More from Cardinal Bertone

It would be nice if Cardinal Bertone would give a few more interviews next week because every time he does, he tells us a little more about his exchanges in Cuba.

Today, he told L’Osservatore Romano (see Catholic News Agency story) that Raul Castro raised the issue of the Cuban convicts known as “Los Cinco” who are serving terms in U.S. penitentiaries. Castro suggested that a swap could be negotiated – for whom, he did not say.

If he has dissidents I mind, I doubt the negotiation would go very far. If he were to offer escaped New Jersey cop-killer Joanne Chesimard or other fugitives of her ilk who enjoy refuge in Cuba, that might be another matter. The United States and Cuba have a century-old extradition agreement that is in force, but effectively suspended since 1959. The presence in Cuba of fugitives from American justice is one of the Administration’s justifications for maintaining Cuba’s designation as a “state sponsor of terrorism.”

A Reuters story adds detail about Cardinal Bertone’s discussion of church matters, including the church’s legal status (the Cuban Catholic church is not registered as a legal entity with the Cuban justice ministry, based on its view that its legitimacy comes from another place), the legal status of its charitable arm Caritas, construction of new churches, etc.

Please keep talking to reporters, your Eminence. We like the info.

"Musical diplomacy"

The visit of the New York Philharmonic to North Korea has been noticed in Cuba. Miriam Leiva, a former Cuban diplomat and leader of the Damas de Blanco, wonders in an essay (pdf) why Washington “is not capable of an intelligent policy” toward Cuba. She notes the affinities and affection between Cubans and Americans, and says U.S. restrictions “are eliminating an injection of friendship, experiences, and democracy.”

Odds and ends

• Back in Rome, Cardinal Bertone sums up his trip to Cuba.

• Cuba signs UN human rights conventions, but says it will state unspecified “reservations or interpretive declarations” in the future. AP story here; provisions of the conventions here; discussion of Fidel’s opposition, expressed in 2001 and reiterated last year, here.

• Twenty-four senators call on the Administration to review its approach to toward Cuba, promote trade and travel, and end a “policy based on sanctions, passivity, and waiting.” Their letter here (pdf); the signers are Senators Baucus, Enzi, Dodd, Landrieu, Wyden, Crapo, Feingold, Craig, Johnson, Lincoln, Pryor, Cantwell, Hagel, Bingaman, Stabenow, Conrad, Dorgan, Roberts, Feinstein, Murray, Specter, Harkin, Akaka, Boxer.

"Now is not the time"

From President Bush’ press conference today:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about another issue that's kind of come up on the campaign trail, in terms of discussion, which is, this is a point of view that has been espoused, that we would be better off if we talked to our adversaries, in particular, Iran and Cuba, you know, without preconditions. And as President, you have obviously considered and rejected this approach. And I'm wondering if you can give us a little insight into your thinking about this, and just explain to the American people what is lost by talking with those when we disagree?

THE PRESIDENT: What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs? What's lost is it will send the wrong message. It will send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity.

I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time -- not to talk with Raul Castro. He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs.

I had these wives of these dissidents come and see me, and their stories are just unbelievably sad. And it just goes to show how repressive the Castro brothers have been, when you listen to the truth about what they say. And the idea of embracing a leader who's done this without any attempt on his part to release prisoners and free their society would be counterproductive and send the wrong signal.

[Photos of President Bush reviewing troops with the presidents of China, above, and Vietnam, below. The State Department's human rights report says there are "tens of thousands" of political prisoners in China and there are "no reliable estimates of the number of political prisoners" in Vietnam.]

The Vatican's diplomacy, and ours

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, has concluded a very well timed, week-long visit where he acted as a diplomat, exchanging views with Cuban autorities, and as a pastor, addressing himself to Cuban Catholics and clergy. Sometimes he acted in both capacities at once, urging the Cuban government to take actions that would favor Cuba’s church and its laity.

