“Dialogue is not foreign policy”

Here’s an essay contributed by Paul Hare, the British Ambassador in Cuba from 2001 to 2004, with some friendly advice for the Obama Administration as it formulates its policy toward Cuba. To sum up: “To make plays in foreign policy you have to be on the field.”

Odds and ends

• What to do with the Guantanamo naval base? The Council on Foreign Relations’ Julia Sweig visited and has some ideas.

• A look at how a Miami congregation of the Church of Christ, and others, relate to Cuba, and the possibilities they see with the Administration’s lifting of restrictions on Cuban Americans.

• Reason On-line on taxis and socialism in Cuba – and Connecticut.

• AP: Raul Castro reprises Cuba’s position on talks with the United States during a speech to the Non-Aligned Movement.

Cuba, diplomacy, and U.S. security

My testimony in a House hearing today on Cuba security issues.

RFK on Cuba

Last week I noted an op-ed by former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend that told how her father, Robert F. Kennedy, favored ending all travel restrictions to Cuba.

A reader commented, with good reason, that this is the same RFK that led Operation Mongoose, a covert action campaign that used sabotage in Cuba and other actions to bring about the overthrow of the Castro government.

It turns out that RFK’s recommendation on travel, contained in this memo (pdf), came in December 1963 during the Johnson Administration, about a year after the operation had been suspended. Kennedy, the U.S. Attorney General, was clearly in a different frame of mind. He believed that ending travel restrictions was “more consistent with our views of a free society” and would head off an “increasingly embarrassing” situation where student groups would travel to Cuba and the government would have to prosecute them.

But he also wanted “special regulations” that would require Americans to have the State Department validate their passports for travel to Cuba. That, he said, would allow the U.S. government to block the travel of “suspected saboteurs.”

Fidel Castro liked the article, by the way (Spanish here, English here).

Odds and ends

• El Nuevo Herald reports declining numbers of Cubans entering the United States without a visa in the first half of fiscal year 2009.

• “It is all about the people, not the regime.” An op-ed by Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group supporting the end of travel restrictions on all Americans.

• Where’s Fidel? Out and about in Siboney, according to this article by Marc Frank.

• The Miami Herald reports on a discussion of this book on the use of Che Guevara’s image. A review from former Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega is here.

• Daily News: A documentary on the return to Cuba after 46 years of pitcher Luis Tiant.

• In El Tono de la Voz, a discussion of the draft Cuba resolution of the Latin America Studies Association. It’s about U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba, but it “urges the United States and Cuba to permit…travel by Cubans to the United States to attend conferences and by U. S. academics to attend scholarly conferences in Cuba and academics from Cuba to teach and lecture in the United States.”

Cuba talks in the offing

The New York Times: The Obama Administration is talking to Cuban diplomats in an effort to set an agenda for talks on migration, drug interdiction, and other security issues. The Administration is also looking into increased cultural and academic exchanges, the Times reports.

These are good moves that indicate that while the Administration is rightly pressing for Cuba to improve human rights practices, it is not setting preconditions for talks or other actions that can serve U.S. interests. If the Administration keeps going and treats Cuba not as any other country, but as Administration of both parties have treated other communist countries, it will be a big step forward.

Telecom possibilities

I and others were asked to comment on the Obama Administration’s telecom opening to Cuba by the Inter-American Dialogue’s daily publication, Latin America Advisor. Our comments are in this issue (pdf). Note the comment by former U.S. Ambassador and former AT&T executive Cresencio Arcos, who focuses on competition policy issues and Cuba’s very high rates. He advises companies who might strike deals to enter the Cuban telecom business to treat them “as a ‘Sicilian’ marriage: before marriage both eyes should be wide open, after marriage you only close one.”

The veto threat is gone

This interesting exchange between Congressman Jeff Flake and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing marks an important policy change.

President Bush threatened to veto virtually any relaxation of Cuba sanctions. Yesterday the Secretary of State said:

“As you know, the embargo is part of our law. I mean, a President cannot lift the embargo. That has to be done by an act of Congress. If the Congress decides that’s in the America’s best interest, obviously the Administration will abide by that.”

