Yesterday in the Senate debate on the Omnibus Appropriations bill Bob Menendez (D, NJ) delivered a long and impassioned speech against Cuba. Any policy change we can imagine had a condition attached which would make it a non-starter in Havana. In the case of even family travel he took a position reflective of his long links to hard liners in Miami.
In exchange for more frequent visits from Cuban-American families who bring money and resources to the island, let us insist that the Cuban regime permit those who want to travel to Cuba and visit human rights activists, democracy activists, independent journalists, and other civil society advocates, be given visas as well.
He threatened that the Cuba language, "put the Omnibus bill in jeopardy".
After he spoke, Senator Reid took the floor, expressing warmly his long association with Menendez:
As the distinguished Senator from New Jersey knows, I have locked arms with Congressman and now Senator from New Jersey for many years. In fact, my votes in years past have not always been in the majority, but they have always been something I felt comfortable doing and still feel comfortable doing.
I appreciate the statement made by my friend from New Jersey. I am committed to work with him to see what we can do to resolve the injustice that is taking place 90 miles off the shore of America and, once and for all, give those people who live in Las Vegas--people do not realize the largest number of Cuban Americans live in Florida, next is New Jersey, and, surprisingly, next is Nevada.
I worked with my friends there, Tony Alamo and many others, over the years to try to bring justice to an unjust system. I appreciate very much the statement made by my friend from New Jersey. I look forward to working with him on all other issues.
Reid did not say he would support Menendez' goal of stripping the Cuba language from the bill. A news story says Bill Nelson, Florida's Democratic Senator, favors inclusion of the Cuba language
Amendments will be accepted for debate, but the Democrats may try to vote down all of them in order to get the bill adopted by Friday and avoid its return to the House.
However, if Menendez and Martinez succeed in blocking the Cuba language with Reid's help, this bodes ill for a stand alone Cuba travel bill. It also could have a negative effect on the Administration's interagency policy review.
[Look here for the Cuba language. See below for my previous posts on the Omnibus bill.]
Something big is up in Havana. So big that some are saying that Fidel Castro has finally moved on to the next world -- though I don't believe this to be the case.
Others are saying that they saw Fidel out in public today on an odd shuffling, walk about, flanked by well armed security guards -- and a trailing Mercedes.
What has happened is that Raul Castro, now President of Cuba, has sacked his brother's closest followers and advisers in government.
Both Vice President Carlos Lage and Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque have been given pink slips. These were Fidel's most obvious heir apparents and his chief ideological spear carriers in the next generation of Cuban political leadership.
This is one of those historical pivot points in normally opaque (often Communist) regimes that will be remembered for generations.
Raul Castro seems fully in control now -- and he's done with ideology.
Raul not only demands pragmatism from his team, he wants a government that "works" and which can function with greater efficiency than the past. This is particularly the case given the grim reality that the global economic crisis is hitting Cuba hard -- as the price of oil has made Venezuela's patronage less robust and global tourism to and investment in Cuba have both taken significant hits in recent months.
Ideology is on feeble legs throughout Cuba despite Senator Bob Menendez's anachronistic screed on the floor of the Senate this afternoon about Cuba's governing villains. Menendez today seemed to be pining for the enemies of the past, so the warped politics of anti-Cuba, anti-Castro compulsive obsessiveness could live another day.
But Menendez is behind the times and has been complicit in undermining American national interests with Cuba for far too long -- and he and others in Cuba who have strangled opportunity for a new course in US-Cuba relations should pay a political price for for their destructive intransigence. Menendez should go check in with his friends at the formerly right wing Cuban American National Foundation who for the most part think that pols like Menendez, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Diaz-Balart brothers in Congress, and their Democratic Party ally Debbie Wassmerman Schulz went way too far in strangling Cuban-American family emergency travel and financial remittances.
We are at one of those significant punctuation points in Cuban history.
We may be at a real moment of opportunity in US-Cuba relations if Obama's team of foreign policy hands can find the guts and smarts to realize that it was wrong during the Bush administration for a Cold War with Cuba to actually get colder over the last ten years -- and to realize that incrementalism only works in times of historical continuity.
As Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Baker, David Abshire, Paul Volcker, Thomas Pickering, George Soros, Bill Joy, Jeffrey Sachs, Joseph Stiglitz, Francis Fukuyama, and many others have said -- this is a time of significant "historical discontinuity."
Change is needed and is a smarter, better choice than incrementalism and inertia.
Let's not see a Foreign Affairs article written this next year titled "Who Lost Cuba?"
Cuba matters a great deal -- far beyond its 11 million people and beyond even Latin America. Cuba is the ripest fruit for picking on America's tree of foreign policy options.
Change there can happen at extremely low cost to the United States. And America's approach will telegraph much about exactly what kind of America Barack Obama is trying to usher forth in this next phase of restoring U.S. benign moral, economic and political prestige. . .and power.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Ã¢â‚¬Å“I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t come here to do the same thing we have been doing or to take small steps forward. I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November.Ã¢â‚¬Â
--President Barack Obama, radio/internet address 2/28/09
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Obama's leadership is needed to change the dynamic between the United States and Cuba. The status quo is no longer an option. Not only has it failed to achieve its goals; it has tarnished our image in the hemisphere and throughout the world. Waiting for Congress to act will only further delay change. Fortunately, even in the case of Cuba, Congress has not materially impaired this country's venerable constitutional arrangement under which the president has the ultimate authority to conduct our foreign affairs.
Again and again we hear that the embargo can't be changed because the Helms-Burton law codified it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether you agree or disagree with the current commercial embargo, the president can effectively dismantle it by using his executive authority.Ã¢â‚¬Â
--Carlos Pascual and Vicki Huddleston, Miami Herald Op Ed
If President Obama brings the same boldness to international problems as he shows domestically (above quote), and if intellectual and policy expertise matters, his AdministrationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s interagency review of US relations with Cuba will be a breakthrough--and receive a warm welcome. (A compilation of studies and statements released in the past year can be found here.)
Last week began with a compelling letter from Senator Richard Lugar and far reaching recommendations from senior Foreign Relations Committee staff member Carl Meacham. (pdf here) It concluded with an eminently practical road map to normalization drawn up by a diverse group under the sponsorship of the Brookings Institution.
The project directors were Carlos Pascual, Vice-President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at Brookings (a rumored prospect for an important State Department post), and Vicki Huddleston, Visiting Fellow and former head of the US Interests Section in Havana (a member of the State Department transition team). Membership ranged from pro-engagement professors, a scholar at a prominent conservative think tank, and former European ambassadors--to a Cuban American denounced by Havana as a terrorist.
From the preface, which suggests how large a departure this is from the hostile rhetoric and policy of the previous Administration and much of the past five decades:
It should be understood that a policy of critical and constructive engagement -- while having as a goal evolution to a peaceful and democratic Cuba -- does not promise an overnight metamorphosis. It is a process, a pathway with various detours and obstacles that over time arrives at its destination. It will take Cuban cooperation to achieve a real improvement in relations, but we should not publicly link the initiatives to specific actions of the Cuban government.
The road map was divided into short, medium and long-term initiatives. Go on line here to review the whole list because their achievement step by step constitute a practical road map to full normal relations. Following are selected points which I found particularly positive:
Ã¯ÂÂ® Remove all restrictions on family and humanitarian travel to Cuba.
Ã¯ÂÂ® Permit and expand specific licenses for people-to-people travel for educational, cultural and humanitarian purposes -- all travel permitted under law.
Ã¯ÂÂ® Allow all Cubans who meet requirements of U.S. immigration law to travel to the United States.
Ã¯ÂÂ® Provide licensing for providers of U.S. government and private assistance in order to advance the goals of U.S. policy identified in this report.
Ã¯ÂÂ® License Cuban state and non-state entities to access satellite and broadband communications networks.
