News that the whole of USAID's efforts in Cuba may be suspended indefinitely appears in today's Miami Herald. One longtime ex-grantee laments that the arrest by Cuban Authorities of Alan Gross, USAID subcontractor, may mean "the whole pro-democracy program is going to be dead."
With or without the arrest of Mr. Gross, this program's days were numbered, and not only because of the 2004 GAO critique. The Secretary of State had promised a thorough review of Cuba policy when she appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for her confirmation hearing. That review has not seen the light of day yet, delayed by staffing gaps. Yet even in the absence of Clinton's promise, it doesn't make sense that the Cuba program, so at odds with the way USAID works in the rest of the world, would blithely continue as it always had once the Obama Administration staffed up.
It is unfortunate for everyone that the review took so long, but it is particularly unfortunate for Mr. Gross. The only satisfactory outcome is that Cuba releases him, perhaps on humanitarian grounds.
It is jarring that the people quoted in the article don't say anything more about him. They are more concerned that the money keep flowing, because -- as one grantee argues, "the civil society movement in Cuba is giving clear signals it is awake."
Accepting that premise, it would seem all the more urgent to reform the program so that more Americans are involved in supporting Cubans. If we want to respond to the needs of a burgeoning society, why keep one hand tied behind our back by limiting our efforts to a small circle of Cuba democracy activists?
How about restructuring our approach so that while looking for ways to help the families of prisoners, we also look for new partners that can assist other Cubans -- for example, through university exchanges, or municipal government working groups, faith-based social service agencies, and other elements of American society?
Let's open the whole thing up, foster some competition, and bring the notion of public-private partnership -- a critical development approach in other parts of the world -- to Cuba. That would effectively match the burgeoning but embryonic and resource-poor civil society in Cuba with an experienced, diverse and wealthy one here.
At a time when the President has mandated a spending freeze, the Cuba program grantees suddenly sound like chicken little. What do they think other organizations do when a major donor drops out of the picture? They hone their proposal-writing skills, bone up on marketing, and raise funds based on the validity of their ideas and effectiveness at achieving their objectives. These grantees happen to belong to one of the most generous communities America has ever seen. Cuban Americans sent a billion dollars in remittances to help family in Cuba. If you've got a way to help people there, they're going to respond.
But that's the catch: it is extremely difficult and ineffective to try to reach out in Cuba the way these grantees have been working, as Mr. Gross's case illustrates. It may make them feel good, but it would be better to use a "rising tide lifts all boats" approach and open up travel for all Americans to Cuba. But short of that common sense approach, a start would be to bring the program back into the real USAID -- not some covert op that dares not speak its name. USAID, despite problems not of its making, has done tremendous and professional work on behalf of millions all over the world. If the president were to lock a bunch of USAID veterans in a room with the Cuba conundrum, they'd come up with a plan that is better by miles than the one the Herald rightly describes as "running on empty." That plan has been running on empty for a lot longer than they think.