.-Cuba relations. However, this blog has published a list of many of these posts about many of these issues, which has not been recently updated, (See, e.g., List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20].
In his opening statement at the January 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on his nomination, Secretary of State Nominee Rex Tillerson made the following comments about U.S. policies regarding Cuba:[1]
“And we must adhere to standards of accountability. Our recent engagement with the government of Cuba was not accompanied by any significant concessions on human rights. We have not held them accountable for their conduct. Their leaders received much, while their people received little. That serves neither the interest of Cubans or Americans.”
Later in response to questions by Senator Marco Rubio (Rep., FL), a Cuban-American and a noted opponent of normalization, Tillerson said he would advise the president to veto any legislation codifying President Obama’s thaw with Cuba, at least until the Trump administration can conduct its own review of that policy. In addition, Tillerson said the current U.S. normalization policy has not benefited most Cubans.
Tillerson specifically added that he would also advise Trump to veto any measures to lift the Cuban embargo, and “examine carefully the criteria” under which Cuba was taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, to determine “whether or not that de-listing was appropriate.”
Tillerson did not commit to indefinitely maintaining the above positions, instead deferring to the results of the new administration’s forthcoming review to determine its long-term Cuba policy.
Tillerson underscored that the United States “cannot ignore the law” and must comply with measures such as the Helms-Burton Act, which codified the embargo in 1996, and stated that economic restrictions must remain in force until the Cuban government complies with certain conditions, among them that the Castro family leaves power. Any modification of that legal basis on the policy toward Cuba “should be done by Congress,” according to Tillerson, who committed to strictly enforcing the law.[2]
The obvious follow-up question that I believe was not asked is whether one of the objectives of the promised review of U.S. policies regarding the island will be recommending changes to relevant statutes.
Responding to a question by Senator Robert Menendez (Dem., NJ), a Cuban-American opposed to normalization, Tillerson said that advancing human rights and democracy in Cuba and returning to justice U.S. fugitives like Joanne Chesimard, convicted of aiding and abetting the murder of a New Jersey State Trooper, would be a condition of any further engagement with Cuba.
Conclusion
This hearing was bad news and good news for advocates of normalization like this blogger.
The good news is Tillerson’s prediction that the new administration will conduct a review of existing U.S. policies regarding Cuba before making any changes in them.As previoulsy stated, this review should include recommendations to Congress for changes in existing statutes on the subject.
The bad news is the series of suggestions that many of the normalization policies will be cancelled.
Although I agree that so far Cuba has not made significant concessions on human rights, I disagree with the implicit conclusion from this statement: the U.S. needs to demand Cuban concessions on human rights as a condition for the U.S. making any further economic “concessions” to the island. This is the policy that was followed for over 50 years before December 17, 2014, without the desired result.
I also disagree with his prospective recommendation of a veto of any legislation ending the U.S. embargo of Cuba. In addition, I reject his implication that the U.S. May 2015 rescission of its designation of Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism” was not justified. As explained in earlier posts, the embargo is unjustified and counterproductive for the U.S. while previous “terrorism” designations were ridiculous and unjustified and the rescission was fully consistent with the law and the facts and was implicitly endorsed by Congress’ failure to approve a joint resolution countermanding the rescission. [3]
Finally I disagree with Tillerson’s testimony that the Cuban “people have received little” from U.S.-Cuba engagement or normalization. As previously stated in various posts, the increased remittances from families and friends in the U.S. to others in Cuba, all made possible by the Obama Administration’s loosening of U.S. restrictions, have been a major source of funding for the expansion of family-owned businesses on the island. That expansion has helped to reduce the portion of the Cuban economy controlled by state-owned enterprises and has increased the income and well being of Cuban entrepreneurs and their employees, who are and will be a significant force for further modification of the Cuban economic and political system.[4]
[2] Of greater interest to most of the media about this hearing was Rubio’s challenging questions to Tillerson about whether he favored sanctions against Russia and whether he thought Putin was a war criminal. (E.g., Sanger & Flegenheimer, In Rocky Hearing, Rex Tillerson Tries to Separate From Trump, N.Y. Times (Jan, 11, 2017).) Were such questions about Russia merely a Rubio ploy to solidify Tillerson’s opposition to Cuba normalization?
In light of President Barack Obama’s historic December 17th announcement of rapprochement with Cuba, It is interesting to examine Obama’s earlier statements and actions about Cuba. Prior posts examined his campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2007-2008; his campaign for the the presidency as the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2008; his first presidential term, 2009-2013; and his presidential re-election campaign of 2012. Now we look at the first two years of his second presidential term, 2013-2014. [1]
In November 2012, as we have seen in a prior post, President Obama won reelection with 48% of the Cuban-American vote.
The next month (December 2012), as a prelude to his second term, Obama instructed aides to make Cuba a priority and “see how far we could push the envelope.” The President also concluded that “it would be a good fit to have someone who was known to be very close to the President [involved in such an effort on Cuba] because the Cubans are very wary of engagement and they want to know that the engagement is reaching the top. They felt like there [had] been several other efforts of engagement where it turned out . . . where they had conversations with the Americans, [but after] they reached a certain point . . . there was never follow through [by the U.S.]. . . . [In short, the Cubans] wanted someone . . . [involved for the U.S.] who were very close to the President and . . . they wanted it to be discreet.” Hence, the President designated Ben Rhodes, a Deputy National Security Advisor, to be in charge of this new effort to engage Cuba.
