From My Perspective, April 23, 2009

Since the Obama Administration announced on April 13 that the excessive and cruel restrictions on travel and sending of remittances imposed on Americans with relatives in Cuba were being lifted, expectations that U.S.-Cuban relations are about to improve have run very high.

As Obama traveled to Mexico to meet with President Felipe Calderon, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was visiting the Dominican Republic, all in preparation for the Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad and Tobago on April 17-19, Cuban president Raul Castro was in Venezuela to attend a meeting of leaders of ALBA, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, also in preparation for the Summit from which Cuba was excluded. Raul responded to questions by indicating that he would be willing to discuss “everything” with the U.S. so long as it was done in a spirit of mutual respect for each country’s sovereignty.

At the Summit, Obama was greeted by demands from most of his hemispheric colleagues that the U.S. end the embargo against Cuba. The President spoke about his initiative regarding Cuban American travel and asserted his Administration’s willingness to follow a new direction with regard to Cuba, but asked that Cuba respond now with changes of its own. Specifically, the President said that “the steps that we took were constructive in sending a signal that we’d like to see a transformation.” Obama went on to say the he was “persuaded that it is important to send a signal that issues of political prisoners, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy — that those continue to be important, that they’re not simply something to be brushed aside.” Referring to Raul Castro’s offer to discuss everything, Obama called that a “sign of progress.”

Surely President Obama does not expect Cuba to carry out a transformation of its domestic policies as a response to U.S. changes to travel restrictions imposed on Cuban Americans. It begs the question of who is advising the President on Cuba or, rather, who is he listening to, the Cuban American National Foundation? I hope not, for he must steer clear of the historical Cuba lobby—the Chalabis of the Cuban exile communities—who have their own agenda. It is time to look at U.S.-Cuba policy from the standpoint of what is in the best interests of the American people and the national security of the U.S.

Obama cannot let himself fall for the same erroneous attitudes of past presidents and he should understand that Cuba will never accept any demands that infringe on its sovereignty. Yet that is exactly what the President did by expecting the island nation to respond to his first step by agreeing to a review of its domestic policies. If he continues to place conditions on Cuba, he runs the risk, as Fidel already noted in one of his “Reflections,” of making this failed policy his own.

The impasse with Cuba is largely the creation of the United States. It is the U.S., after all, that broke diplomatic relations with Cuba, invaded the island, imposed a devastating economic embargo against the country and, according to Congressional reports, unleashed the CIA to conduct operations designed to physically eliminate the leaders of the Cuban government. It is no secret that the U.S. never “approved” of the revolution and made every effort in 1958 to prevent Fidel Castro from reaching power. In addition, U.S. authorities have looked the other way while CIA-trained anti-Castro operatives like Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch carried out terrorist actions against Cuban targets throughout the better part of four decades.

President Obama must be aware of these facts, and if he really wants a new beginning with Cuba, he must do more than restore a few rights to Cuban Americans. Obama would be well advised to offer the following as a minimum to encourage Cuba to respond: 1) Close down Radio and TV Marti; 2) Stop funding USAID for the purpose of financing the Cuban opposition; 3) Remove Cuba from the State Department list of terrorist countries; and 4) Release the five Cubans held unjustly in American prisons for espionage.

These actions may move Cuba to remove the 10% additional charge on U.S. dollars sent to Cuba—a measure taken in response to Bush’s financing of dissident groups on the Island—and it would likely lead to the release of many of the 200 or so jailed political dissidents. That would be a fair start. The remaining issues of human rights, migratory reform, the repeal of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (which allows Cubans who reach U.S. shores to be admitted and given residency), the issue of compensation for American property seized after the Revolution, and the embargo itself can be taken up at the proverbial negotiating table.

But don’t hold your breath expecting Cuba to abandon socialism and adopt U.S.-style democratic reforms. Gradual economic change will likely take place, especially following a more conciliatory approach from the U.S., just as it happened in Vietnam and China. That is as it should be, for American interests will be best served by a prosperous and stable Cuba than a Cuba where multi-party elections are held and struggles for power return to their days of old.

Ricardo Gonzalez