Odds and ends

• Reuters reported yesterday on a new Central Bank regulation limiting cash transactions of foreign companies, and reports today on the apparent reason: a liquidity crunch that is getting critical.

• The Kansas City Star talks to a Nebraska woman who wants to collect on her father’s property claim in Cuba.

• Frank Calzon calls for a dialogue in Cuba among “bishops, young communists, human rights activists, bureaucrats, the army, political prisoners, dissident writers and professionals and independent labour activists.”

• From CubaNet, a report on an impact of remittances: Cubans who prefer not to work.

• In the Washington Post, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend looks back at the views of her father, former Attorney General Robert Kennedy, on travel to Cuba, and hopes President Obama adopts his position that “travel restrictions are inconsistent with traditional American liberties.”

Old Havana street entertainment

What now?

After a week in which President Obama announced new Cuba policy measures and discussed Cuba policy at the Trinidad summit, where do things stand?

In terms of the Obama policy: The President has delivered on his campaign promise regarding Cuban American travel and remittances. He signaled openness to other changes, saying “we are not dug in into policies that were formulated before I was born.” And he has reiterated his interest in talks with Cuba.

Whether there will be talks is another matter.

President Obama says Raul Castro’s statement from Venezuela last week, that Cuba is willing to talk with the United States about all issues including human rights, is a “sign of progress.” (Actually, except for the explicit mention of “political prisoners,” I thought it was a reiteration of a longstanding Cuban position, but it was a direct respons to Obama.) He said he is prepared “to have my Administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues – from drugs, migration, and economic issues, to human rights, free speech, and democratic reform.”

At any rate, after all the signals back and forth (see here and here), which include many references to the ball being now in Cuba’s court, there’s a key issue that hasn’t been defined. That is, is the Obama Administration ready to start talks with Cuba, or does it require some gesture on Cuba’s part before talks could begin?

I guess we’ll find out in the coming weeks.

In the midst of all this, Fidel Castro issued a commentary (English here), one of a series of post-summit commentaries, accusing President Obama of misinterpreting what Raul Castro said in Venezuela. Fidel didn’t at all make clear how Obama supposedly misinterpreted Raul’s words. Maybe that’s the subject of a separate article.

New report on Cuba policy options

If the United States decides to engage with Cuba, what are the options?

That question seems to be more timely now than a week ago, and I’m pleased to say that my colleague Anya Landau French has been working on the answer for the past six months.

The result is “Options for Engagement: A Resource Guide for Reforming U.S. Policy Toward Cuba.” It’s a detailed work that examines 14 areas of U.S. policy, from trade, travel, and property claims to Radio Marti and the USAID program. In each area, it explains the policy context, the legal foundations, and options that Congress and the Administration could exercise – big steps and small – if a move toward engagement is in order.

The report is available here (pdf, 50 pages).

I hope this paper will be a resource for anyone interested in the Cuba policy debate, regardless of one’s views. U.S. policy toward Cuba is not simply about a single decision regarding “the embargo.” Adapting the policy means coming to terms with five decades of laws, executive actions, and government spending programs that constitute our unique foreign policy toward our unique neighbor.

Charles Krauthammer, off the reservation

From Fox News last Friday:

“It was said in the 50’s that the way to win the cold war with Russia was to send squadrons of B-52s and drop nylon stockings on the Soviet Union. We actually won the cold war in a different way. But with Eastern Europe, we won it with openness, the Helsinki process.

“So it’s arguable which is the most effective. We have had 50 years of an embargo on Cuba, but the grip of the Castros and the army and the party is so strong that it hasn’t worked. So I’m agnostic on this.

“If Obama wants to try openness, that’s good. What he has done now is not a total openness, like Helsinki, but what he has done is to make a gesture, which is to allow some increased commerce and travel, and what he's waiting, appropriately, for is a response, which would mean seeing that the Cubans release some political prisoners.

“If he gets a response, I think he ought to make a further gesture, and if, ultimately, it ends up with openness, that's a tack we ought to try. I don’t think any of us should have an ideological commitment to a tactic. Whatever works in liberating Cuba, I think we ought to try.”

