Although the
Marxist Castro brothers Fidel and Raul, who overthrew the corrupt Batista
regime in 1959 are still in power in Cuba, the world, the Latin American region
and the political context of the U.S. have passed them by. Their early decades of revolutionary outreach
from southern Africa to South and Central America has withered as did their
economy and the economic support of the then, Soviet Union and the more recent,
and now deceased Leftist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
The
isolation of Cuba during the Cold war decades of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s made sense.
The Castro brother’s founded a communist state in 1959 and found a
patron in the Soviet Union who subsidized their economy in return for basing of
Soviet military assets. In the face of this intrusion into the Western
hemisphere by the Soviet Union and the security implications of having a Soviet
proxy operating in the affairs of the Latin American nations, Eisenhower broke
off diplomatic relations with the Castro regime. After the Kennedy Administration’s failed Bay
of Pigs invasion using American trained anti-Castro forces in 1961, Kennedy
imposed the economic embargo. The
installation of nuclear warhead capable missiles within easy reach of the
continental U.S. in 1962 and the resulting “Cuban Missile Crisis, brought U.S./Cuban
relations to a new low. Armed with Russian weapons and benefitting from Russian
training of their growing military, Castro developed regional ambitions and
sought global Left wing revolutionary credibility by encouraging and supporting
such movements in Latin America and intervening militarily in conflicts in and
across northeastern and southern Africa.
But much has changed since
the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Soviet aid
actually started to unravel in 1989 with Gorbachev’s “reforms” of the Soviet
economy. This aid in the form of under-priced
exports of oil and over-priced imports of Cuban sugar which along with other
components amounted to 3.5 to 4.5 billion dollars a year dried up. This led
Castro to experiment with concessions to foreign investors to attract hard
currency. A deal with a Spanish hotel
company created three resorts and a shopping center and brought in tourists
from Canada and Europe. This 1991
venture has been followed by the largest project so far to “internationalize” a
sector of the Cuban economy. Starting in
2013, in the port city of Mariel, thirty miles from Havana, a 900 million
dollar port expansion is underway in another of Cuba’s “free trade zones”. The goal is to attract more foreign
investment. The project, being built by a Brazilian company is scheduled to be operated by a Singapore
company. The FTZ in its entirety is meant to
attract international companies to Cuba by offering them a low-tax, low-regulation
environment in which to manufacture goods.
To accomplish this, the government is instituting reforms to decrease
its control over many of the financial and commercial operations of these
private companies. The importance of this capitalist outreach in the overall
socialist economy is that the reforms are having a spill-over effect on the
rest of the economy as the Cuban labor and commercial sectors themselves
interact with the foreign enterprises.
Thus, should the U.S.
economic embargo eventually be lifted, it can be expected that the influence of
the world’s largest economy and geographical proximity would have a similar
affect in even larger order of magnitude.
Congressional
opponents of the President’s initiative to reestablish diplomatic relations
with Cuba led by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
have tied both the economic impact of a possible end to the embargo and the
opening of an American embassy to requirements that Cuban President Raul Castro
implement political reforms that would essentially change the fifty-six year
old socialist dictatorship. Such reforms
of that magnitude are not possible in the short term. A popular movement for democratic change will
have to come about to make significant progress. This does not mean that
extending diplomatic relations need wait.
The purpose of
diplomatic relations is not the promotion of democracy nor is it dependent on
pre-existing democratic processes in the host nation. The purpose is to facilitate communications
between governments which in turn allows a means to avoid misunderstandings and
better cooperation. There is also an
intelligence gathering aspect to a formal government presence in foreign
capitals. With very few exceptions, the
most important being North Korea, Iran, and Cuba, the U.S. maintains diplomatic
relations with rest of the world.
Obviously, and appropriately, diplomatic relations are not dependent on
local democratic structures or even friendly relations.
The cancelling of the
economic embargo is a different matter.
The embargo was initiated by presidential action under existing laws in
1962 during the Kennedy Administration. The Cuban Democracy Act (1992)
prohibited foreign based subsidiaries of U.S. enterprises from engaging in
commercial trade with Cuba. It also
prohibited travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba as well as family remittances from
the U.S. to Cuba. In 1996, the Congress
passed the Helms-Burton Act which strengthened the embargo and extended the
scope of the earlier embargo to foreign nations trading with Cuba by penalizing
those companies for “trafficking” in property formerly owned by U.S. citizens
but confiscated by the Castro regime as well as by Cubans who became U.S.
citizens.
Finally, in 2000,
under the Clinton Administration, the Trade Sanction Reform and Export
Enhancement Act was passed that dealt with the trade of agricultural and
medical products which had been allowed under previous legislation.
To fully restore
normal economic relationships and trade with Cuba, all of these laws will have
to be eliminated by new legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress and signed by
the President. With both house of the
incoming Congress in the hands of Republican majorities the outlook is not
favorable. Cuban President Raul Castro
didn’t help initially with his comment that the diplomatic initiative would do
nothing to affect the permanence of Cuba’s communist system. While these
comments have been interpreted as intended for domestic consumption, especially
to privileged hardliners in the Cuban government, they are sure to be quoted
extensively in the Congressional debate over the funding of the proposed
embassy and the approval of an ambassador.
In a similar vein,
Senator Rubio’s strong opposition is likely reassurance to the large Cuban exile
population in his native Florida. For
decades, the political power of this group has reinforced the anti-Castrol
politics of conservative politicians in and out of Florida. Although the views of this group of
Cuban-Americans as a whole are modifying somewhat as the children and
grandchildren of the former Cuban citizens move away from the stronger feelings
of their relatives, because of the importance of Florida in U.S. presidential
elections, the perception among potential 2016 Republican candidates, including
Rubio, and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush may be that opposing both the
diplomatic initiative and improved economic ties are the best positions to
take.
However, the re-establishment
of diplomatic relations should be considered on its own merits and there is no
downside in that for either the Cuban population or U.S. interests. Simply put, Cuba is not a threat in any way
to the wellbeing of the United States. The geo-political dynamics of the Cold
War no longer apply. Claiming that putting of diplomatic recognition and
blocking economic relations until complete regime change is accomplished benefits
the people of Cuba after 53 years of failure makes little sense.
Over a longer term,
economic progress and raising the material comfort of the Cuban citizens will
awaken the desire for more political liberty and individual freedom. This will slowly occur with or without U.S.
involvement because of the participation of European and Latin American
investment in the context of Cuba’s free trade zones. The process would be quicker with U.S.
involvement which is eagerly awaited by American industry. The modification of economic
relations in stages also offers the opportunity for the negotiation of
political concessions by the Castro regime.
It has been made clear that President Obama, missed an opportunity to
negotiate something in the political realm in return for the “gift” of
diplomatic recognition. It is also clear
that this weakness has long been characteristic of his interactions with tough
foreign adversaries i.e. Iran, Syria, Iraq, Russia. The Republican leadership in the new Congress
will have an opportunity to do much better if they are willing to take it.
The future of the
hard line Marxist regime in Cuba is uncertain. The only thing predictable is
the exit of both Fidel Castro, now 88 and retired, and Raul Castro, 83,
President of the Council of State.
Currently the presumed successor to Raul who has said he will retire in
2018, is Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez who at 54 represents a new generation of
leadership from the veterans of the 1950’s revolutionaries who still populate
the higher levels of the Cuban government.
Hopefully, should Diaz-Canel
actually succeed Raul Castro he will possess a more ideological and modernist
eclecticism that will recognize the need for economic and political reforms to
bring Cuba into the 21st Century.
The U.S. need not wait and can commence a cautious but serious process
of engagement.