Ã¯ÂÂ® Review the evidence to determine if Cuba should continue to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Ã¯ÂÂ® Conduct a review of the purpose, content and implementation capacity of the new contracts awarded to private companies and non-governmental organizations during the last months of the Bush Administration
Ã¯ÂÂ® Encourage and fund a wide variety of educational exchanges and scholarships that promote understanding and provide training in diverse fields such as arts, economics, and journalism.
Ã¯ÂÂ® Allow licenses for U.S. companies to participate in the development of Cuban offshore oil, gas and renewable energy resources.
Ã¯ÂÂ® Work with Congress to restore Executive Branch authority over travel to Cuba.
Ã¯ÂÂ® Reach mutually acceptable solution for restoring Cuban sovereignty over the territory of Guantanamo Bay.
Huddleston told the Miami Herald that the position on travel restrictions reflected differences within the group. Returning travel authority to the executive is a step back from most similar policy documents and pending legislation to end all obstacles to American visits although it could amount to the same thing. Internal differences may also be the reason for the counterproductive stipulation of specific rather than general licenses for people to people travel which requires OFAC bureaucratic vetting and forces trips within groups. There is no direct reference to ending the embargo, but nor is there endorsement of making that step conditional on actions by Cuba. Lifting the embargo could be implied by the final recommendation:
Ã¯ÂÂ® Achieve full diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba.
The road map contains a welcome dramatic departure from similar reports by calling for the return of the territory of Guantanamo Bay. This might reflect that all Cubans, whether leaders in Havana or alienated exiles, share a view that US control of the base compromises their countryÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sovereignty, was forced on them as a classic unequal treaty, and is the sole surviving provision of the shameful Platt Amendment.
I don't agree with every recommendation, or with the premise that any country should have a "goal" for another, but the Obama Administration could do far worse than adopt this road map as its own.
Ripe mangos in Cuba, by Lergik.
When President Barack Obama looks out the curved windows of the Oval Office and ponders where in the world he can get a decisive foreign policy victory, the landscape is pretty bleak. His special envoys, Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell have been assigned the most complex negotiations. Chris Hill, fresh off the six party talks over North Korea's nuclear program, is decamping for Baghdad, at last report. Dennis Ross is sitting in the cat bird's seat on Iran policy. Secretary of State Clinton has taken China on.
But none of those problems will yield a major victory anytime soon. That is not acceptable for a new, young president who has to send signals both to the international community and to the folks back home that not only can he deploy diplomats effectively, but that he can close the deal and win a principled victory for America overseas.
Cuba, however, is a different story. This article from Reuters makes the case clearly: the domestic politics and the changes in leadership here and in Havana are all lining up to give Obama the chance to get that win and change the perception of America abroad while ending a dysfunctional era in the politics of a state with 10 percent of the electoral college votes.
Here's a snip:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Latin Americans would view U.S. engagement with Cuba as a demonstration that the United States understands their perspectives on the history of U.S. policy in the region and no longer insists that all of Latin America must share U.S. hostility to a 50-year-old regime,Ã¢â‚¬Â the Foreign Relations Committee staff report said. Ã¢â‚¬Å“The resulting improvement to the United StatesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ image in the region would facilitate the advancement of U.S. interests.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Portraying normal relations with Cuba as something that serves U.S. national interests strengthens the case of a growing number of lawmakers and business groups who think it is time to remove the last vestige of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere. It would also provide backing for Obama if he were inclined to go beyond his campaign promises on Cuba Ã¢â‚¬â€ easing restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba and sending money to relatives there.
In the words of Steve Clemons, a Latin America expert at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank, Cuba is Ã¢â‚¬Å“the lowest hanging ripe fruit on AmericaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s tree of foreign policy options. Change is easy there Ã¢â‚¬â€ and overdue.Ã¢â‚¬Â
The House voted 245-178 on February 25th to pass the Omnibus Appropriations bill.
As summarized by Lesley Clark and Frances Robles in the Miami Herald, it will
* Prevent the U.S. government from spending any of its budget enforcing 2004 rules that keep Cuban-Americans from visiting their homeland more than once every three years.
