In early June of this year in Sao Paulo, Brazil at a conference on Latin America hosted by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's foreign policy advisor, Marco Aurelio Garcia, I gave a panel presentation. I started by quoting from President John F. Kennedy's discussions with Jean Daniel, one of his chosen envoys to Cuba's President Fidel Castro in 1963 in both leaders' efforts to seek better relations between their two countries after the harrowing experience of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Both leaders knew, as did their third partner in the process, Nikita Khrushchev in Moscow, that they had come close to exterminating the human race in October and that such an event must not occur again. So all three were working towards a more peaceful world. The words I quoted from President Kennedy were really quite stunning. They were these:

"I believe that there is no country in the world, including all the African regions, including any and all of the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country's policies during the Batista regime…."

An extraordinary admission by a courageous president—a president who in the summer of 1963 was intent on ending the Cold War, on a rapprochement with Cuba, on dealing equitably with Indonesia, and on pulling out all U.S. troops from Vietnam. He was assassinated that fall, of course, and all these positive moves were stopped. Some, like Vietnam, were even put in reverse with terrible consequences.

With regard to Cuba by the end of the Cheney/Bush administration, not much had changed since President Kennedy's assassination. Washington still engaged in the same nonsensical policy toward Cuba that it practiced in 1963. If anything the policy under the Cheney/Bush regime became even more draconian, more idiotic, more senseless, no longer backdropped by the security concerns of the Cold War, essentially catering to the narrow-minded politics of a few Cuban-Americans principally in Dade County, Florida. .

Today, it is well past time to change.

With the new administration of President Obama, momentum for such change is building rapidly in Washington. Attempted spoiling actions such as the FBI's deciding recently to reveal Cuban spies, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's invitation to Washington of the infamous Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Chris Simmons to brief lawmakers on "hordes of Cuban spies", and the general expression by a few of opposition to any new policy toward Cuba, will not halt that momentum. These are futile actions by an increasingly frightened minority of Americans who have had a stranglehold on U.S.-Cuba policy. That grip is being undone simply by the reality of an utterly bankrupt policy.

But more importantly, the American people are fed up with special interest groups running their country. They are fed up with being told they cannot travel to Cuba. They are fed up, as the polls strikingly demonstrate, with a feckless, spineless, leaderless Congress. They are fed up with incompetent government, period.

It's about time.

-- Lawrence Wilkerson

Confrontation at the airport photo by Gustavo Amador / European Pressphoto Agency

Diverting momentarily from Cuba, but not really changing the topic of this blog...

No one authoritative has commented on it, but I wonder whether, ironically, the OAS Summit sounded the death knell of democracy in Honduras. President Mel Zelaya and Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas were very visible players in the historic decision to end Cuba's suspension. No doubt this infuriated old guard Havana haters from the Bush Administration.

Certainly the extremists who dominated the first Bush term, Otto Reich and Roger Noriega, rushed to the defense of the coup makers, just as they had with the failed putsch in Venezuela. Is that simply a reflection of their obsession to roll back pro-Cuba governments or were they involved with the plotters as some have charged? Could they have been seeking a fait acompli to box in the Obama Administration?

This is the conspiratorial version by Venezuelan journalist Jose Vicente Rangel:

"In Honduras two distinct lines of North American politics revealed
themselves, one coming from the White House and the other through the
machinery put in place by the administration of George W. Bush at the
military base of Palmarola", he said.

Rangel explained that this became apparent on the morning of June 28,
when two important functionaries of the State Department, James
Steimberg and Tom Shannon, contacted the US embassy in Tegucigalpa
and the military base in Palmarola to discuss the coup d'etat and to
impede any intention to support it.

More surprising are functionaries from the Clinton Administration aligning with the coup. As reported in the New York Times:

Mr. Micheletti has embarked on a public relations offensive, with his supporters hiring high-profile lawyers with strong Washington connections to lobby against such sanctions. One powerful Latin American business council hired Lanny J. Davis, who has served as President Clinton’s personal lawyer and who campaigned for Mrs. Clinton for president.

