The Cuban government surely doesn’t like the idea that President Obama is seeking changes in its internal policies, and the U.S. government surely doesn’t like Raul Castro’s reiterated offer to free dissidents – and to send them and their families to the United States – in exchange for freeing the “Cuban Five.”
But yesterday, in advance of a hemispheric summit that will in significant measure be about the one country that is not invited, both sides were talking about dialogue with each other. This AP roundup of the day’s signals senses a potential turning point.
President Obama got the ball rolling in a press conference in Mexico. He said that the actions he took on Monday are “a show of good faith on the part of the United States that we want to recast the relationship” with Cuba. (AP video here, transcript here.) He went on:
“Having taken the first step, I think it is very much in our interest to see whether Cuba is also ready to change. We don’t expect them to change overnight. That would be unrealistic, but we do expect that Cuba will send signals that they are interested in liberalizing in such a way that not only the U.S.-Cuban relations improve but so that the energy and creativity and the initiative of the Cuban people can potentially be released. We talk about the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba, but there’s not much discussion of the ban on Cuban people traveling elsewhere and the severe restrictions that they are under. I make that point only to suggest that there are a range of steps that could be taken on the part of the Cuban government that would start to show that they want to move beyond the patterns of the last fifty years.”
In a press conference in Haiti, Secretary of State Clinton said:
“We stand ready to discuss with Cuba additional steps that could be taken, but we do expect Cuba to reciprocate…We would like to see Cuba open up its society, release political prisoners, open up to outside opinions and media, have the kind of society that we all know that would improve the opportunities for the Cuban people and for their nation.”
And in Caracas, Cuban President Raul Castro noted:
“We have sent word to the U.S. government in private and in public that we are willing to discuss everything – human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners, everything…We’re willing to sit down to talk as it should be done, whenever…I’m confirming it here today: If they want the freedom of those political prisoners, who include some confessed terrorists, Guatemalans and Salvadorans who were tried and sentenced…free our prisoners and we’ll send them to you with their families and whatever they want – those so-called dissidents and patriots.”
Video of his remarks are at Penultimos Dias.
If a change in Cuban human rights practices is a U.S. precondition for talks, then it seems that these words and offers will remain just that. On the other hand, if the Obama Administration is willing to start talks, Raul Castro is clearly willing to hear U.S. criticisms.
In that case, the missing piece would seem to be a U.S. indication that it is ready to start.
That would be a matter of political will for the Obama Administration, which is committed to pursuing “tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions with all nations, friend and foe.”
Or maybe Cuba could start a nuclear program, or borrow one for a few days. In the case of Iran, the Obama Administration is not pressing for political change, and is dropping the precondition that Iran suspend its nuclear programs as a condition for talks.
I remain convinced that the most practical place to start would be talks on migration, drug interdiction, and environmental protection. Both sides have an interest in these neighborhood issues. There is already cooperation on migration and drugs, and Cuba’s interest in offshore oil drilling gives the United States a strong reason to talk about the environment. None of these issues poses a political minefield for either side, and modest results could be achieved in the near term. Such talks would give the United States an opportunity to press its concerns about human rights in a face-to-face setting – provided that we are willing to hear Cuba’s complaints too. And if these talks identify other areas worth pursuing, so much the better.
[Update: “We have seen Raul Castro”s comments and we welcome his overtures,” Secretary Clinton said in Santo Domingo today. Reuters story here.
OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza has long said that he wants to debate the Cuba issue and discuss Cuba’s readmission to the inter-American system. Now he is getting specific, telling reporters today that he wants the OAS to repeal the 1962 resolution that suspended Cuba’s membership.]
31 comments:
Raul Castro is hanging from a paint brush. Listening to him is very instructive because it shows schematic rather than dynamic thinking. This can be to the US advantage if there is a clear idea of what US national interest vis-a-vis Cuba is. It is time to designate a direct negotiator or for that matter to have Air Force One make a technical stop in Havana on the way back to Washington.