He met Cuba’s president and foreign minister, and traveled all around the country. His itinerary is linked here. What follows is some news about the visit, some of which only appeared in Spanish.

Cardinal Bertone inaugurated a statue of Pope John Paul II in Santa Clara; his remarks on this and other occasions during the visit are at the Cuban bishops’s website.

Cardinal Bertone told a Vatican news agency (via Reuters) that the church has been promised “more openings in written media and radio, and in certain exceptional cases, even television.” Cautiously, he noted, “It always starts with promises.”

He did not ask “directly” for the release of political prisoners, but according to AP he told reporters that with “utmost respect for the sovereignty of the country and its citizens, I expressed to President Raul Castro the Church's worries for prisoners and their families.” (Scroll down to the next post for his views on the U.S. embargo.)

Instead of returning directly to Rome, Cardinal Bertone stopped in Madrid, where he spent a few hours at the airport, met Deputy Foreign Minister María Jesús Figa and celebrated mass. According to the Madrid newspaper ABC, Spain advised the Vatican in advance of the Cardinal’s visit to Cuba, and the airport discussions covered human rights and a general review of the Cardinal’s trip.

In Cuba, dissident leader Oswaldo Paya lamented that Cardinal Bertone gave an “impression of satisfaction” (complacencia) with the government that “is not just with the Cuban people and the Cuban church, and there is no reason not to say that in Cuba there are political prisoners, who are in prison for defending truth and human rights.”

In Miami this week, it’s not hard to find much harsher criticism of him and the Vatican.

In fact, Cardinal Bertone seems follow the approach that President Bush takes in Beijing. In 2006 President Bush said he soft-pedals his public remarks about the communist Chinese leadership because “nobody likes to be lectured in the public arena.”

The Vatican, more than any state, has a long-term perspective. In Cuba it is engaged in face-to-face diplomacy, in support of a local church that steadily presses for more space to preach the Gospel and carry out works of charity. Its diplomacy, like President Bush’s, may be quiet in public, but that is hardly reason to question either’s commitment to human rights. In any event, the Vatican’s views on the “false messianic idea” of “atheistic communism” have long been clear.

Diplomatic contact is not going to transform Cuba, but I’ll bet that in time, the Vatican’s approach will help Cuba’s church to gain more space to do good works for Cubans, believers and non-believers alike.

This week, the U.S. intelligence community again noted that Cuba is stable and that while one can imagine a less stable scenario, signs of it are not on the horizon.

Other governments apparently share this assessment and are using their diplomacy to advance their interests and values. Spain, the EU, and Canada all engage with Cuba, building contacts and communication while addressing human rights. Brazil has offered political and economic support. Mexico is normalizing relations with Havana. On the other side of the fence, Venezuela and China have their strategies too.

Cardinal Bertone’s visit and his direct flight to Madrid are only the latest indicators of where the United States finds itself in this diplomatic picture: out of it.

[Photos of cathedrals in Santa Maria del Rosario, Santiago, and Bayamo.]

"Ethically unacceptable"

The Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, spoke Monday at a press conference at Cuba’s foreign ministry. From a partial transcript published in Granma, here is his response to a question about the Vatican’s view of the U.S. embargo and how the Vatican can work to have it lifted. In Spanish, he used the word bloqueo.

“…the Holy See confirms exactly the words of John Paul II. The embargo is ethically unacceptable, it is an oppression for the Cuban people. It is not the means to help the Cuban people to claim their dignity, their independence; it is a violation of the independence of the people. This is the truth. The Vatican confirms this judgment and makes attempts to impel the United States to eliminate this embargo. I myself have asked that the government of the United States permit the reunification of relatives in Cuba. It is a humanitarian measure, the most reasonable one that one could think and that can be done. We will make our efforts in this direction as representatives of the Pope and the Holy See.”

