Disengaging with Cuba | Mel Gurtov

President Obama’s engagement with Cuba was one of his administration’s success stories. The policy shift was based on the entirely realistic as well as humanitarian assessment that permanent estrangement deepens enmity, isolates two peoples and separates families, reduces opportunities for improvement in the quality of life in Cuba, inhibits the two-way flow of information, and prevents cooperation on common problems.

But the Trump administration, pressed by Senators Marco Rubio and Robert Menendez, is still fighting the Cold War, as evidenced by Trump’s disengagement order this week.

Let’s recall how Obama, in defiance of right-wing critics, reinforced his policy direction and personal visit to Cuba by issuing a legally binding order — Presidential Policy Directive 43 — on Oct. 14, 2016, just months before leaving office.

PPD-43 makes the case for normalization of relations with Cuba, recites the extensive diplomatic exchanges that have occurred, outlines cooperation in areas of mutual interest, and expresses the hope of improvement in Cuba’s human rights, economy, and regional integration—all while reassuring Cuba that regime change is not U.S. policy. Department by department, the document recites the numerous collaborative ventures ongoing and possible, such as on public health, food security, private investment, environment and ecology protection, immigration, travel, counter-narcotics, and joint scientific projects.

One specific step taken by the administration at this time was to remove the ceiling on imports of Cuban rum and cigars. But the one thing Obama could not do was end the embargo, where right-wing members of Congress have always had their best chance to limit engagement.

Obama left Donald Trump with a substantial list of new interactions with Cuba, some of them — such as money transfers to Cuba, and a major increase in tourism — designed to support small businesses and civil society. Obama also left Trump with some unresolved issues with Cuba, such as a sharp increase in Cuban immigration to the United States (in part thanks to the upward pressure on prices due to U.S. tourism), regulatory blockages, and the slow pace of Cuban economic reform.

Such problems normally would be resolved over time. Under Trump, however, progress made with Cuba was bound to be set back, just as it was with Iran.

Fidel Castro’s death prior to Trump’s inauguration ordinarily might have been a time for a sympathetic note to Havana and an opportunity to deepen the accords already reached. Instead, Trump tweeted: “If Cuba is unwilling to make a better deal for the Cuban people, the Cuban/American people and the U.S. as a whole, I will terminate deal.” The implication was that the U.S. would demand changes in Cuba’s human rights and political system in return for continued engagement and a softening of the embargo.

Trump’s partial reversal of Obama’s engagement with Cuba in June 2017—partial because diplomatic relations and most types of tourism remain in place — is more likely to undermine than promote the slow improvements in Cuban civil society that engagement has produced. Independent journalism and private entrepreneurship are reemerging there. Trump’s limits on general U.S. tourism greatly reduce interactions between ordinary citizens of the two countries, and restrictions on how U.S. dollars may be spent undercuts small Cuban businesses. (Surely coincidental is that new American hotels that might compete with future Trump hotels are prohibited from opening in Cuba.)

Maintaining the U.S. embargo is also highly unlikely to ease Cuban restrictions on human rights, and making the latter a condition for easing the former is sure to arouse official Cuban anger. As one expert in U.S.-Cuba relations (William LeoGrande) observed, negotiating economic and travel arrangements is one thing, sovereignty is another. Cuba’s memory of U.S. interference is long, and Cuba will not countenance another such era.

The Trump administration’s abandonment of full-fledged engagement with Cuba leaves untouched reassessments of policy toward other, and far more destructive, authoritarian regimes, including the Saudi monarchy, Putin and the Russian oligarchy, al-Sisi’s military regime in Egypt, and Duterte and his henchmen in the Philippines.

Once again, a U.S. leader has chosen to ride the wrong horses.

Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University.

More in Opinion

Ferry crystal ball: Taxes will be raised

In May, the green eyeshade gnomes in the Governor’s Office of Financial… Continue reading

Medical bills key issue in key states

Esther Wigley just finished paying off her medical bills – from 2017.… Continue reading

Coronavirus stimulates RV sales and rentals

Interestingly, while restaurants and airlines continue to be clobbered by the coronavirus,… Continue reading

Are you ready for the Nov. 3 General Election?

As the Nov. 3 election approaches, we have been hearing from voters… Continue reading

The ultimate October surprise is not a surprise at all

Karma (noun): The sum of a person’s actions decide that person’s fate…The… Continue reading

ZXc
Are you feeling fatigued? You’re not alone

Many chose to protest – a decision viewed by some as an… Continue reading

Resiliency of community depends on us

In times of crisis, a strong community is key to ensuring nobody… Continue reading

Take a chill political pill and enjoy autumn’s beauty

Autumn has arrived — and it couldn’t come soon enough. I love… Continue reading

Debate to feature more lies by Trump

Did anyone watch Don the Con’s Comedy Hour a week or so… Continue reading

Support parks, which have been a star during pandemic

In a time of pandemic, we still have parks and trails. Even… Continue reading