Thereafter, Mr. Rhodes sent a secret message to the Cuban government that the U.S. wanted “to initiate a dialogue about prisoners and other issues.” As we will see below, this created a fascinating contrast between the Administration’s public negative face on Cuba and its secret negotiations with the latter.
Obama’s Second Term, 2013
President Obama’s Oath of Office, Jan. 2013U.S. Capitol for President Obama’s Inauguration, Jan. 2013
On January 21, 2013, President Obama was inaugurated for his second term as President. Most of his Inaugural Address was focused on domestic concerns, but he did say, “We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully—not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.” He made no reference to Cuba.
That same month, January 2013, we recently have come to know, Ricardo Zuniga, Obama’s top Latin American adviser, went to Miami and met with a representative of the anti-Castro Cuban American National Foundation and with young Cuban-Americans, the latter of whom helped confirm the waning influence of older Cuban exiles who have traditionally supported the half-century-old embargo. (Zuniga in 2001 as a State Department staffer contributed to its National Intelligence Estimate that officially concluded, for the first time, that the embargo of Cuba had been a failure.)
On April 19, 2013, the U.S. Department of State released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012, and again it had a negative assessment of Cuba: it is “an authoritarian state” with the following “principal human rights abuses . . .: abridgement of the right of citizens to change the government; government threats, intimidation, mobs, harassment, and detentions to prevent free expression and peaceful assembly; and a record number of politically motivated and at times violent short-term detentions.”
By April 2013, however, we now know that the White House was ready to proceed with the Cubans by quietly proposing back-channel talks after learning that Havana would be receptive. Obama initially froze out the State Department on these developments in part due to concern that its “vested interests” would still be bent on perpetuating a confrontational approach. Even Secretary of State John Kerry was informed of the talks only after it appeared they might be fruitful.
On May 29, 2013, the plight of Alan Gross again emerged as a distracting element when a federal district court dismissed his lawsuit against the U.S. for $60 million alleging the government and its private contractor sent him on five semi-covert trips to Cuba without proper training, protection or even a clear sense of the Cuban laws that ultimately led to his arrest and detainment. Experts said the dismissal had been widely expected because of a rule barring lawsuits against the American government based on consequences suffered in foreign countries.[2]
The next day (May 30, 2013) the U.S. Department of State released its Country Reports on Terrorism 2012. Again Cuba was a designated “state sponsor of terrorism,” but the asserted grounds were very weak: there was no indication Cuba “provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups;” Cuba “has committed to adopting and implementing” anti-money laundering recommendations by an international group; but Cuba continued to provide support to certain U.S. fugitives.
In any event, the secret U.S.-Cuba negotiations started in June 2013 in Ottawa, Canada. The Cubans opened with harangues about the embargo and other perceived wrongs. Rhodes, age 37, responded, “Look I wasn’t even born when this policy was put in place. We want to hear and talk about the future.” The Cubans in these initial sessions also insisted on an exchange of the remaining three of “The Cuban Five” in U.S. prison for U.S. citizen, Alan Gross, in Cuban prison. Obama refused such a deal because Washington denied Gross was a spy and because Obama did not want a three-for-one trade. As a result by the end of 2013, the negotiations had stalled.
On December 3, 2013, Alan Gross’ imprisonment again surfaced as an important issue when his wife read a public letter from him to President Obama asking, “Why am I still here? With the utmost respect, Mr. President, I fear that my government, the very government I was serving when I began this nightmare, has abandoned me.” A White House spokesman responded by saying Mr. Obama had “personally engaged foreign leaders and other international figures to use their influence with Cuba” to free Mr. Gross.[3]
Barack Obama & Raul Castro
That same month, December 2013, something publicly happened that we now know had a positive effect on the secret U.S.-Cuba negotiations. At the funeral for Nelson Mandela in South Africa on December 15th, President Obama met and shook hands with President Raùl Castro, which at the time some in the U.S. criticized. Moments after the handshake Obama addressed the funeral gathering, talking about Mandela’s demonstrating the need for trust and reconciliation and forgiveness. Some at the time wondered whether his remarks might also apply to the apparently frozen diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and Cuba, but White House officials declined to offer any explanation of the handshake or confirm that there had been a discussion about whether to offer [an explanation].” [4]
Obama’s Second Term, 2014
In early January 2014 the U.S. and Cuba, with public notice, resumed negotiations from the prior July about migration, which the State Department said “does not represent any change in policy towards Cuba” and which journalists saw as “a signal of the longtime Cold War foes’ recent willingness to engage in areas of mutual interest but unlikely to be a harbinger of a major thaw in relations.” Afterwards Cuba said, “”The meeting took place in a respectful environment. An analysis was made of the status of compliance with the migration accords in force between both countries, including the actions taken by both parties to combat illegal migration and aliens smuggling.”[5]
At the January 2014 secret negotiation session in Toronto, said Mr. Rhodes, “the Cubans started [with just want[ing] their people back—the three Cubans who were imprisoned in the [U.S.] – [in exchange for their release of Alan Gross.] In response the U.S. proposed – to the Cubans’ surprise – Cuba’s releasing Rolando Sarraff, a spy for the U.S. who had been imprisoned in Cuba since 1995, and thereby enabling the U.S. to claim it was a true “spy swap” and giving it political cover. But the Cubans dis not immediately agree to release Sarraff, a cryptographer who Washington says helped it disrupt Cuban spy rings in the U.S.