Vecino de NF
american style is always to try and set conditions before negotiations; its not negotiation, its dictating.
cuba has said they'll talk about anything; those points phil makes re areas to start are good ones, easy to expand from there.
dont let obama's movement be used as excuse that now cuba has to reciprocate. the only move cuba has to make is to declare themselves willing to talk, which they have. so lets talk.
anonimo
Cuba desires the cessation of actions against it, United States seeks to manipulate a sovereign country.. how does this signify change?
So let's be clear, the Cuban government has abandoned its stated goal for a more just and equitable world order so the US can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't tell the Cuban government what to do within Cuba?
Otherwise let's admint that we are open to each other's influence whenever we interact and that's life! That's what mature grown-ups do, and that's what mature grown-ups deal with other grown-ups.
I think an stated goal should be to end co-dependency rather than achieve independence.
Vecino de NF
the change would be if the US finally after 50 years of trying to manipulate a sovereign country would stop, let cuba decide on its own path, and end the hostility. that's all cuba wants, apparently its been too much to give. hopefully now there will be a change; in USA attitudes.
anonimo
when has the u.s. tried to manipulate Cuba in the last 50 years? the only thing i've seen the u.s. do is stand with the cuban people in their time of need. with the exception of certain wrong-headed elements of the embargo.
Raul Castro doesn't know how to react to small US moves. He is allowing the US to restate his positions rather than controlling the dialogue. It appears that the Cuban government has no position other than obstructionism, and that it must rely on Chavez and the poorest nations in the hemisphere to fight its foreign policy fights. It is also instructive seeing Raul Castro bowing to Hugo Chavez (He is not the only bowing to someone who controls oil as we saw in London). If he wants to control the situation, he needs to engage the US directly and quickly with concrete moves. With all due respect to Phil Peters, incremental moves are not called for if the migration situation needs to be controlled. They will appear ineffective to the Cuban population. Does anyone thinks that the Cuban population is willing to wait 10 years for an oil project in the Florida straits to come on-line, or that it cares about bilateral cooperation on drug interdiction? They want a quick improvement in their consumption standards. Something that will not be solved by the lifting of the embargo unless it is accompanied by large influxes of credits and aid.
Also can Insulza bring about motions to the OAS or is his role rather procedural? I thought a motion can be brought to the attention of the OAS by a member state not by the Secretary General.
Confused on OAS, skeptical on everyting else!
Vecino de NF
I ty to follow your arguments Vecino, but most of the time, you lose me. How is the "Raul allowing the US to restate its positions?" How is lining up regional leaders to support Cuba's position in any way negative for Cuba? Raul responded directly to the US and Obama hours after Obama made a statement. That was a pretty quick response. If you think Cuba is just going to engage in unilateral concessions on internal issues however, you'll be waiting a long time. That is the point of calling for dialogue. Cuba has seen how the US likes to move the goalposts, and wants to make sure any "concessions" are worth something.
I think Phil's point about incremental dialogue on less controvertial issues (migration, drugs, environment) is directed at US policy makers. It is a good strategy for beginning a process of dialogue, respect and reciprocity - that can be built on later. I understand that Cubans want to get to the heart of the matter asap, but American political realities are such that small incremental change is usually the way major policy overhauls happen. Yesterday and todays exchange (particularly the positive reaction from Hillary) may have done more than anything to move things significantly forward. Now lets hope folks in Miami don't sabotage the whole thing.
Anonymous 3:44PM,
I viewed the video of Raul's comments and it did not appear to me he was extending a negotiation offer to the US but rather it was a reiteration (like many postings in this blog) of the historical Cuban grievances against the USA. So Hillary comes back saying that the US sees it as an overture, and they are planning to treat it as such. This appears to be a restatement of his position for a establishment of a Latin American COMECON. That's my perception.
