Tertulia on the Tiergartenstrasse

A conference about “Seeking Common Initiatives” toward Cuba begins in Berlin today.

Similar conferences held in Prague and Costa Rica in recent years turned out to have been funded by the U.S. taxpayer. It would not be surprising if that were the case here too, judging from the participants and the program, and the way it all fits with the international objectives of the 2004 report from the Administration’s Cuba commission.

That report included funding to support “public diplomacy initiatives worldwide, including conferences, small grants, media and public outreach” (p.25); grants to foreign organizations as part of an “effort to discourage tourist travel” to Cuba (p.xvii); “small grants and other assistance to local national groups interested in promoting greater information about U.S. policies toward Cuba and greater national involvement in support of democracy and the development of civil society in Cuba” (p.45); and other activities aimed at “encouraging international solidarity with the Cuban people and promoting democracy” (p.10).

As one might expect, Cuban media are trashing the conference; here’s a not-very-witty example in English.

Setting that spat aside, the conference agenda asks some good questions, including whether there is a need for international cooperation, and if it is possible for Europe, Latin America, and the United States to unite behind a common approach toward Cuba.

We weren’t invited, but let’s discuss it anyway.

My view is that a common approach is not necessary, and it’s impossible in any event.

Look first within Europe itself: Spain’s recent move (discussed in the fourth item here) was a sort of declaration of independence from the idea of a common European approach. Spain apparently wants contact, lots of it, and across all sectors in Cuba. Others agree. The Czechs and others want a return to diplomatic sanctions that would have the effect of cutting off contact with Cuban officials. If Spain and others keep contacts open, including dialogue with officials that includes human rights issues, while others adopt a different posture until human rights practices improve, why is that a bad thing?

Then there’s the fundamental issue of whether to isolate Cuba or to expose it to contact with foreign societies.

On that score, Europe is united; no government has proposed ending exchanges or unrestricted travel by its citizens, much less a commercial embargo.

But that’s where the United States separates itself from the pack. Its sanctions policy is broad, immutable, not subject to discussion.

What about agreement on specific initiatives, while leaving larger disagreements aside?

Here it is possible that other governments may take initiatives that coincide with U.S. goals. But to be effective, they will have to frame their policies independently and in their own terms. The Administration’s concept of “transition,” as presented in its lengthy reports, has proven unpalatable even to Cubans who oppose their government. Such independence would not be a bad thing, either.