At this January meeting Rhodes “started talking . . . about how we wanted to change the relationship. And then they started talking about some of the things that they were considering doing in terms of their own system.” However, “the idea of reestablishing diplomatic relations was not something that was . . . immediately attractive to them. . . . [T]hey’re very comfortable in a position of being an opposition to the[U.S.]. They have built the legitimacy in part [for] much of their approach around the fact that they’re resisting [purported] American aggression. So it was not a no-brainer by any stretch of the imagination for the Cubans to agree to a process of normalization and to an establishment of diplomatic relations.”
Nevertheless, according to Rhodes, the U.S. “came to the view of in the discussions . . . that if we were going to take these very difficult steps of having this prisoner exchange where we get a Cuban intelligence asset of ours and Alan Gross to be released [and] they would get these three Cubans, . . . we needed to broaden the scope of what we are talking about.” The two countries “would have one opportunity to make a big move together and . . . we should try to do as much as we could in that space. And that led to them taking certain confidence-building measures like the release of . . . political prisoners [on a list] that we provided to them, [and] that led to . . . this discussion of setting out a process of normalization . . . [and] to a discussion of establishing diplomatic relations and sending a signal to the world that essentially we are willing to leave the past behind.”
At the same time, according to Rhodes, the U.S. “made very clear in every meeting, we’re going to have differences with your political system. We are going to find much to criticize, we are going to continue [the U.S.] democracy program, we’re going to continue [to criticize] your human rights practices. It doesn’t mean we like everything you do, but we are going to get farther by engaging with this government and opening up Cuba so that there can be more business, more American travel, more engagement between the American and Cuban people. That holds out a lot greater promise to promote the things we care about than the alternative.”
Also at this secret January session in Toronto, the Cubans gratefully remarked that President Obama had treated President Castro with respect at the Mandela funeral the prior month by shaking Raúl’s hand and that no [prior U.S. president or other official had] done that before. Rhodes responded by saying “not only was it the appropriate thing to do–you see someone why would you snub them and not shake his hand. If the Cubans have the right to be any place, it’s certainly at the funeral of Nelson Mandela who[m] they helped in many ways.”
In early February 2014 reporters for Reuters concluded that U.S. relations with Cuba were “at their best in almost two decades, but President Barack Obama seems unwilling or unable to confront a well-organized anti-Cuba lobby and push for further progress.”[6] Reuters obviously did not know about the secret negotiations then going on.
On February 27, 2014, the U.S. Department of State released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013, and again it had a negative assessment of Cuba: it is “an authoritarian state” with the following “principal human rights abuses: . . . abridgement of the right of citizens to change the government and the use of government threats, extrajudicial physical violence, intimidation, mobs, harassment, and detentions to prevent free expression and peaceful assembly.”
While the U.S. proposal for Cuba’s release of Sarraff was still on the table, but not yet accepted by Cuba, President Obama held a secret White House meeting in February 2014 with certain lawmakers, including Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin. Obama stressed his opposition to a straight Gross-Cuban Three trade and Durbin “raised the possibility of using the Vatican and the Pope as intermediaries.” Thereafter Senator Leahy confidentially persuaded two unnamed Roman Catholic cardinals to ask Pope Francis to raise Cuba and the prisoners when the Pontiff was scheduled to hold a private audience with Obama on March 27th.
President Obama & Pope Francis
That private papal audience did occur on March 27, and immediately afterwards, as discussed in a prior post, the Vatican reported that “during the cordial meetings [with President Obama], views were exchanged on some current international themes and it was hoped that, in areas of conflict, there would be respect for humanitarian and international law and a negotiated solution between the parties involved.” We now know that this was an allusion to their discussion about U.S.-Cuba relations.
Also immediately after that private audience President Obama made comments that in retrospect also alluded to their conversations about Cuba. The President said the Pope and he “had a wide-ranging discussion.“[W]e spent a lot of time talking about the challenges of conflict and how elusive peace is around the world. . . . [W]e also touched on regions like Latin America, where there’s been tremendous progress in many countries, but there’s been less progress in others. . . . [T]he theme that stitched our conversation together was a belief that in politics and in life the quality of empathy, the ability to stand in somebody else’s shoes and to care for someone even if they don’t look like you or talk like you or share your philosophy — that that’s critical. It’s the lack of empathy that makes it very easy for us to plunge into wars. It’s the lack of empathy that allows us to ignore the homeless on the streets. And obviously central to my Christian faith is a belief in treating others as I’d have them treat me. And . . . [what has] created so much love and excitement for His Holiness has been that he seems to live this, and shows that joy continuously.” The President added, “ I was extremely moved by his insights about the importance of us all having a moral perspective on world problems and not simply thinking in terms of our own narrow self-interests.”
Soon after the March Audience, Pope Francis secretly sent the two presidents letters, appealing to both to keep pushing for an agreement.