More from the summit

• From an Administration official’s background briefing in Trinidad (h/t Capitol Hill Cubans blog):

“Look, I think what we are is at a beginning, an initiation of a new process. The President has been clear that our goals are to see a democratic Cuba. He’s also been clear that there are many issues that we have that we could discuss with Cuba – human rights being one of them – but there are other issues that relate to just the nature of a relationship between two countries in the same hemisphere. Migration, for instance, is a big issue that I don’t believe we’ve had recent talks with Cuba about.”

• Secretary Clinton’s comment on Cuba last Friday in a press conference in the Dominican Republic:

“…earlier this week President Obama announced the most significant policy changes toward Cuba by the United States Government in decades. And we are continuing to look for productive ways forward because we view the present policy as having failed. You are all familiar with the Administration’s general view that engagement is a useful tool to advance our national interests and our goals of promoting human rights, democracy, peace, prosperity, and progress. So we have seen Raul Castro’s comments. We welcome this overture. We are taking a very serious look, and we will consider how we intend to respond.”

• Fidel Castro, referring in a new commentary to President Obama’s comments on Cuban doctors and their overseas missions:

“Obama spoke of the military power of the United States that can help in the fight against organized crime, and the importance of the U.S. market. He also recognized that the programs that the Cuban government carries out, such as sending medical contingents to Latin American and Caribbean countries, can be more effective than Washington’s military power when it comes to winning influence in the region.

“We Cubans don’t do it to win influence; it is a tradition that began in Algeria in 1963 when Algeria was fighting against French colonialism, and we have done it in dozens of countries of the Third World.”

• President Uribe of Colombia says, “The Colombian government considers it necessary to begin the process of completely reintegrating Cuba.” And Brazil’s foreign minister says it would be “very difficult” for there to be another Summit of the Americas without Cuba.

Odds and ends

• A Wall Street Journal editorial chides President Bush for tightening visit and remittances rules, applauds President Obama for repealing them, says Obama should drop the embargo and call on other countries to speak out for freedom in Cuba.

• A new blog, Capitol Hill Cubans, by Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of the organization Cuba Democracy Public Advocacy.

• A New Jersey state senator calls on President Obama to condition normalization of relations on the extradition of JoAnne Chesimard, a convicted murderer who escaped prison in New Jersey and lives in Cuba. His letter is here (pdf).

• AP looks at telecom possibilities under the new Obama Administration policy.

Capitolio

Obama remarks in Trinidad

Excerpts from President Obama’s press conference at the end of the Trinidad summit:

“Over the past few days, we’ve seen potential positive signs in the nature of the relationship between the United States, Cuba and Venezuela. But as I’ve said before, the test for all of us is not simply words, but also deeds. I do believe that the signals sent so far provide at least an opportunity for frank dialogue on a range of issues, including critical areas of democracy and human rights throughout the hemisphere.

“One thing that I thought was interesting – and I knew this in a more abstract way but it was interesting in very specific terms – hearing from these leaders who when they spoke about Cuba talked very specifically about the thousands of doctors from Cuba that are dispersed all throughout the region, and upon which many of these countries heavily depend. And it's a reminder for us in the United States that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence and have – have a beneficial effect when we need to try to move policies that are of concern to us forward in the region.

“Look, what I said and what I think my entire administration has acknowledged is, is that the policy that we’ve had in place for 50 years hasn't worked the way we want it to. The Cuban people are not free. And that's our lodestone, our North Star, when it comes to our policy in Cuba.

“It is my belief that we’re not going to change that policy overnight, and the steps that we took I think were constructive in sending a signal that we’d like to see a transformation. But I am persuaded that it is important to send a signal that issues of political prisoners, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy – that those continue to be important, that they're not simply something to be brushed aside.

“Now, I think that as a starting point, it’s important for us not to think that completely ignoring Cuba is somehow going to change policy, and the fact that you had Raul Castro say he’s willing to have his government discuss with ours not just issues of lifting the embargo, but issues of human rights, political prisoners, that’s a sign of progress.

“And so we’re going to explore and see if we can make some further steps. There are some things that the Cuban government could do. They could release political prisoners. They could reduce charges on remittances to match up with the policies that we have put in place to allow Cuban American families to send remittances. It turns out that Cuba charges an awful lot, they take a lot off the top. That would be an example of cooperation where both governments are working to help Cuban families and raise standards of living in Cuba.