The other comment re/ using others to fight Cuba's fight although a fine revolutionary tactic is not a serious negotiating stance. Look with all due respect to the people of these countries: Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Honduras have not been, are not, and will not be more than diplomatic annoyances to the USA. There are no vital US interests threatened in any of these countries. Venezuela is consequential as long as it is willing to sell oil to the USA. If it refuses to sell oil to the USA tomorrow, the USA will buy its oil elsewhere including through third parties that would buy Venezuelan oil and then sell it to the USA. Once again an annonyance that may cause short term discomfort, but it is not a terminal disease more like a really bad cold. Cuba has shown all these government that complaining about the USA is good for internal political control even long after the USA has become incosequential in their national lives.
As far as my comment on incremental change, I would simply add that the only purpose for it is to avoid making any real changes. Either fish or cut bait!
Once again has anybody set up the fund to pay Cuba's US$11 billion annual trade deficit?
And by the way the only ones that can sabotage any rapprochment between Cuba and the USA are Fidel and Raul Castro. So stop blaming the folks in Miami, they just finished paying lots of taxes to bailout Citigroup and AIG!
Not rabid just earnest!
Vecino de NF
no vecino, you're getting a wee bit rabid. nice to be able to predict the, assume you have won millions on the lottery.
and i thought i was the only one who could never follow your convolutions and misdirections.
cuba wants dialogue, raul has made it clear on a number of occasions, so has fidel. that's where it starts, pick a topic, low level stuff fine. but at least lets get going. its called negotiations, neither cuba nor USA will put everything on table at once, theres's lots to discuss. i know it frightens you to see the possibility of normalization; otherwise your comments re embargo just make no sense. the other countries in Latin America as an annoyance? man you are mr imperalism today.
I realize I was perhaps not very clear myself... sometimes we take for granted that our logic is easy to follow.
My specific point is that it will do Cuba no good to make a gesture or move on, say migration, or prisoners, in absence of a discussion with the US about their use of subversion on the island and the murderous wet-foot, dry-foot policy. It will do not good to have a discussion about "free flow" of information without a discussion of US illegal propoganda transmissions. That is why Cuba will not act unilaterally without real discussions and negotiations. Hopefully Obama's people have some semblence of that reality and do not revert to the usual talk of preconditions.
anon 1137 -- 'when has US tried to manipulate cuba in the past 50 years.' first off, i'd like to welcome you to this blog. obviously it's tough to be a first timer, and you lack of information on cuba is a concern, but hopefully soon you'll stop spewing such ignorant statements like that one.
when has US govt stood with people of cuba, those living in cuba. no gusanos need apply. little wrong headed embargo, yeah, like platt and gitmo. sheeshh
so here's cuba 101 -- there will be a test later:
terrorist acts
embargo
invasion
isolation
helms burton
toricelli
wet-foot, dry-foot
commission for assistance to a free cuba
radio marti
threats, aggression, demands that cuba must change its social-economic system.
etc etc etc
that's the short list, its friday afternoon so i dont have the energy to expand.
now be a good boy and do some homework. and don't come back until you know what the hell your talking about.
hasta pronto? no yo no pienso que
anonimo
Anon 1137,
Please do not be scare by anonimo! He is just a pussycat pretending to be a fireeater (comecandela). So come back, state your piece, and remember sticks and stones may break your bones but words never can!
Anonimo,
We must agree to disagree. Raul Castro, and Hugo Chavez are indicating by every action they take that they want to challenge the US world position not work out with the US a new set of rules of the road. Challenging the US is not new for LA governments but if you want results it's better to do it businesslike. The Brazilians do it all the time. They challenge the American position when it comes to trade, and other items and it happens no matter who is in charge of the country, but they do it in a non-confrontational way because there are real issues between the two countries not just rhetorical positions. I don't see that from the ALBA contingent.
As far as normalization is concerned, I will make it as plain as I can: it should be done in a quick and broad manner if you want to improve living conditions in Cuba. But that's not what the Cuban government wants because normal relations with the US will eliminate the only reason for its social and political control of the Cuban population, and without credit and aid from the US they can not improve Cuban living conditions even without the embargo. Cuba needs US$11 billion of trade financing every year. That's US$1,000 for each Cuban when the average income if you cross the Florida Strait is 20 to 25 times that. Have you starting the fundraising yet because that's where all sincere efforts to help the Cubans in Cuba should be directed? Just remember money talks, b***s*** walks!