On April 2, 2014, Alan Gross’s name started to appear in the news again as he commenced a hunger strike in his Cuban prison “to object to mistruths, deceptions, and inaction by both governments, not only regarding their shared responsibility for my arbitrary detention, but also because of the lack of any reasonable or valid effort to resolve this shameful ordeal. Once again, I am calling on President Obama to get personally involved in ending this standoff so that I can return home to my wife and daughters.” Later that month he terminated his hunger strike, and his U.S. lawyer reported that Gross had lost most vision in his right eye, walks with a limp due to hip problems, has lost a tooth and is 110 pounds lighter than at the time of his arrest. Moreover, Gross says in another year he will be dead if he stays in the Cuban prison. Later in June he was threatening to commit suicide.[7]
On April 30, 2014, the U.S. Department of State released its Country Reports on Terrorism 2013. Again Cuba was a designated “state sponsor of terrorism,” but the asserted grounds were very weak: there was no indication Cuba “provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups;” Cuba continued to provide support to certain U.S. fugitives. Cuba’s Foreign Ministry retorted that it “energetically rejects the manipulation of a matter as sensitive as international terrorism by turning it into an instrument of policy against Cuba and it demands that our country be definitively excluded from this spurious, unilateral and arbitrary list.”[8]
Another public distraction emerged in April 2014 with the Associated Press reports of a covert or “discreet” program of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) that created in Cuba a social media effort to encourage communications among dissidents. Four months later the AP reported about other USAID programs in Cuba with similar aims. [9]
In June 2014 the Pope sent additional private letters to Obama and Castro calling on them to resolve the cases of Alan Gross and the three Cubans in U.S. prison and also encouraging the two countries to pursue a closer relationship. The letter from Pope Francis, U.S. officials said after December 17th, “gave us greater impetus and momentum for us to move forward. ” This appeal from the Pope was ‘very rare’ and unprecedented. The Pope, acted as a “guarantor” that both sides would live up to the terms of a secret deal.
As the Vatican put it in its press statement on December 17th, “In recent months, Pope Francis wrote letters to . . . [the two presidents] and invited them to resolve humanitarian questions of common interest, including the situation of certain prisoners, in order to initiate a new phase in relations between the two Parties.”
Francis’ involvement also provided Obama with potential political coverage against any future criticism by Cuban-American (and Roman Catholic) Senators Robert Menendez (Dem., NJ) and Marco Rubio (Rep., FL) and others.
In the meantime, the U.S. public stance towards Cuba remained unchanged. In early October 2014, Cuba publicly stated it had not received any indication the Obama administration might change U.S. policy toward Cuba despite increasing support within the United States for closer ties. We now know that this was a false report designed to conceal their ongoing secret negotiations.[10]
On October 28, 2014, the U.N. General Assembly again condemned the U.S. embargo of Cuba by a vote of 188 to the 2 negative votes cast by the U.S. and Israel. At this session Cuba asserted that the embargo had damaged its economy in the total amount of $1.1 trillion.
Also in October 2014 the New York Times began what became a series of editorials through mid-December 2014 that called for normalization of the two countries’ relations, commended Cuba for its medical teams in West Africa that were fighting Ebola, called for prisoner exchanges and criticized the USAID programs in Cuba, the U.S. special immigration status for Cuban medical personnel and the U.S. designation of Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism” while reiterating its advocacy of normalization. One wonders whether the Times had advance tips or inklings that the Obama Administration soon would be announcing a major shift in U.S. policies toward Cuba and whether the Times was preparing the country for the changes.
Behind the scenes in October 2014 (before the U.S. mid-term elections) the deal was secretly finalized in Rome, where the U.S. and Cuban teams met separately with Vatican officials, then all three teams together. According to the Vatican’s press statement on December 17th, “The Holy See received Delegations of the two countries in the Vatican last October and provided its good offices to facilitate a constructive dialogue on delicate matters, resulting in solutions acceptable to both Parties.”
In early December Rhodes and Zuniga secretly met the Cubans again at the Vatican to nail down logistics for the December 17 announcements of prisoner releases, easing of U.S. sanctions, normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations and Cuba’s freeing of 53 political prisoners.
Pressures for an announcement as soon as possible at the end of 2014 were several. The health of Alan Gross was reportedly declining in a Cuban prison, and President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry legitimately believed that reconciliation would be destroyed if he died in that prison. Delaying the announcement also ran the risk of a leak of the existence of the secret negotiations that would upset, if not destroy, the reconciliation. Less immediate was the upcoming Summit of the Americas in April 2015 with the U.S. needing to have a positive position on host country Panama’s invitation to Cuba to attend the Summit.
In addition, U.S. domestic political considerations pointed towards a December announcement before the Republican-controlled 114th Congress opened in early January and as soon as possible (the next day) after the adjournment of the 113th so that there would be no resulting interference with the completion of the many items of unfinished business of the current Congress. December also is the traditional time for exercise of presidential clemency (pardons and commutation of sentences), the latter of which was used for the release of the remaining three of the Cuban Five on December 17th.
As noted in a prior post, President Obama as part of his December 17th announcement of rapprochement with Cuba acknowledged that “His Holiness Pope Francis” had supported these measures and thanked the Pope, “whose moral example shows us the importance of pursuing the world as it should be, rather than simply settling for the world as it is.” In particular, the President said, “His Holiness Pope Francis issued a personal appeal to me and to Cuban President Raul Castro urging us to resolve Alan [Gross]’s case and to address Cuba’s interest in the release of three Cuban agents who have been jailed in the United States for over 15 years.”
Similarly Cuban President Raúl Castro in his December 17thremarks to the Cuban people said, “I wish to thank and acknowledge the support of the Vatican, most particularly the support of Pope Francisco, in the efforts for improving relations between Cuba and the United States.”