And last week, Mr. Micheletti brought the adviser from another firm with Clinton ties to the talks in Costa Rica. The adviser, Bennett Ratcliff of San Diego, refused to give details about his role at the talks.

“Every proposal that Micheletti’s group presented was written or approved by the American,” said another official close to the talks, referring to Mr. Ratcliff....

Mr. Micheletti’s supporters are pushing back in part by paying hundreds of dollars an hour to well-connected Washington lawyers who have initiated a charm offensive from Washington. On Friday, Mr. Davis was testifying on Capitol Hill in support of Mr. Micheletti’s de facto government.

And on Saturday, Mr. Davis called reporters close to midnight to notify them that Mr. Micheletti had fired Enrique Ortez, whom he had appointed as his foreign minister, for having outraged American officials by referring in a television interview to President Obama as “that little black guy who doesn’t even know where Tegucigalpa is located.”

I wonder whether Davis bothered to mention that Enrique Ortez was only moved from Foreign Minister to Minister of Justice and Government and had been the source of drug trafficking allegations against Zelaya.

The actions of Davis and Ratcliff raise questions about how links from Bill Clinton's era may complicate the foreign policy of the Obama Administration.

Their high profile pro-coup activities merit investigation. Providing paid testimony to Congress and shaping Roberto Micheletti's hard line stance in mediation talks should require both to register as foreign agents.

Who recruited and paid Davis and Ratcliff? Did they directly or indirectly use their former Clinton relationship to try to influence the Secretary of State? If so, does this compromise her role as an honest broker, and her nomination of President Arias as mediator?

Is it significant that both those above and below the Secretary (President Obama and the State Department spokesperson) have been clearer than she that Zelaya himself must return to power to restore democracy?

Not least is the problem of appearances. If President Zelaya and his government are not quickly restored to power, skeptics in Latin America will conclude that Micheletti and the coup makers are the allies if not the creatures of US interests. The real goal of mediation will be seen as running out the clock to keep the betrayers of democracy in control during an accelerated election campaign.

More people in Honduras opposed than backed the coup (46 to 41%), a figure that was hidden in many press reports. Zelaya has set a deadline of this weekend for mediation to restore his position. Venezuela leaning governments in bordering Nicaragua and El Salvador will certainly be concerned that allowing the status quo to prevail in Honduras might induce right wingers within their armies to believe they too can get away with a coup.

Reich and Noriega may have expected that these events would lead Cuba and the US to fall into old patterns, denounce each other vociferously, and be forced to turn away from gradually improving the bilateral atmosphere. In fact key leaders in the two countries may have discovered a common interest in the peaceful return of Zelaya and democracy to Honduras.

--John McAuliff

Resources:

"Showdown in Tegucigolpe", a progressive overview from Foreign Policy in Focus

"Honduras Had a New Kind of Coup" in the Los Angeles Times

"U.S. can repair democracy, not settle scores", Op ed by John Kerry in Miami Herald

"In Deeply Split Honduran Society, a Potentially Combustible Situation" from the Washington Post

"Washington & the Coup in Honduras: Here is the Evidence", blog by Venezuelan-American attorney Eva Gollinger

A National Hurricane Center photo montage showing the path of Hurricane Ike, 2008.

My latest article, called "Cuba, Nothwithstanding" is now available online and in the stores, thanks to the good people at the Washington Monthly. Here's the teaser:

President Obama doesn't necessarily need Congress's support to lift the trade embargo on Cuba. Under the right conditions, he could lift it unilaterally, if he were so inclined. And those conditions are dictated by, of all things, the weather.

Click here to read the full article.

"let me be clear: America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country. And we haven't always done what we should have on that front. Even as we meet here today, America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies. We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not."
President Obama in Moscow 7/7/09

"as you know, we are engaged in discussions with the Government of Cuba about matters that we believe are important - migration, for example. But we have made it very clear that we could not do much more in dealing with Cuba unless Cuba changes. The political prisoners need to be released. Free and fair elections need to be held... So we are opening up dialogue with Cuba, but we are very clear that we want to see some fundamental changes within the Cuban regime."
Secretary Clinton interview with Globovision 7/7/09

If the President's words in Moscow are applied to relations with Cuba, and the US manifests the spirit of "mutual respect" he so eloquently advanced in earlier visits to Turkey and France, the conflict between the US and Cuba is all but over.