Cuba 1954

Via Babalu, a terrific photo album posted on Picasaweb, “Fotos de Cuba Obras Publicas circa 1954.” Pictures from all over Havana including the Parque Central, Centro Habana, Miramar, Malecon, Prado, a brand-new tunnel under the Almendares (the one at Linea?), and more, with a focus on new public works and their builders. A strolling Batista, above.

Odds and ends

• In the Financial Times, Bay of Pigs Veteran and Brothers to the Rescue chief Jose Basulto on U.S. sanctions: “The current type of tightening hurts the individual victims more than it damages the government...It has done more damage to the cause than anyone else. Revenge hurts the people of Cuba more than the government.”

• Rep. Diaz Balart, thinking of new legislation about Cuba.

• Also thinking about legislation, but not thinking too hard at all, is the Honorable Eddy Gonzalez, a Florida State Representative from Hialeah. He wants a new state law to prohibit any U.S. citizen or resident who traveled to Cuba to receive medical education from serving a residency, receiving a license, or practicing in Florida. Read his announcement at Babalu, here. Read the comments too, where you get the feeling that some readers think (I’m guessing here) that their intelligence is being insulted. This would apply to perhaps a handful of Florida residents, if any exist at all, who received free medical training at Cuba’s Latin American School of Medicine (ELAM), and who would have to undergo additional coursework and testing before receiving a Florida medical license. Meanwhile, Cubans who grew up there, became doctors, and immigrate to Florida will still be free to become American doctors if they clear the licensing hurdles. There’s a difference, I know. And maybe with this, Eddy will bring down the regime.

William F. Buckley, R.I.P.

A sad day for American conservatism, and a reminder of its more civil days. William F. Buckley knew Latin America, having started his career in Mexico with the CIA in 1951. He traveled to Cuba when Pope John Paul II made his visit in 1998; his impressions here.

Peso speculation

Ever since the early 1990’s when the Cuban peso’s value dropped to about 150 to the dollar, Cuba’s central bank has kept its value stable, about 20-25 to the dollar. Yesterday, the Washington Post reports, the talk of ending the dual-currency system led Cubans to unload their convertible pesos and buy the old currency, anticipating that its value would soon increase. Apparently the “frenzy” subsided when the government reiterated that no sudden change is being contemplated.

Meantime, a Cuban economist speculates in this Reuters report that there might be a different solution to the purchasing power problem: Cuba could cut the mark-up on goods sold in hard currency stores. I’m told that the mark-up is now 140 percent, so that an item that costs a dollar to import wholesale is sold at retail for $2.40.

Odds and ends

• Granma publishes a statement by Cuba’s Catholic bishops in which they call on the new executive and legislature to heed the calls for change expressed by Cubans in last year’s debate.

• On ABC’s “This Week,” Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, remarks on talks, trade, and contacts with Cuba: “I have believed for a while that we should be looking at a new strategy.”

• Who is MachadoVentura, the new first vice president? Here’s a brief sketch from AP. Herald's profile here.
  

• And what about Julio Casas Regueiro, the new vice president and defense minister, succeeding Raul Castro? According to Raul, he’s “very stingy.” He is in charge of the military’s enterprises and the process of state enterprise reform called perfeccionamiento empresarial, which began in the military enterprises and was extended to civilian enterprises. A friend suggests to me that his promotion is a sign that this process will now be more prominent in Cuban economic policy. If it interests you, here’s a study of it (pdf). And here’s a story on Regueiro from La Jornada.

• Raices de Esperanza, a Cuban American student association, is holding an April conference at Duke University. Information here.

• Comments deleted here in recent days were all spam.

Bicitaxi on break

What is to be done?

Here are some thoughts about yesterday’s events and Raul Castro speech (English here, Spanish here).

First, politics.