Beginning to foam at the mouth!
Vecino de NF
"As far as normalization is concerned, I will make it as plain as I can: it should be done in a quick and broad manner if you want to improve living conditions in Cuba."
Hmmm.. interesting, this is definitely Nobel material. Just tell us how do you do that within the current Cuba system? Or your position is just "give up whatever your ideals are, I promise that THIS way is better"?
Sorry for being sarcastic, but you don't want normalization or relationships with USA, you want regime change and obviously the cuban authorities wont accept that as precondition for the normalization, thats the same failed policy of the last 50 years.
ac
AC,
Where have I said that I want change in regime personnel? I have stated very broad preferences regarding form of government, etc. but if that's regime change then you are sort of agreeing with me that normal relations will lead to regime change because the regime needs confrontation with the US to survive. I am just an observer. Like I made it clear to anonimo and others, the type of government in Cuba is up to the Cubans to decide, all Cubans not just the current members of the government. I am happy to share my opinions about which kind of government appears to work best but that's as far as I will go. Is that so threatening?
In my humble opinion what the Cuban government wants from the US is the type of support extended to Batista prior to the 1958 arms embargo. The USA has made a cornerstone of their policy toward Latin America since the Reagan years (after the Faklands/Malvinas war) that they will not do that. They can accept any electoral outcome but they will not support dictatorships whether from the left or the right. Do you want the USA to tell the Cuban government that they will give them aid, credit, and political recognition so they can run a totalitarian regime? If that's your goal, please state it. As for mine, I think my posting make it plain. There is no need to credit me with motives that I have not stated. That's not very kulturni.
Foaming a little more at the mouth!
Vecino de NF
"but they do it in a non-confrontational way because there are real issues between the two countries not just rhetorical positions. I don't see that from the ALBA contingent."
You mean like accept the unconstitutional government hours after a failed coup d' etat? Sorry, but Chavez had all the reasons to oppose Bush policies in the region, call him evil or whatever. And as long as Obama don't show real changes regarding LA policies the hostility from some countries will remain the same. You can't be openly hostile to a country and expect them to be nice with you.
ac
AC,
Do you want normal relations between Cuba and the USA? Because if you do, this administration is ready to deal right now. So direct your postings to the people in Cuba, and tell them: boys it's crunch time, make your list and tell the USA let's talk!
Vecino de NF
AC,
And I would also add tell the USA discreetly! If you don't want to talk, posture all you want in public forums. So no more posturing, let's do it! Right now! An agreement in principle can be hammered out over a weekend! That's what should be communicated to Havana right now.
Vecino de NF
"Where have I said that I want change in regime personnel? "
No, that was the OTHER choice, you said that normalization should done in a quick way and broad manner and thats ok, but there are LOTS of things that must change in both sides and that will take LOTS of time and may cost a few politicians careers.
The hottest topic in the current stalemate is the situation of the so called political prisoners.
US want them free before do any other step, Cuba considers them enemy collaborators and might consider trade them for the cuban five, but that is not feasible under US laws.
As you can see at least one party needs to make concessions to break the stalemate.
As I see things, the cards Cuba has is the unconditional release of those guys, but if they do that they will lose a way to press US for the liberation of the cuban five.
US has more options, for starters I think the cuban five are appealing to the supreme court and most of them were charged ridiculous amount of time for spying a terrorist organization (not the government), and they already served more than 10 years, so free them shouldn't be a big deal within the legal framework of US and it has little political cost.
The other way is to remove the ban to travel to all American citizens. The rationale for that ban is that Cuba is an hostile state (as in a military kind of hostility), and that everyone know is not true. This kind of rationale is the same Cuba is applying to the political prisoners, so if the ban is reversed it means that US does not considers Cuba an hostile state anymore and that renders useless the reason for jail the dissidents, and open more space to further normalization.
IMHO the smartest way to deal with this at the least political cost is to free the cuban five, because as long as both countries consider the other a threat they don't have reason to change their current policy and if one of them do it unilaterally it will weaken its image.
ac
Excuses, excuses! Deal or no deal?