Immediately after the December 17th announcements by Presidents Obama and Castro, Pope Francis publicly expressed his “his warm congratulations for the historic decision taken by the Governments of the United States of America and Cuba to establish diplomatic relations, with the aim of overcoming, in the interest of the citizens of both countries, the difficulties which have marked their recent history.” The Pontiff also said, “The Holy See will continue to assure its support for initiatives which both nations will undertake to strengthen their bilateral relations and promote the wellbeing of their respective citizens.”
This initiative with Cuba, recently said Rhodes, is an example of what he called “the Obama doctrine and our whole foreign policy. We have to reposition the United States to be able to lead in this century. . . . We have been trying steadily to reposition the [U.S.], to refocus on the Asia-Pacific through the TPP agreement to withdraw that resource allocation and put in place a more sustainable counterterrorism policy that doesn’t eliminate risk but manages it and aims to prevent attacks on the [U.S.].
Conclusion
The Obama Administration’s conducting 24-months of secret negotiations with the Cuban government without any leak is an amazing accomplishment. One example of this lack of outside knowledge is a 2014 book by Chuck Todd, NBC’s noted Washington political reporter who reportedly knows everything that is going on, that says, “There has been little effort to engage or open Cuba, even as the end of the Castro brothers’ regime approaches. In fact, Cuba’s a great example of Obama’s famous caution. While he has been unusually critical of American policy toward Cuba, he won’t use his executive power to make a change.”[11] Sorry, Chuck, you were so very wrong.
These negotiations were without preconditions, just as then candidate Obama had urged when he was campaigning for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2007-2008. Here too he was hit with charges that such a strategy was misguided and naive. But, I submit, it is the only rational strategy after 50-plus years of trying the opposite approach when, in my opinion, many of what we in the U.S. see as Cuban human rights violations are Cuba’s understandable defensive reactions to a long record of U.S. hostility and aggression against Cuba.
While all of this was going on, U.S. public opinion polls showed increasing support for normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations, and new groups supporting normalization or reconciliation were emerging. Especially in 2014, on the other hand, the Obama Administration was compelled to react to news about the USAID’s purported pursuit of Cuban democracy through various “discreet” or covert programs. Guantanamo Bay also kept in the news with disputes about detainee transfers and Obama’s continuing efforts to close its detention facility. Of course, strident cries objecting to any normalization or reconciliation continued to come from Senators Rubio, Cruz and Menendez and from Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart.
After the December 17 announcement, as recounted in many subsequent posts, the two countries engaged in publicly announced negotiations on many subjects; the U.S. loosened regulations about U.S. trade with, and travel to, the island; the U.S. rescinded its designation of Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism;” many U.S. politicians and business officials traveled to Cuba to observe and discuss future prospects; and bills were introduced in Congress to end the U.S. embargo and restrictions on travel to the country while die-hards in that body offered measures to try to prevent or stall normalization and reconciliation. As everyone recognizes, however, the job of normalization is just starting.
As President Obama put it in his January 20, 2015, State of the Union Address to the Congress, the American people and the world,“I believe in a smarter kind of American leadership. We lead best when we combine military power with strong diplomacy; when we leverage our power with coalition building; when we don’t let our fears blind us to the opportunities that this new century presents. That’s exactly what we’re doing right now. And around the globe, it is making a difference.”
“In Cuba, we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date. When what you’re doing doesn’t work for 50 years, it’s time to try something new. And our shift in Cuba policy has the potential to end a legacy of mistrust in our hemisphere. It removes a phony excuse for restrictions in Cuba. It stands up for democratic values, and extends the hand of friendship to the Cuban people. And this year, Congress should begin the work of ending the embargo.”
“As His Holiness, Pope Francis, has said, diplomacy is the work of ‘small steps.’ These small steps have added up to new hope for the future in Cuba. And after years in prison, we are overjoyed that Alan Gross is back where he belongs. Welcome home, Alan [, who was in the public gallery with First Lady Michelle Obama]. We’re glad you’re here.”
============================================
[1] Ultimately after public release of many Obama Administration documents after the completion of his presidency, scholars will undertake a detailed examination of those documents and provide their assessments of his record regarding Cuba. Now a preliminary assessment is possible based upon the following: William M. LeoGrande & Peter Kornbluh, Back Channel to Cuba: The Hidden History of Negotiations between Washington and Havana (Univ. North Carolina Press; Chapel Hill, NC; 2014); President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address (Jan. 21, 2013); Shear, Obama Reaches Out to Cuba’s Leader, but the Meaning May Elude Grasp, N.Y. Times (Dec. 10, 2013). Initial information about the secret negotiations is found in Reuters, How Obama Outmaneuvered Hardliners and Cut a Cuba Deal, N.Y. Times (Mar. 23, 2015) and Rhodes, The Obama Doctrine: America’s Role in a Complicated World, Aspen Ideas Festival (June 29, 2015).
In light of President Barack Obama’s historic December 17, 2014, announcement of rapprochement with Cuba, it is interesting to examine Obama’s earlier statements about Cuba. Prior posts examined his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007-2008 and his campaign for the presidency as the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2008. Now we discuss his first presidential term, 2009-2013.[1] Subsequent posts will look at his reelection campaign in 2012 and his second presidential term (up to the December 17, 2014, announcement), 2013-2014.