Fidel remains present. Raul praised him as the one and only commander in chief, someone for whom there is no substitute, and he said his work will be carried on by the people even when he is no longer physically present. Raul asked the National Assembly “to allow me to continue consulting” Fidel on “decisions of special transcendence for the future of our nation, basically those associated to defense, foreign policy and the socioeconomic development of the country.” He said this even though he had already cited the part of the Cuban constitution that keeps Fidel in the governing loop, noting that Fidel remains head of the party, and the party is constitutionally the “leading force of our State and society.”

As for personnel, yesterday’s news was the concentration of veterans and close Raul associates at the top. There is more to come; Raul noted that “appointments” and the “composition of the government” will be treated in a subsequent National Assembly session.

Raul continues to call for debate – within the system:

“There is no reason to fear discrepancies in a society such as ours, where its very nature precludes the existence of antagonistic contradictions, since the social classes that make it up are not antagonistic themselves.

“The international doomsayers forecasting the death of the Revolution tried to capitalize on the criticisms made during the study and discussion of the speech made on July 26th in Camagüey. They overlooked the fact that it was debate and criticism within socialism.”

He also warned:

“It is also true that some people are inclined to talk before being properly informed. These make demands without thinking whether they are talking rationally or irrationally. As a rule, they agree with those who claim rights without ever mentioning duties…We do not deny their right to expression, provided they do it with respect for the law…But if anyone intends to put pressure motivated by their wishes to be in the limelight or by ambition, demagoguery, opportunism, simulation, arrogance or any other human weakness of a similar nature, we must face them resolutely, avoiding offense but calling a spade a spade.”

As for policy, cutting the bureaucracy is one of Raul’s priorities. He wants “a more compact and operational structure,” with fewer institutions and a better distribution of tasks. He hopes to reduce “the enormous amount of meetings, coordination, permissions, conciliations, provisions, rules and regulations, etc., etc.” He emphasized “institutionalization,” a possible sign of disinterest in new, parallel structures such as Fidel’s “battle of ideas” and social workers.

Another priority is “strengthening of the economy, which is an unavoidable premise to advance in any other area of society, given the real war waged by the United States administration against our country.”

He mentioned unspecified, apparently forthcoming proposals to improve farm production and “marketing” – the latter a reference to the regulations governing transportation and sales in the farmers markets, and the state programs that bring produce to market.

Then there’s the currency question. Cuban officials have long said that ending the dual-currency system is on their agenda, without indicating when action might be taken. Raul continued that line, saying, “We are examining, for instance, everything related to the timely implementation of comrade Fidel’s ideas on ‘the progressive, gradual and prudent revaluation of the Cuban peso’” and “we keep delving into the phenomenon of the double currency in the economy.” Recognizing that the government has numerous levers affecting purchasing power, he signaled a “comprehensive approach” that includes “the wage system, the retail prices, the entitlements and the subsidies running in the millions presently required by numerous services and products distributed on an egalitarian basis, such as those provided by the ration card which under the present conditions of our economy become irrational and unsustainable.”

Raul’s statement last December about “excessive prohibitions” left a big question mark. In his speech, he said that “in the next few weeks we shall start removing the most simple of them. Many had had the purpose of preventing the emergence of new inequalities at a time of general shortages, even when that meant relinquishing certain incomes.”

That could be a signal of an opening in Cuba’s self-employment scheme. But the next passage could point in the opposite direction, because Cuban officials have long noted that some hope that an expansion of Cuba’s trabajadores por cuenta propia could be an avenue to political independence and change:

“The suppression of other procedures, even if they might sound simple to some, will take more time for they require a more comprehensive study and changes of certain legal regulations, in addition to the fact that some of these are influenced by measures taken against our country by successive U.S administrations.”

All in all, I’m left guessing. The speech was dominated by its political context – the lack, for now at least, of any nod toward the next generation in the top leadership.

But the speech indicated actions to come, some in the near term.

Father Time makes one thing certain: Cuba is entering a period where the historicos will attempt to get policy right and hand over the reins to the next generation. This involves tackling the strategic economic challenges that have been identified, ever since Fidel’s last major speech in November 2005, as long-term challenges to socialism’s political longevity.