The Cuban political prisoners (in Cuba) were put in jail for doing far less than many US citizens do when they advocate for change in relations with Cuba. There is no cost to the Cuban government for releasing them. They can be paroled easily and Cuban police can easily control them. If nothing else, it makes their families life harder because now they would need to feed them.
As far as the Cuban Five in US jails, they will go back in all due time. They are soldiers and as such they should be able to endure their detention. The political prisoners in Cuba are by civilians.
Anyway like I said, direct your postings to Cuba, and tell them to play ball discreetly! Nothing moves in Cuba without Raul Castro's control so he can be magnanimous. Gen.Colomé Ibarra can be trusted, or can't he?
Vecino de NF
"Do you want normal relations between Cuba and the USA? Because if you do, this administration is ready to deal right now."
I do, but I don't think that the current administration can revert fifty tears of stupidity that easily. The current policy changes are just a symbol of good faith, they didn't tackle any core issue of the bilateral problems, and the way they were presented means that the US goal have not changed, only the means to achieve the same goal.
There is a subtle difference between "is regrettable that you choose that kind of government, but since is not THAT bad we can behave as good neighbors" and "that undemocratic government is incompatible with our vision of the hemisphere, we'll make everything in our hands to force you to change your ways".
ac
AC,
So I take it from your response that normal relations between Cuba and the USA can not be done under this Administration at this time. Also I can not count on you to either help in the fundraising to finance Cuba's trade deficit or to tell Havana to start negotiating discreetly, right? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but do I understand your point of view.
Vecino de NF
"The Cuban political prisoners (in Cuba) were put in jail for doing far less than many US citizens do when they advocate for change in relations with Cuba. There is no cost to the Cuban government for releasing them. They can be paroled easily and Cuban police can easily control them. If nothing else, it makes their families life harder because now they would need to feed them."
Is not a matter of cost, Cuba is in a political transition, with the ghost of Fidel showing his face here an then, if Raul unilaterally free the dissidents his image will weaken greatly and he still does not have a firm hold of the power.
Besides, those guys (or some of them) accepted money to finance their activities, so they are considered payed mercenaries by Cuban government, and as usual their goal is to subvert the establishment.. thats way more serious than spying an organization not related with government/military, is it?
As I explained before, as long as the two countries consider each other as a hostile power that kind of attitude can't change over night.
"So I take it from your response that normal relations between Cuba and the USA can not be done under this Administration at this time. Also I can not count on you to either help in the fundraising to finance Cuba's trade deficit or to tell Havana to start negotiating discreetly, right? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but do I understand your point of view."
No, thats not what I mean. The problem with political prisoners can't be solved right now without some kind of concession from one of the parties. I just pointed out that Cuba can't afford the political cost right now, the less costly solution for that issue should come from USA, but Obama dows not has a reason to do so.
In short, as others pointed out the only way is to gradually restore ties in points of common interest, like migration, security, etc. That is a slow process that can take years, but slowly will build trust between the parties, creating the conditions for deeper change.
ac
Anon 6:51PM (AC?),
US law is pretty clear. If you work for a foreing government on US soil and you do not register as a foreign agent you will be sent to jail. The Fives did just that, and they knew that what they were doing was illegal. They got caught, and they were lucky that they were not shot considering the level of tensions between the two countries.
As far as the political prisoners in Cuba accepting money and suport from the USA, I would point out that many people in the USA have accepted aid, resources, etc from Cuba. Or should we forget the Venceremos brigades, and other outfits? Most if not all of them happen to be pillars of their communities right now. Also lots of people in the USA accept moneys from governments that are not very friendly with the USA and they do not go to jail for it (look at Mr. Kennedy and his cheap PDVSA fuel oil up in Massachusetts or the US citizens studying Medicine in Cuba.)
So I must conclude from your statement that the Cuban government is so weak and unpopular that they can not free a measly 200 people who happend to be out of the political mainstream in Cuba. That would be sad for if after 50 years of the revolutionary achievements, 200 pelagatos can bring the whole revolution down, 50 years of struggle has been for nothing.