However, as Secretary Clinton's interview reflects, some officials seem determined to fly the tattered flag of conditionality. They insisted Cuba respond to authorization of family travel disproportionately by freeing political prisoners and moving toward approved forms of democracy before the US took any other positive steps. They opposed Cuba regaining its seat in the OAS without such internal changes. Nor, they insist, will the embargo be lifted until this happens (a sentiment unfortunately found in Obama's own campaign oriented language).

Practical steps are passed over in favor of hoary hostile rhetoric. Spokespersons ignore Cuba's repeated offer of reciprocal gestures to end imprisonments each side considers political. Denunciations of discriminatory fees for the exchange of dollars are preferred to ending Bush imposed constraints on Cuba's international financial transactions which prompted the 10% surcharge.

Old language and concepts survive, embodying paternalistic and interventionist attitudes that have plagued US relations with Cuba for more than a century. Conditionality is not only a problem in principle, violating national sovereignty, but is counterproductive when Cuba's independence from the US has been the focal point of its revolution. Those who advocate it either intend that nothing change, or are ignorant of history.

In part, conditionality is due to political advisers who give priority to accommodating Senator Bob Menendez (D, NJ), no matter how damaging his behavior is to broader Administration agendas. Menendez cost the Administration days of politically damaging delay in passage of the omnibus appropriations bill, put an anonymous hold on key science appointments, frustrated announcement of non-tourist travel, threatened the OAS budget (prompting a misleading Clinton spin of the OAS decision to end Cuba's suspension), and reportedly opposes confirmation of fellow-Cuban American Carlos Pascual as ambassador to Mexico. (Pascual's sin is co-leading with Vicki Huddleston the broad based Brookings Institution project which produced the first creative road map for normalizing relations.)

In part, growing unease focuses on the role of the NSC's key staff member for Latin America, Dan Restrepo. It seems he either has been tasked to pacify old guard Cuban Americans, or has become their agent in the White House. His words have often and gratuitously poisoned the atmosphere, notably in background briefings given for the Cuban American travel announcement, the Summit of the Americas and the OAS Assembly in Honduras. Restrepo uses language about Cuba which is either tone deaf or deliberately provocative, undermining other efforts to overcome fifty years of suspicion and conflict.

Heading in a different direction has been Tom Shannon whose final months as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs confirmed professionalism and regional understanding obscured during his tenure under George Bush. Not least among his accomplishments was the appointment of Jonathan Farrar as head of the US Interests Section in Havana, bringing for the first time since Vicki Huddleston the potential of serious diplomacy on the ground.

A significant change under the aegis of Shannon and Farrar is that Cuban academics, artists and religious leaders are receiving visas again to come to the US. Farrar also brought to Cuba for the first time a non-political Community College scholarship program which is in the normal portfolio of US embassies. (An illustration of the different tone between Shannon and Restrepo on the OAS Assembly can be seen here.)

An important meeting between Cuba and the US was held in New York this week. The public focus was resumption of twice yearly migration talks ended for political reasons by the Bush administration in 2004. The topic is consequential (see excellent article by Nick Miroff here). However both countries had in mind a broader agenda. How far they got largely depended on resolution of the contradiction of mutual respect and conditionality.

When the President focuses personally on Cuba, as he did at the Summit of the Americas, the recognition of reality and openness to a new US role in the world that inspired his supporters, reflects favorably on this most emotionally loaded but yet most resolvable of problems.

--John McAuliff

Adapted from the July newsletter of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development which can be seen here.

The Northeast Gate at Guantanamo Bay

After nearly ten years of discretion, the existence of U.S.-Cuba joint military and civilian first responder exercises has broken to the surface in a very visible way.

And that is news.

Last week's exercise, which drilled Cuban and U.S. first responder teams in a scenario designed to represent a brush-fire that threatened both sides of the installation's fenceline, is hugely symbolic.