In short order, we’ll know what course they choose.

"Statement on Cuba's Transition"

From Secretary of State Rice, a comment on inalienable rights and a call to the international community at "this significant moment in Cuba's history." Read it here.

The next generation will have to wait (Updated)

They stuck with the historicos.

There’s no surprise in Raul Castro’s election to the presidency, but the choice of Jose Ramon Machado Ventura as first vice president, and first in line of succession, was not predicted anywhere.

Machado, 77, is a veteran of the Sierra Maestra.

By his reputation, one would expect him to oppose an economic opening. On the other hand, if reforms are in store and he is in favor, then his election is a sign of consensus, across generations and ideological tendencies. As they say in the mutual fund business, past earnings are not a guarantee of future performance.

What matters for the welfare of the Cuban people, and for Cuba’s political dynamics in the year to come, are actions and results. Cuba’s government has spent the past 18 months diagnosing economic problems, evaluating policy ideas, and raising expectations that economic policy will change. This year, the government will either deliver, or disappoint.

Granma article here. Machado’s PCC bio here.

[Update: Among the points in Raul’s speech: he wants to streamline the bureaucracy, he refers to a study about “a progressive, gradual, and prudent revaluation of the Cuban peso, and “in the coming weeks” we will see elimination of some of the prohibitions that he called “excessive” last December.

If he ends the dual currency system, he will eliminate the most widespread grievance; most Cubans’ salaries don’t allow them to afford the basic necessities that they must buy in hard currency. As for the “prohibitions,” that may be the most interesting signal because he is promising action in the near term. Currency reform has been on the agenda for years.]

Decision time

Cuban media report that the closing of today’s National Assembly session will be broadcast live at 2:30 p.m.

“Our decision,” an article in today’s Juventud Rebelde, talks of the need “for many Fidels, eternal fighters to improve everything, so that the nation renews itself day by day, riding on to break every obstacle, every ambush…” To illustrate, there’s this graphic (h/t Cuban Colada):

WSJ: end the embargo

It shouldn’t go without noting that The Wall Street Journal reiterated its opposition to the U.S. embargo last week at the end of an editorial looking back on Fidel Castro’s rule. Read the editorial, “49 years of Fidel,” here.

Redefining "transition"

Earlier in the Bush Administration, when the long commission reports were being published explaining how U.S. policies would bring down Cuban socialism, officials made a clear distinction between “succession” and “transition” in Cuba. The former would be a change in leadership within the system, the latter a transformation of it.

But U.S. officials have changed the way those words are used. I discussed the issue, here. More recently, at Babalu, they complained about others’ confusion about those terms, going so far as drag out dictionary definitions for all to see.

Look at State Department spokesman Sean McCormack’s comments last week.

“It’s very clear that there’s a transition underway from Fidel Castro to some other form of government. Unfortunately, at the moment, that form of government is not an elected democracy.”

It used to be that “transition” was good, and “succession” was bad. Easy to understand, and right in line with the normal meaning of the terms.

Now, the U.S. government is talking about “transition” only, but distinguishing between good transition and bad transition.

I don’t think it does the U.S. government any good to make the assertion that Cuba is moving to “some other form of government.” Has anyone else asserted that, and does anyone believe it?

Didn’t think so.

Anyway, why would the Administration fool with its terminology? I have two guesses.

First, the Administration is clearly engaging in what Senator Obama would call “the audacity of hope.” Back to Mr. McCormack at the State Department:

“Very often, when you have dictatorships that are undergoing change, there are possibilities for change…much of this will be up to the Cuban people working with the international community to help build democratic institutions…”

In other words, the idea is to keep the focus on the concept of change – You fired up? – rather than acknowledge that all we have seen is leadership change within the same system.

More important, the new terminology helps to bury the rhetorical track record established earlier in the Bush Administration.