Vecino de NF
AC,
The Cuban people can not wait anymore. They are desperate for food and medicine as opponents of the embargo would have us believe. Gradualism is another way to say continue the status quo, and that would be genocidal.
But if in the other hand, gradualism is OK, then the Cuban people are not really that desperate for food and medicine, and therefore all this is just political rhetoric.
So another question should the US government just tell the Cuban government we will support you with aid, credits, and political support without regard if you share our beliefs or not? In other words we'll give me you the same deal we gave Batista before the arms embargo.
Vecino de NF
"US law is pretty clear. If you work for a foreing government on US soil and you do not register as a foreign agent you will be sent to jail. The Fives did just that, and they knew that what they were doing was illegal. They got caught, and they were lucky that they were not shot considering the level of tensions between the two countries."
Yes, but you usually don't get a life sentence but that kind of activities if they don't threaten the national interests. The point is, they already spent 10 years in prison, thats about right for that kind of crime.
"As far as the political prisoners in Cuba accepting money and suport from the USA, I would point out that many people in the USA have accepted aid, resources, etc from Cuba. Or should we forget the Venceremos brigades, and other outfits? Most if not all of them happen to be pillars of their communities right now. Also lots of people in the USA accept moneys from governments that are not very friendly with the USA and they do not go to jail for it"
Yeah, but cuban laws are pretty clear at this respect too, both cases are just victims of the stupidity of the situation.
"So I must conclude from your statement that the Cuban government is so weak and unpopular that they can not free a measly 200 people who happend to be out of the political mainstream in Cuba."
You may think whatever you want, but as long as Fidel is meddling with political affairs Raul can't act openly because even his must trusted personal are also loyal to Fidel at a level that supersedes the official hierarchies. And right now a political rift in Cuba can have disastrous consequences.
"The Cuban people can not wait anymore. They are desperate for food and medicine as opponents of the embargo would have us believe. Gradualism is another way to say continue the status quo, and that would be genocidal."
You are getting delusional here. The cuban people are having hardships, but they are not starving and the medical coverage is still pretty good. Calling that genocide is way over the top.
"So another question should the US government just tell the Cuban government we will support you with aid, credits, and political support without regard if you share our beliefs or not? In other words we'll give me you the same deal we gave Batista before the arms embargo"
I'm pretty that in that circumstances the cuban government will refuse politely. They have been pretty clear at this regard, they want the embargo lifted completely and even after that it will take time to heal 50 years of distrust.
ac
the last thing the cubas want is the 'same deal we gave batista" gee guy, where you been in the last 50 years, they want sovereignty and mutual respect, not the americans coming in and pulling the strings on the puppet batista.
Anonymous 1:06 PM,
"the cubas"??? Do you mean the Cubans or the Castros? I take it from Fidel Castro's last reflection that the deal is as follows: the USA should lift the embargo, and then finance Cuba's social development program around the world as a way to pay for USA goods and services that Cuba would import.
I take it from the rest of your comments that you think that normalization is extremely difficult for the Cuban side to accept.
Vecino de NF
ac,
Considering that Fidel Castro stated in his last reflection (published in Granma 4/17/09) that "el cruel bloqueo contra el pueblo cubano cuesta vidas, cuesta sufrimientos;" (the cruel blockade (embargo) agains the Cuban people costs lives, costs suffering;...) would you also say that he is delusional? When I described the embargo as genocidal I was using the usual rhetoric used by the opponents of the embargo. So I take it from your comment that you do not think that the embargo is not genocidal and that those that say so are delusional. It is always good to find common ground in this blog!
By the way I have never said that the Cuban people would like to compromise their national sovereignity, just that the current government would be willing to do so if that's the price needed for their hold on power. I think that their hesitation with relying on the USA is that in the past the USA has proved an unreliable partner for dictators as evidenced by their abandoment of Fulgencio Batista in 1958.
Vecino de NF
Post a Comment