First, that it occurred when at least 28 international journalists were on another part of the base covering detainee issues means that at least the JTF Commander, and likely his Cuban counterparts, were ok with the message of confidence-building, not confrontation.

Second, this would never have happened so publicly under Fidel Castro or George Bush. The message, to be blunt, blurs the hard line position that both invested so heavily in, even though both men held such exercises out of the public eye.

Finally, it just reinforces that there are multiple tracks to the U.S.-Cuban conversation and more is better. The talks in New York, reported to go well, are not the only game. That's great. The more confidence and trust that we can build up between the two sides, the more opportunity for further talks that go deeper on issues we are already discussing, like migration, as well as expanding to the numerous other issues we have to address.

Update: This UPI report adds more detail about the exercises and layers in some historical context: General Jack Sheehan, former SOUTHCOM commander initiated the exercises in the 1990s and today believes that this episode is likely a trial balloon from the Obama administration. Read the update here.

Santa Lucia Beach, Camaguey. Photo by Innoxiuss.

You’d be forgiven if the resumption of twice-yearly migration talks between Cuba and the United States left you scratching your head. The United States and Cuba haven’t had full diplomatic relations in nearly half a century. What’s there to talk about?

Presidents Obama, Lula, and Arias at the Summit of the Americas

A story came across the McClatchey wire on Friday night that felt like a punch in the gut.

It made it seem as though the President had joined the conditionality caucus (see my previous post).

However, either the reporter misunderstood or her Miami Herald editor had an agenda.

Thanks to Phil Peters on the Cuban Triangle blog we can contrast (below the break) the actual transcript with the article.

Ironically, the reporter’s question contains a tantalizing nugget about rumors of long overdue action on non-tourist travel.

The President did not confirm or deny that anything was imminent. But it is clear that the only time frame he was relating non-tourist travel to was progress on practical matters discussed during the migration talks, and possibly, earlier bilateral meetings in Washington. “We’re not there yet” is not a big obstacle given that many of the topics discussed are of mutual interest to resolve.

Only “full normalization” was linked to “progress on issues of political liberalization”. Even his comment that, “I don't think it’s going to be happening overnight” seems ltied to full normalization rather than to incremental reforms like non-tourist travel.

I also note that “progress” is not the same as fulfillment and inherently lies in the eye of the beholder. For example “release of political prisoners” could be met at any time, either because a partial release could qualify or because mutual gestures could result in the freedom of all prisoners each side considers political.

Although it is not an obstacle to moving forward, I am not a fan of the President's softer longer term conditionality. It does embody a-historical presumptuousness, so at variance with Obama’s world view. Moreover internal governance was certainly not a condition for US normalization with China or Vietnam.

But that is an argument for the future. The issue now is to change the parameters of the debate by Presidential authorization of non-tourist travel and Congressional action to end all other restrictions.

Let's assume the reporter at least got the rumor right, and post messages of encouragement to the White House Office of Public Engagement web page

John McAuliff

(texts below the break)

The recently turned-off ticker sign at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana.

I want to share a little nugget of my analysis that helps to get past the zero-sum conditionality question that my colleagues John McAuliff and Phil Peters have recently posted on.

I think we can describe the current U.S. policy as having the following attributes:

1. Rhetorical Caution
2. Regulatory Inertia
3. Operational License

Here's what I mean. When the Obama administration has discussed the future of U.S.-Cuba relations, it has generally indicated that it will fulfill two campaign promises: to allow unrestricted family travel and remittances and to engage in talks with all of America's adversaries. And from a declaratory perspective, Obama has done just that. Having announced these two policy changes, it is apparently comfortable standing pat, at least from the podium in Washington. There are a lot of other issues that the Administration is, rightly or wrongly, more concerned about, and until a crisis or incredible breakthrough opportunity presents itself, I anticipate little effort will be expended by the White House on Cuba.

That little bit of change, however, has angered at least one important Senate Democrat, Senator Bob Menendez, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. So, in a sop to the senior senator from New Jersey, the Obama administration has played a little shell game, and has not yet implemented the changes in policy that the President announced back in April around family travel, remittances, and trade. Even though many Cuban Americans are under the impression that the policy has changed, technically, if they travel or remit more than they were allowed under President Bush, they could be fined. By holding the bureaucracy back, the administration can have it both ways. For a while.

