A person holding small US and Cuban flags in front of the Cuban embassy in Washington DC. Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/file photo.
By José Ramón Cabañas – Aug 15, 2024
Two days ago the US publication Politico published an article entitled “Washington and Havana are stuck in a diplomatic impasse,” that compels us to make some clarifications.
We should always be grateful to the world’s media for making Cuba-US relations visible, an issue that many try to ignore and that is less and less addressed in the U.S. political debate.
In this line, the US publication Politico published last August 13, an article entitled “Washington and Havana are stuck in a diplomatic impasse,” by authors Heric Bazail-Eimil and Miles J. Herszenhorn. The text, however, deserves some comments that will allow the reader to understand the issue, taking into account the appropriate background, and to avoid arguments that have no support whatsoever.
The authors start from the idea that “in recent months the US has extended several olive branches to Cuba,” which from the Cuban side are not considered sufficient to “repair” bilateral diplomatic ties.
Those “gestures” would be:
1.- To have “allowed” Cuban officials to visit Miami airport facilities related to air security systems.
2.- To have removed Cuba from the list of countries that do not cooperate to the fullest extent in the fight against terrorism.
3 – To have put into effect a 2022 decision to allow private Cuban entrepreneurs to access US banking services and financial platforms.
Regarding the first of these “gestures,” it should be recalled that both countries signed, and it is in force, a memorandum of understanding on Civil Aviation, which provides for “mutual” visits that have to do with the security of the facilities through which passengers moving in both directions transit. This has been a routine procedure for years. The only novelty in this case is the recent hullabaloo and blackmail of local Florida politicians towards the White House, who used the issue of federal liability in their political vendetta. Nothing new under the sun.
To consider as a gesture the removal of Cuba from the list of countries that do not cooperate to the maximum in the fight against terrorism is almost a bad joke. First, because this step has no practical consequences whatsoever. And second, because Cuba remains on the list of countries that “sponsor terrorism,” which is how new financial and other restrictions are imposed on the island to complement the economic and commercial blockade.
Cuba was removed from that list in April 2015 and reinstated in January 2021, as a result of the action of the infamous Mike Pompeo who, in order to take such a step, violated all the procedures established by the US bureaucracy. Current President Joe Biden had the possibility to amend it and did not do so.
Cuba has been a repeated victim of organized and financed terrorism from the United States and, in spite of this, it is an example in the Latin American and Caribbean region in the fight against this scourge. Washington’s obstinate attitude in this regard isolates it from the rest of the continent.
On the third point, it has been impossible for the US press to expose at least one case of a Cuban businessman “benefiting” from such banking services. There is no data. Several US officials have expressed the desire to facilitate the growth of the private sector of the Cuban economy, but the embargo laws make it impracticable to achieve such an objective. So, this is just smoke.
The authors of the aforementioned text must be recognized for the sincerity with which they expose the thinking of a US official who, as always, is not at liberty to say his name, but who affirms that his bosses do not have the will to “go further with Cuba.” Well, this is a conclusion that does not require anonymity, since it has been reiterated during the four years of Joe Biden’s administration, which has not deviated one thousandth of a millimeter from the policies implemented during Donald Trump’s administration. It has not done so with respect to Cuba, nor with respect to Venezuela or Nicaragua. Rather, they have dedicated themselves to recycling.
It is mandatory to remember, that the logic of expecting “a great gesture” from the Cuban side does not make sense, as long as it was not Havana who deteriorated to the minimum the state of relations that had been built until January 2017.
It should also be appreciated that Cuba’s position on these issues has been asked and accredited with name and surname to the current head of the Cuban diplomatic mission in Washington, an office that continuously establishes channels of dialogue with the entire US society.
It also acknowledges the reminder of the departure from the political scene of one of the most corrupt senators in US history, Bob Menendez, who joined the long list of anti-Cuban politicians (Robert Torricelli, Dan Burton, David Rivera and others) who have been supposed champions of freedom, but without scruples to accept funds of any origin and sell their votes.
The Politico article, however, falls into the trite path of citing Marco Rubio as the son of Cuban immigrants, without clarifying that his parents left Cuba long before January 1, 1959, and that after that date several family members returned to Havana repeatedly, according to official Cuban records. Articulating an anti-Cuban discourse allowed this small businessman without sales to gain access to the Florida legislature, where he alternated his functions with those of a registered lobbyist, to finally jump to the federal senate and pretend to set himself up as an expert in international affairs on the basis of this single issue.
It is reductionist to say that it is the “progressives” who are pressuring Biden to have another kind of attitude towards Cuba. Perhaps in another space, the authors can make an objective assessment of the advantages for the United States of the implementation, albeit on a reduced scale, of the twenty-two memoranda of understanding that remain in force.
When we talk about law enforcement, judicial cooperation, agricultural or environmental issues, search and rescue in the Florida Straits, restoration of coral reefs, maintenance of the cleanest possible Caribbean Sea, we are not referring to Democratic or Republican agendas.
One might wonder why the so-called agricultural lobby as a whole has for years been in favor of a different kind of relationship with Cuba.
Perhaps the authors of the article, or others who receive the approval of their editors, could dare to talk to young Americans who still come to Cuba for short courses in different universities, or to those who are still graduating from the Latin American School of Medicine. Perhaps they can exchange with scientists and health experts who are in constant communication with their Cuban counterparts.
You might wonder why dozens of city councils large and small in the United States have passed resolutions in favor of a change in Cuba policy.
After all, it is up to the press, among other spaces, to propose new sources, to ponder, to open roads.
The “senior official” who preferred to remain anonymous knows as well as all of us that what is needed to advance US relations with Cuba is political will. In the Caribbean we call it “pants.”
The rest are excuses that are often created to delay a debate that we do not want to take on. But, please, do not pass the responsibility for inaction to the “other side.”