“So there are going to be some ways that the Cuban government I think can send some signals that they're serious about pursuing change. And I'm hopeful that over time the overwhelming trend in the hemisphere will occur in Cuba, as well. And I think that all of the governments here were encouraged by the fact that we had taken some first steps. Many of them want us to go further, but they at least see that we are not dug in into policies that were formulated before I was born.”

Everyone is talking about talking (Updated)

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.]

Odds and ends

• Cuba should be brought back into the OAS, Secretary General Insulza tells the Herald. But does Cuba want in? Seems not – “The OAS has to disappear,” Raul Castro says.

• Variety: Senator Menendez’ defense of Cuba sanctions draws opposition from Hollywood donors to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Menendez heads.

• Columnist Michael Kinsley takes a scientific look at the embargo, and says we should drop it.

• Computerworld: U.S. telecom companies uncertain about what the Administration’s measures mean for business opportunities.

• The New Yorker’s Jon Lee Anderson says President Obama has “effectively kicked the ball for ‘change’ back to los hermanos Castro; until now, the onus was on him.”

President Calderon on Cuba

Mexican President Felipe Calderon, in his press conference with President Obama yesterday:

“I would not pretend to give advice or suggestions to President Obama on this matter or any other. Let me just say what I personally believe – or rather what I believe about the Cuban reality. The question that has to be posed rather is whether the U.S. embargo on Cuba has worked. The reality is that the embargo has been there long before we were even born, and yet things have not changed all that much in Cuba. I think we would have to ask ourselves whether that isn’t enough time to realize that it has been a strategy that has not been very useful to achieve change in Cuba.

“I do think – I share fully the idea we do not believe that the embargo or the isolation of Cuba is a good measure for things to change in Cuba. On the contrary; the reality that we see there is that the reality has not changed. And it’s because of internal factors, mostly, of course, but also because of external reasons, such as the embargo. Because of that, the Cubans have become impoverished.

[…]

“Mexico is a good friend of Cuba, and Mexico is also a good friend of the United States. We want to be a good friend of Cuba and of the United States. We want both things. And we know that one day, the day that these principles we believe in prevail, that day we will be able to be neighbors, the three of us – the United States, Cuba and Mexico.

“What are the principles we believe in? Democracy, human rights, but also liberty, property, trade, free trade, free economy. And I think as long as those principles can function and bring benefits to the Cuban economy, then things can begin to change. We cannot change anything that has already taken place in the past, but I am certain that as heads of state, we can do a lot to try to make a different future, both for the world, both for our countries, and also in relation to Cuba.

Odds and ends

• On Bergenline Avenue, the Calle Ocho of the north (Union City and West New York, NJ), Cuban Americans were receptive to President Obama’s actions. New Jersey Senator Menendez and Rep. Sires were less so.

• Western Union gears up for increased remittances.

• Reuters on Cuba’s trade balance: It’s in deficit, it’s big, and getting worse.

• Two looks back at the Bay of Pigs, both in Spanish, by Fidel Castro and historian Enrique Ros.

• Fidel Castro has written 18 “reflections” so far this month. Have they thought about setting up a blog for him?

Obama, Clinton on Cuba measures

President Obama said the following about Cuba in a CNN interview:

“What we’re looking for is some signal that there are going to be changes in how Cuba operates that assures that political prisoners are released, that people can speak their minds freely, that they can travel, that they can write and attend church and do the things that people throughout the hemisphere can do and take for granted…And if there is some sense of movement on those fronts in Cuba, then I think we can see a further thawing of relations and further changes.”

And Secretary of State Clinton spoke to the Herald about the Trinidad summit. She said, “We’re continuing to explore ways to further democracy in Cuba and provide the Cuban people with more opportunities but we haven't made any further decisions yet.” Asked about the disparity in treatment between Cuban Americans and other Americans, she responded:

“That’s part of our policy review. Our first goal was to reverse the Draconian rules imposed by the Bush administration, which took away privileges that had been available for a long time. And obviously we think Cuban Americans have special roles to play as serving as ambassadors of freedom and helping the Cuban people understand the opportunities that democracy would bring.”