The final characteristic of the present policy is as operational license. Here's what I mean. There are at least three offices with responsibilities that place them in contact with Cubans: the JTF commander at Guantanamo, the principal deputy assistant Secretary of State who is negotiating the migration and mail talks, and the chief of the U.S. Interests Section. In each case, these offices have been given the space to move the relationship forward in public ways. The JTF Commander in Guantanamo conducted a joint U.S.-Cuban mass casualty exercise earlier this month. The PDAS conducted successful negotiations around migration and mail service with talk of more meetings in Havana in December, and the Interests Section has turned off the 24-hour ticker sign that went up in the Bush administration. All pragmatic confidence-building measures that signal a willingness to make progress on common interests.

And that's where I think this administration is headed. There are many issues that the two governments can work on that will build trust, build a working relationship and actually contribute meaningfully to the economic, security, and environmental interests of these two neighbors. Where we will not see progress, at least at this stage, is on "full normalization" or "ending the embargo" on the U.S. side or on "democracy" or "human rights" on the Cuban side.

That's because the politics of Cuba in the United States have shifted in Miami and Washington but have not yet been fully consolidated. That is happening and will continue to advance, short of North Korea putting nuclear missiles into Cuba. On the Cuban side, they will simply never negotiate their political order and they believe that human rights is larger than freedom of speech and must include economic and social rights.

What is interesting is that this framework policy allows for other actors, such as Congress, to change the situation, such as the travel ban, and receive a positive response and for progress on many bilateral issues to be advanced without crossing into the current red zones of the embargo and democracy/human rights. In other words, there is enough room to get things done, but little for major headlines.

Faro del Morro; jordi.martorell

More cities (most recently Houston, Tampa, New Orleans and Key West) are seeking to be added to the list of approved ports of entry handling Cuba flights. As of now, only Miami, Los Angeles and New York are on that list.

And more and more state delegations are planning exploratory trade missions to Cuba, in anticipation of relaxed rules on financing of agricultural sales to the island nation. Final passage of legislation is still a few moves away, but it's clear to America's farm interests that a little preparation is in order. North Carolina, Arkansas, Colorado and other states will visit Cuba between now and November, when Cuba hosts their annual trade show.

If you take a look at the recent update of the U.S. International Trade Commission's report on agricultural sales to Cuba, it isn't hard to see why they think so. A potential for an increase in U.S. sales on the order of up to $478 million? No wonder states are asking where they can sign up.

The monthly food ration for a Cuban adult. Photo credit Javier Galeano/AP.

One of the most hopeful signs that both the U.S. policy of regime change and the Cuban policy of total resistance is melting was the joint military exercise at the Northeast gate of Guantanamo earlier this month. It is just really hard to maintain that the other side is all that bad if our armed forces are training to save each others' lives rather than kill each other.

Imagine that happening in North Korea or Iran.

So it stands to reason that if regime change is no longer our policy and that it is being replaced by a more pragmatic policy of engagement over mutual interests, the codified conditionality embedded in the Helms-Burton legislation that requires Cuba to become a Jeffersonian democracy before we change our policy -- contradicts what is essentially our de facto policy (not to mention being anachronistic).

In its place, I would argue that a pragmatic policy of engagement over shared interests should focus on the economy of Cuba, for that is where the vast majority of the suffering of the Cuban people has its root. Indeed, recent reports say that across Cuba over 50 percent of infants are suffering from anemia caused by malnutrition brought on by poor agricultural productivity, high international food prices and last year's devastating hurricane season.

That the old way of running the Cuban economy is unacceptable also happens to be something that Washington and Havana can agree on. This article by Marc Frank of Reuters, entitled, "Cuba Ponders Reduced State Role In Economy" tells the story of how agricultural deficits have forced the Cuban government to shift farm production into the hands of farmers, and in the process, rethink the role of property in the Cuban system.

That sounds like significant progress to me, progress that Washington should be taking as a sign of the kinds of change we can embrace...and believe in.