The 2004 commission report was supposed to “accelerate the demise of Castro’s tyranny,” Secretary Rice said. The report included measures to “undermine the regime’s succession strategy.” And on the day it was released, it was said from Mr. McCormack’s own podium that “there will not be a succession” in Cuba, and “the United States, for one, will not accept a succession scenario.”

We’ll see what happens tomorrow, and who accepts what.

Odds and ends

• The Wall Street Journal reports on golf course development. Cuban officials have talked about this for years, to make for a more diverse tourism destination and to attract higher-spending travelers. Maybe there’s some action afoot.

• Cold water on ethanol: Reuters’ sources say that in the near term, Cuba is interested in ethanol production not from sugar, but from bagasse, the waste product from sugar milling.

• Alpha 66, in convention in California, seeking allies adentro.

• London’s Independent gives an account of the mass offered in the square in front of Havana’s cathedral by the Vatican Secretary of State – invitation only, some top officials in attendance, Damas de Blanco standing in the back. The reporter also talked to Oscar Espinosa Chepe and Miriam Leiva in their apartment in Marianao.

Sen. McCain responds (Updated)

Senator McCain issued this statement today in response to Senator Obama's comments on talks with Cuba:

“Not so along go Senator Obama favored complete normalization of relations with Fidel Castro's Cuba. Last night, he said that as president he'd meet with the imprisoned island's new leader 'without preconditions.' So Raul Castro gets an audience with an American president, and all the prestige such a meeting confers, without having to release political prisoners, allow free media, political parties, and labor unions, or schedule internationally monitored free elections.

“Instead, Senator Obama says he would meet Cuba's dictator without any such steps in the hope that talk will make things better for Cuba's oppressed people. Meet, talk, and hope may be a sound approach in a state legislature, but it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy where the oppressed look to America for hope and adversaries wish us ill.”

[Update: Obama responds.]

Odds and ends

Lots of Cuba coverage, some prompted by the Fidel resignation. Samples:

• Reuters looks at the future of property disputes, interviewing attorney Nick Gutierrez, whose comments on residential property are a lot smarter than the Bush Administration’s. “No one can be evicted from homes even if they're not theirs. The right of possession has to be respected,” he said.

• The Economist has a detailed, unsentimental look at the politics of succession, economic conditions, Venezuelan aid, and prospects for reform. A prediction: “Foreign investment and small business will be encouraged again.” (H/t: Penultimos Dias)

• Writing in Salon, Kirk Nielsen surveys the three Miami Congressional races. Whether these races will be competitive depends, among other things, on support from the national Democratic Party, a factor absent in past election cycles. “The DCCC has already funded Spanish-language radio attack ads targeting all three incumbents for voting against the expansion of the federal State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),” Nielsen writes.

• Another step in Cuba’s diplomacy in Latin America, this time on the commercial side: a rescheduling of $400 in debt owed to Mexico, proceeds to be used to finance Mexican exports to Cuba. Terms were not disclosed. Bloomberg coverage here.

Texas debate: Clinton, Obama on Cuba policy

Senators Clinton and Obama addressed Cuba policy at the beginning of tonight’s CNN debate in Texas. Video clips of their statements are here (middle of the page, part of a group of clips).

They responded to a question from Univision’s Jorge Ramos: “Would you be willing to sit down with Raul Castro or whoever leads the Cuban dictatorship, at least once, to get a measure of the man?”

Senator Clinton sticks to the approach voiced so many times by President Clinton when he was in office: U.S. action depends on change in Cuba. Barring evidence of a clear change in direction in Cuba, she would have no talks, no moves in U.S. policy except for an emphasis on working with allies.

Obama would meet without preconditions but only after preparation of an agenda that includes human rights, political prisoners, free press, economic opening – “It is important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to its enemies.” He would also lift restrictions on Cuban American visits and remittances. He described that as “a show of good faith.”