As we saw in a prior post, Barack Obama and Joe Biden won the November 4, 2008 election with 69.5 million votes (52.9% of the total) to John McCain and Sarah Palin’s 59.9 million votes (45.7%). In the key state of Florida, Obama-Biden had 51.0% of the popular vote against McCain-Palin’s 48.4%. The electoral votes were Obama and Biden, 365; McCain and Palin, 173. Soon thereafter several head of states congratulated Obama while also calling for the U.S. to end its sanctions against Cubs.
Obama’s First Term, 2009
President Obama’s Oath of Office with Michelle ObamaCrowd @ Obama Inaugural 2009
Obama was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2009. His Inaugural Address first mentioned that “we are in the midst of crisis. . . . Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened. . . . [T]he challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.” There was no mention of Latin America or Cuba.[2]
On February 25, 2009, the Department of State released its 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; the chapter on Cuba described it as a “totalitarian state” that “continued to deny its citizens their basic human rights and committed numerous, serious abuses.”
In April 2009 Obama fulfilled the pledge he made in his acceptance of the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination by lifting travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban-Americans while also authorizing U.S. telecommunications companies to contract with Cuba for improved television, radio and telephone service and Internet access.
That same month (April 2009) Obama told a journalist, “Cuba has to take some steps, send some signals that when it comes to human rights, when it comes to political rights, when it comes to the ability of Cubans to travel.” In Obama’s opinion, the previously mentioned U.S. changes called for Cuba to “send signals that they’re interested in liberalizing.”
This U.S. desire or demand for Cuban reciprocity was not well received in Havana. Cuba’s President Raúl Castro declared, “The blockade [embargo] remains intact. . . . Cuba has not imposed any sanction on the [U.S.] or its citizens. Therefore, it is not Cuba that should make gestures.” Nevertheless, “We are willing to discuss everything with the [U.S.] government, on equal footing; but we are not willing to negotiate our sovereignty or our political and social system, our right to self-determination or our domestic affairs.”[3]
Later that same month (April 2009), Obama attended the Fifth Summit of the Americas. Latin American presidents applauded the previously mentioned U.S. changes while simultaneously pressing Obama on the need to reintegrate Cuba into the inter-American community. Obama responded by reiterating his commitment to engagement, “The [U.S.] seeks a new beginning with Cuba.”
Also in April 2009, the U.S. Department of State issued its Country Reports on Terrorism 2008. Again Cuba was listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.
The next month, May 2009, the U.S. proposed to Cuba that they resume bilateral consultations on migration. Cuba agreed, and the talks took place that July. Cuba presented a draft accord to curb people smuggling and indicated an interest in also discussing cooperation on counterterrorism, counter-narcotics operations and hurricane preparation. Although no such formal agreement was reached, both sides agreed it was a productive consultation.
In June 2009 at the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS), Latin American members moved to repeal the 1962 resolution suspending Cuba’s OAS membership. Facing defeat on this proposal, the U.S. negotiated a compromise: repeal the suspension if Cuba accepts “the practice, purposes, and principles of the OAS,” impliedly including the commitment to democracy in the Santiago Declaration of 1991.
In August 2009 Bill Richardson, then the Governor of New Mexico, was in Cuba on a trade mission, and at a meeting with Cuban officials was led to believe that Cuba wanted to move forward with the U.S. although Richardson said Cuba needed to reciprocate with some gestures. Cuba’s Foreign Minister Rodriguez made it clear that Cuba would not make any concessions to win better relations with the U.S. and that the U.S. blockade (embargo) was unilateral and should be lifted unilaterally.
In September 2009 an U.S. Assistant Secretary of State was in Cuba for discussions about restoring direct mail service. Over five days, she met with Cuban officials in the Justice, Agriculture, Health and Interior ministries and academics at the University of Havana as well as bloggers and dissidents. Much to the consternation of Cuban authorities, one of the bloggers was Yoani Sánchez, now an international celebrity. Nevertheless, Cuba’s Assistant Foreign Minister (Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, now the Minister of that agency) told the U.S. official that Cuba wanted to show her their desire “to move forward in our relationship,” requiring “confidence building” as a “way forward.”
By the Fall of 2009 the White House was frustrated by Cuba’s failure to respond to the U.S. relaxing of travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban-Americans. As a result, Obama asked Spain’s Prime Minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to have Spain’s Foreign Minister carry a back-channel message to President Rául Castro that if Cuba did not take steps of liberalization, neither could Obama and that the U.S. understands things cannot change overnight, but in the future it will be clear that this was the moment when changes began.
Castro responded with a proposal for a secret channel of communication between the two countries to discuss Cuban steps that might address the U.S. concerns. The U.S., however, at this time rejected the idea for a secret channel. (As we will see below, in December 2012, such a secret channel was opened.)
On December 3, 2009, the process of normalization was thrown off track by Cuba’s arrest of U.S. citizen, Alan Gross, who was bringing communications and computer equipment to Cuba’s Jewish community as an employee of a contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Two weeks later President Castro told Cuba’s National Assembly that the U.S. alleged desire for a new relationship was “a huge propaganda campaign staged to confuse the world. The Truth is that the instruments for the policy of aggression to Cuba remain intact and that the U.S. government does not renounce its efforts to destroy the Revolution.”
By the end of 2009, therefore, things looked bleak for further normalization. Moreover, the press of many other foreign policy challenges for the U.S. pushed Cuba far down the list of priorities for the Obama Administration.
Obama’s First Term, 2010.
The arrest and jailing of Alan Gross continued to disrupt the relations of the two countries in 2010. The U.S. denied that Gross had done anything wrong and that his release from a Cuban jail was necessary for any improvement in the relationship.
