It was quite a week. It started on Sunday with dueling teasers from Havana and Washington that saw Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez talk to Wolf Blitzer about the upcoming Day of Solidarity while Havana announced it had evidence of bad behavior by the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. Three speeches would be given, one by President Bush, one by Senator McCain and one by Senator Obama.
At the end of the week, however, what can we say really happened? Perhaps the most lasting event was the Cuban government’s release of intercepted communications between Cuban American extremists. To release sensitive intelligence seems to indicate that the Cubans are rather aggravated. They assert that the U.S. government allowed its most senior representative in Cuba to, allegedly, funnel money from radical individuals in the U.S. to dissidents in Cuba. In terms of U.S.-Cuban relations—official relations—this is the news that will last beyond the November elections and make some kind of gradual rapprochement more difficult.
The speeches, on the other hand, were interesting only for the news that the once solid Cuban-American Bloc has collapsed. While President Bush and John McCain echoed the hallowed nostrums of the hard-liners, Senator Obama took a chance, read the latest polling, and decided that he could safely argue that if he were elected, he would immediately end the restrictions on family travel and remittances. And he did that in front of the Cuban American National Foundation. Even the president of CANF called Bush’s new policy of licensing cell phone care packages, “absurd” when families are separated by U.S. travel restrictions and are risking poverty because of limitations on family remittances.
Unfortunately, none of the three speeches addressed America’s real strategic interest regarding Cuba. General Brent Scowcroft thinks we need a new Cuba policy, but none of the Presidential campaigns are willing to admit that the national interest should trump the pipe dreams of a small but vocal minority in Florida.
In reality, the details of the bi-lateral U.S.-Cuba relationship matters much less than the symbolic and strategic obstacles it presents. Our unprincipled and feckless Cuba policy is a symbol of Washington’s continued fascination with military force. The same twisted extremism that led our nation into a tragic war in Iraq is guiding our policy towards Cuba today. America’s true power in the world comes from the attractiveness of our economy and political system, while our coercive power is effective only when the international community stands with us. Reliance on coercive power alone, whether economic or military, is a sign of both weakness and a lack of faith in the founding principles of the Republic.
The Cuba embargo, like all unilateral embargoes, has failed and serves only to support the regime of Raul Castro. It is a gift to the Cuban security services and propagandists, who know that progress can be avoided as long as they can blame los Norte Americanos.
Beyond the symbolic, the failed embargo traps the Western Hemisphere in a backwards relationship with the United States. With so much energy going to this one small island nation, Venezuela is leading a resurgence of the old left and China is locking in long-term contracts for the unsustainable consumption of the Hemisphere’s natural resources.
Changing Cuba policy, dramatically, and in the first 100 days of a new administration, would shake up our strategic outlook. Letting tourism, trade and investment be America’s Ambassadors will do more in five years than in all the 50 years of embargo. Freed of the illogic of embargo and powered by a vision of economic inclusion and sustainability, American leadership in the region could asphyxiate the resurgence of Hugo Chavez’s old left with real, durable, and sustainable development in the region. Cuba would have little need for Chavez’ patronage and China’s oil rigs. Indeed, one Spring Break will do more for free enterprise in Cuba than any reform Raul could authorize.
Sadly, this week did not see any kind of vision. Just more pandering.