Monday, July 20, 2015


The critics do have a point. Cuba got something today: recognition that the socialist government in office in Havana since 1959 is in fact the governing authority in Cuba.

One wonders how Fidel Castro feels about it.

He reacted to the December 17, 2014 announcements with the grumpiness to which his age entitles him, saying he is not against peaceful solutions even though he does not trust the United States. Nonetheless, he huffed, “The President of Cuba has taken the pertinent steps according to the prerogatives and powers granted him by the National Assembly and the Communist Party of Cuba.”

I also wonder if he thinks back to his April 1961 speech, when he couldn’t envision that “the imperialists” could ever change their spots:

“Because what the imperialists cannot forgive us is that we are here, what they cannot forgive us is the dignity, the integrity, the bravery, the ideological strength, the spirit of sacrifice and the revolutionary spirit of the Cuban people. That is what they cannot forgive us, that we are right under their nose and we made a socialist revolution right under the nose of the United States!”

I don’t know about forgiveness, but there they are, still right under our nose, and they have been recognized. So there.

But did we lose anything?

For those who think that the past policies were successful or productive, or the only morally correct posture toward our socialist neighbor, we have lost a great deal. Pass the smelling salts, please.

For the rest of us, it’s a rational path, it has nothing to do with approval, and it’s no more radical than Nixon’s relations with China or Reagan’s with the Soviet Union.

And let’s be clear that for decades, our policies have been tantamount to formal recognition anyway.

We have had a diplomatic mission in Havana since 1977, housed in our old embassy building. We, the imperialists, have more diplomats accredited there than any other country. We negotiated agreements on migration and other matters. We have collaborated on drug enforcement, search and rescue, transfers of prisoners, and other matters, with our diplomats dealing directly with each other.

This relationship carried on even during the George W. Bush Administration, and has long amounted to de facto recognition of the Cuban government.

Today it changes to full legal recognition. What matters more than that legal formality is the opportunity before us, and what both nations make of it.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

An 18-month opportunity begins

Next Monday, the Cuban Embassy will open in Washington, to be followed later this summer by the Stars and Stripes going up at the U.S. Embassy in Havana.

Two remarkable events, and both will soon seem ordinary.

After all, we have nearly 300 embassies and consulates around the world, including in many countries with problematic human rights records or a lack of representative democracy.

Or to take two examples, records of territorial aggression.

The Communist Chinese are literally building islands in the Pacific to extend their territorial and maritime reach – an innovation, to say the least, in geopolitics and international law. The Russians, with Soviet “salami tactics” still in their genes, used plainclothes special forces to take a piece of a sovereign neighbor’s territory (the entire Crimean peninsula) for themselves, and have been contesting big chunks of eastern Ukraine ever since.

No one, not even those feeling faint at the thought of full diplomatic relations with Cuba, has suggested that we break relations with China or Russia, much less that our embassies in those places connote approval of those governments or their conduct.

Of course they don’t, because diplomatic recognition has nothing to do with approving of a foreign government, or even liking it. It is a means of communicating, nothing more – to represent our interests, deliver information, ask questions, express disagreement, seek cooperation, address disputes.

That is why Senator McCain happily welcomed the head of that country’s Communist Party to his office last week, “proud of our nations’ vital partnership.” It’s why Senator Rubio celebrates trade with China, telling CNN last year, “We welcome a China that’s richer and more prosperous, because that’s a potential trading partner, customers for our products and services.”

These and others who criticize President Obama on Cuba are big supporters of engagement everywhere else. They can only sell their moralistic line on Cuba by basing it on standards that they themselves apply nowhere else, hoping that no one bothers to notice and compare.

Or they try to sell a strategic argument based on the 50-year delusion that the Cuban government is on the verge of collapse and hence any change in U.S. policy gives it a new lease on life. (Recent examples here and here, and a useful retrospective here.) This amounts to strategic malpractice, overestimating the impact of Cuba’s economic difficulties and ignoring nearly everything else about the country’s politics. But it creates a nice pretext for economic sanctions in perpetuity.

Thankfully, President Obama doesn’t buy any of that. He is ending policies that have arguably strengthened the Cuban government politically and weakened its domestic opposition, and that in fact have limited American influence in Cuba by limiting contact by our government and our people.

Instead, he’s putting Cuba in the mainstream of our foreign policy. We will communicate through a regular embassy and begin to seek areas of mutually beneficial cooperation. Cabinet ministers will travel back and forth. If commercial interests line up, U.S. exports will expand far beyond agricultural products – and with some movement on the Cuban side, U.S. exporters can help to build a supply chain for the increasingly large and diverse private sector that is essential to Cuba’s economic reform. American travelers will continue to grow in number, and links between our societies will grow in sports, culture, science, education, health, and other fields. U.S. airlines will set up normal, cheaper flights that travelers will book on-line. Cuban Americans will continue to travel in droves, many investing in small businesses in Cuba. Hopefully, other Americans will follow their example.

Disagreements will continue about human rights, claims, the Guantanamo naval base.

The new approach is a radical departure from 50 years of Cuba policy, but it will appear normal to Americans because it is the normal American approach to diplomacy.

It will continue to gain support among Cuban Americans, as it did recently from former Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, the last chairman of the Bush Administration’s grandiose Cuba transition commission, because it looks to the future and to the needs of Cubans living in Cuba now.

Congressional action could make the changes deeper and permanent.

But even absent such action, our two nations have an 18-month opportunity before us. That’s the real novelty – not the diplomatic formality, but the prospect of building constructive ties between our societies after five decades of estrangement.

If both seize that opportunity, as the saying goes, with la lucidez que el momento exige, both will benefit and it will be hard for any future U.S. President to return to 1961.

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

More on the President's December 17 actions

From the White House: the President’s December 17 statement, a fact sheet, and a background briefing by officials that explains the measures and the secret talks between White House and Cuban officials.

The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times on property claims, an issue whose resolution will one day be part of full economic normalization.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the Senate’s President pro tempore, met twice with Raul Castro in Cuba and pushed the Administration both to resolve the prisoner issues and to fix our policy. His veteran Appropriations Committee advisor, Tim Rieser, held everyone’s feet to the fire and stayed close to Alan Gross, especially after Gross decided to stop receiving visits from U.S. diplomats. Their efforts are profiled in the New York Times and Politico. In November 2013, after the secret U.S.-Cuba talks had begun, Senator Leahy was joined by 65 other Senators in this letter to the President, urging him to take “whatever steps are in the national interest” to achieve Mr. Gross’ release.

Pope Francis pushed both sides to negotiate; Huffington Post reports on this Argentine’s history with Cuba.

President Reagan’s speechwriter Peggy Noonan supports the President’s Cuba actions.

In an incoherent editorial, the Wall Street Journal reiterates its 20-year-old position that the U.S. embargo should be lifted unilaterally but attacks President Obama for doing far less. It welcomes the release of Alan Gross and the U.S. spy, but says that the United States should never “dignify Castro’s regime by sitting down at a negotiating table,” as if such a result could have been obtained in any other way. The paper’s editors themselves received Fidel Castro for a nice, dignified lunch at their own conference table in 1995. I guess that was different, or the late editor Bob Bartley was a commie. The lunch is shown briefly in this video.

Don’t tell Senator Rubio – 81 percent of Americans agree with his view of Fidel Castro, but 63 percent support full diplomatic relations with Cuba and 55 percent want the embargo ended in a new CNN poll.