The Gross arrest, however, prompted the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee to investigate USAID’s Cuba democracy programs in 2010 and to develop a plan to reorient the Cuba program toward supporting genuine links between the two countries. These changes in the program were briefed for Cuban diplomats, who said it would smooth the way for the release of Gross.
On March 11, 2010, the Department of State released its 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; the chapter on Cuba described it as a “totalitarian state” that “continued to deny its citizens their basic human rights, including the right to change their government, and committed numerous and serious abuses.”
In the meantime, Spain on its own initiative in May 2010 encouraged Rául Castro and Cardinal Jaime Ortega to discuss Cuba’s lifting the ban on public demonstrations by the Ladies in White, the female relatives of political prisoners, and to the release of political prisoners. In July 2010 this resulted in the government’s agreement to release 52 such prisoners, including everyone who had been arrested in 2003, and those who wished to go into exile would be welcomed by Spain. Eventually the government released 127 such prisoners.
In June 2010 Cardinal Ortega, with the consent of the Cuban government, went to Washington, D.C. to inform them of the then planned prisoner release. The Cuban government believed this prisoner release was a major concession and should “pressure U.S. political leaders to respond with other gestures of good will toward Cuba.” Ortega also told U.S. officials that Castro was ready to talk with the U.S. directly about every issue and that it would be a mistake for the U.S.to maintain the status quo until Cuba became a democracy. ”Everything should be step by step,” the Cardinal said. “It’s not realistic to begin at the end. This is a process. The most important thing is to take steps in the process.”
Obama, however, insisted that first Cuba had to release Alan Gross from prison before the U.S. could do more. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton called the Cuban prisoner release a “positive sign,” but Obama said nothing.
In August 2010 Bill Richardson returned to Cuba on another trade mission and met with officials to try to obtain Gross’ release from prison. Richardson felt encouraged, but did not obtain the release.
Also in August 2010 the Department of State issued its Country Reports on Terrorism 2009, which again listed Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism.”
To try to rescue the stalled discussions, an Assistant Secretary of State met with Cuba’s Foreign Minister at the U.N. in October 2010. Rodriguez opened the meeting with a lengthy recitation of Cuba’s historical grievances against the U.S. and refused to engage in discussions about the future. “It was a terrible meeting,” said the U.S. official.
Soon after this terrible meeting, Rodriguez met again with Bill Richardson at the U.N. The Foreign Minister wanted the U.S. to know that Gross was merely a symptom of the troubled relationship, not its heart. Rodriguez also wanted the U.S. to know that Cuba had asked its supporters to tone down their criticism of Obama during the debate on the resolution to condemn the U.S. blockade (embargo) and that Castro had decided to improve ties with the U.S., but that the U.S. had not reciprocated. In addition, Rodriguez stressed the need for the U.S. to make progress on the case of the Cuban Five in U.S. prison.
Also in October 2010, John Kerry, then Senator and the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, met Rodriguez, Cuba’s Foreign Minister, to discuss the U.S. democracy programs and Alan Gross, and an informal deal for his release seemed to be on track. However, the Administration abandoned the proposed changes in the Cuba democracy programs after objections from New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez. The Obama Administration was unwilling to wage a political fight with Menendez. This resulted in the Cuban government concluding that the Administration could not be trusted.
Earlier in 2010 advocates for lifting U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba launched a major campaign over opposition from Senator Menendez and others. During his June trip to Washington Cuba’s Cardinal Ortega urged members of Congress to allow freer travel in light of Pope John Paul II’s injunction that Cuba “open itself to the world and . . . the world open itself to Cuba.” The resistance from Menendez and Miami Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, however, prevented any congressional action to eliminate or reduce restrictions on U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba. Apparent indifference from President Obama also contributed to nothing happening in Congress on this issue.
Instead, at Obama’s direction, the Administration worked on a more limited expansion of travel through new regulations on “people-to-people” educational travel, but in August-September 2010 opposition by Menendez and Wasserman Schultz forced the Administration to shelf the new regulations.
Obama’s First Term, 2011
In mid-January 2011, on a late Friday before a holiday weekend, the Administration finally released the new regulations on expanded “people-to-people” educational travel. Cuba’s Foreign Minister said these regulations were “positive,” but they had “a very limited scope and do not change the policy against Cuba.”
In March 2011 Jimmy Carter, former U.S. President, went to Cuba at the invitation of Rául Castro. Before Carter left, Cuban officials made it clear that Gross would not be granted freedom. Carter met with Cardinal Ortega to discuss the Roman Catholic Church’s dialogue with the government, with blogger Yoanni Sánchez, dissidents, former prisoners, relatives of the Cuban Five in U.S. prison and with Alan Gross. Foreign Minister Rodriguez stressed the importance of the Cuban Five case for Cuba. Over dinner with Rául Castro, Carter emphasized that Gross’ imprisonment was a serious obstacle to improving relations and urged his release on humanitarian grounds. Castro said there was no consensus in the Cuban government on the Gross case, but reiterated Cuba’s willingness to engage in wide-ranging talks with the U.S., “without preconditions,” and “on equal terms with full respect for our independence and sovereignty.” Any topic could be discussed. “We are ready.”
Before his departure, Carter said the U.S. should fully normalize relations with Cuba immediately; Cuba should allow full freedom of speech, assembly, travel; the U.S. embargo should be ended; Cuba should be removed from the terrorism list; the Cuban Five should be released from U.S. prison; and Alan Gross should be released from Cuban jail. Rául Castro, standing nearby, quipped, “I agree with everything President Carter said.”
Upon Carter’s return to the U.S., he had a cool meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, and the next day the Administration advised Congress it was requesting $20 million of funding for the democracy promotion programs in Cuba.
On April 8, 2011, the Department of State released its 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; the chapter on Cuba described it as a “totalitarian state” that “denied citizens the right to change their government. In addition, the following human rights abuses were reported: harassment, beatings, and threats against political opponents by government-organized mobs and state security officials acting with impunity; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including selective denial of medical care; arbitrary detention of human rights advocates and members of independent organizations; and selective prosecution and denial of fair trial.”
In August 2011 the Department of State released its Country Reports on Terrorism 2010, which again listed Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism.”
Obama’s First Term, 2012
On May 24, 2012, the Department of State released its 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; the 27-page chapter on Cuba described it as a “totalitarian state” whose “principal human rights abuses were: abridgement of the right of citizens to change their government; government threats, intimidation, mobs, harassment, and detentions to prevent citizens from assembling peacefully; and a significant increase in the number of short-term detentions, which in December rose to the highest monthly number in 30 years.”
In July 2012 the Department of State released its Country Reports on Terrorism 2011, which again listed Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism.”
During the latter part of 2012 Obama and Biden were engaged in their campaign for re-election against Republican nominees Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, which will be covered in a subsequent post.
In the meantime, in September 2012 Bill Richardson made another trip to Cuba after Cuba’s Supreme Court had affirmed Alan Gross’ conviction. The State Department gave him a list of things the U.S. was prepared to do if Gross were pardoned and released from prison. Most were possibilities, rather than commitments. The others were commitments, but already had been announced by the U.S.
The Richardson trip got off to a bad start when he leaked word of it to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, who reported that the Governor had been invited by the Cuban government to negotiate the release of Gross. To the Cubans, this looked like an attempt to force their hand. Later the Cuban Foreign Minister told Richardson “One, you won’t get Gross; two, you won’t see Rául; and three, you won’t even see Gross.” An angry Richardson held a press conference to announce that he would not leave Cuba until he saw Gross, who was a “hostage” held by the Cubans. An angry Cuban government responded that Gross’ release was never on the table, that Richardson was aware of that position, that his request to see Gross was impossible after Richardson’s slanderous statements and that Cuba was a sovereign country that did no accept blackmail, pressure or posturing.
At the time nothing of consequence regarding Cuba is believed to have happened during the two months after the November 2012 election, in which Obama and Biden won re-election.
Ben Rhodes
However, over the last seven months, we have learned that in December 2012 after his re-election President Obama held a long meeting with aides in the White House situation room to establish priorities for the second term. According to Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Advisor who played a central role in shaping Cuba policy and who participated in that meeting, the aides all knew that Obama always had thought that the decades-long U.S. policy of trying to isolate Cuba through the embargo and other measures made no sense, and at the end of the discussion, Obama instructed aides to make Cuba a priority and “see how far we could push the envelope.”[4]
Moreover, at this December 2012 meeting the President also concluded that “it would be a good fit to have someone who was known to be very close to the President [involved in such an effort on Cuba] because the Cubans are very wary of engagement and they want to know that the engagement is reaching the top. They felt like there [had] been several other efforts of engagement where it turned out to be kind of “Lucy with the football,” where they had conversations with the Americans, [but after] they reached a certain point . . . there was never follow through [by the U.S.]. We can debate whether it was the Cubans’ fault or not, but that was their perception. So . . . [the Cubans] wanted someone . . . [involved for the U.S.] who were very close to the President and . . . they wanted it to be discreet.” Hence, the President designated Mr. Rhodes to be in charge of this new effort to engage Cuba.
Thereafter, Mr. Rhodes sent a secret message to the Cuban government that the U.S. wanted “to initiate a dialogue about prisoners and other issues.”
Obama’s First Term, January 2013
Nothing of consequence regarding Cuba was believed to have happened during the rest of President Obama’s first term, which ended on January 20, 2013, although the exact dates of the secret discussions with Cuba in 2013 are not yet known.
Conclusion
After fulfilling a campaign pledge In April 2009 to lift travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban-Americans while also authorizing U.S. telecommunications companies to contract with Cuba for improved television, radio and telephone service and Internet access, President Obama’s desire to seek normalization with Cuba was thwarted by Cuba’s December 2009 arrest and subsequent conviction and imprisonment of Alan Gross. The rest of Obama’s first term regarding Cuba seemed, at the time, concentrated on unsuccessful efforts to obtain Gross’ release. Now, however, we know that at the end of the first term a new and secret effort to engage with Cuba was launched.
[1] This post and the subsequent posts about Obama’s prior statements about Cuba are not based upon comprehensive research. The primary research tool was online searching of the New York Times for articles mentioning “Obama and Cuba” for the relevant time period although the details have been lost in the process of editing this post. Therefore, this blogger especially welcomes comments with corrections and additions. Ultimately after public release of many Obama Administration documents after the completion of his presidency, scholars will undertake a detailed examination of those documents and provide their assessments of his record regarding Cuba.
[3] At about the same time (April 2009), the U.S. Interests Section in Havana turned off its external streaming electronic news billboard, and Cuba replaced the black flags on poles outside the Section with Cuban flags.