* Create a general travel license for Americans who sell food and medical supplies to Cuba.
* Let Cuba pay for the American products it buys in cash when they arrive in Havana. Current law forces Cuba to pay upfront before products leave U.S. ports.
* Require the U.S. Treasury Department to issue a report showing how much of its staff and funding is spent on enforcing the ban on travel to Cuba.
Robles today diminished its significance by leading with a more cynical but possibly accurate view that the bill
tweaked U.S.-Cuba policy,making it easier for Cuban Americans to get away with illegally traveling to the communist country
The only Cuba related intervention during the debate came from Miami hard liner Lincoln Diaz-Ballart. However instead of denouncing the travel and agricultural provisions, he just wanted to be sure that $20 million of Cuba "democracy" funding that largely benefits his supporters in Miami was still in the bill. Rep. Nita Lowey, the manager of that part of the legislation, reassured him that his pork was safe.
His Democratic soul mate, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (photo above), also spoke but her comments were entirely in favor of the bill, skewering its Republican opponents. Not a word did she utter about the dastardly Cuba language .
The bill was debated under a no amendments rule so there was not much they could really do to challenge its content.
The test comes very soon in the Senate where Majority Leader Reid said he wants to complete work on the legislation by the end of next week when stopgap funding runs out. Senators have privileges that could allow travel opponents Martinez and Menendez to hold the bill hostage if the Cuba language stays in.
As reported by Bill Gibson in his Sun-Sentinel weblog
Florida Senator Mel Martinez this afternoon threatened to block a big spending bill that would ease restrictions on Cuban-American travel to visit relatives in Cuba....
Martinez, a Republican, said he would object to consideration of the bill. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a procedural move that would force the billÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s supporters to round up 60 votes to overcome delays that would kill it, a modern form of filibuster.
The bill returns travel for Cuban Americans only to the less restrictive formula of the Clinton Administration, annual visits to a normal definition of family that includes cousins, nieces, nephews, aunts, and uncles. However it does so by blocking enforcement of existing law and regulations rather than by changing them.
An Associated Press story suggests that the travel may need to go through third countries:
Tessie Aral, owner of ABC Charters in Miami, said that because of the way the measure is written, she worries individuals won't be prosecuted for traveling to Cuba, but companies arranging the trips may be targeted.
"This is not what President Obama promised," Aral said. "If it only stops enforcement, I still can't sell you a ticket knowing I'm going to break a law."
The leading voice for the campaign on behalf of family travel in Miami went further in an editorial in Progresso Weekly pressing President Obama to keep the promise of his campaign and the Democratic Party platform for unlimited Cuban American travel and remittances:
in our opinion, the Cuba travel piece should be removed completely from the Omnibus Bill making the rounds in Washington, DC.
Finally, what we would like to stress to the president is that every time a family member dies in Cuba, alone; a son, daughter or nephew sits in the hospital with little hope of seeing a loved one who lives in the U.S.; every minute that passes while family members are kept apart for political reasons, is yet another black mark on one of the most un-American and cruel pieces of legislation passed in this country over the last 20 years.
Methods of agricultural sales also are normalized by dint of preventing expenditure of funds for enforcement of politically motivated obstructions created by the Bush Administration. On the other hand, travel for the purpose of sales of agricultural and medical products received a general license, i.e. no application necessary.
Reuters saw the economic implications this way
The legislation approved by the House does not lift the overall embargo. But it would prohibit the Treasury Department from enforcing Bush administration rules requiring payment of cash in advance for agricultural sales to Cuba.
Analysts believe that U.S. rice sales to Cuba will soar if the provision becomes law. Rice sales declined every year after the cash-in-advance rules were imposed in 2005, because Cuba could turn to Vietnam -- a country with which it has close ties -- for rice on easier terms.
Lawyers will sort out the exact implications. The crucial element is that implementation will be by officials in the Treasury and Commerce Department answering to a different more pro-engagement political drum. Before they expire on September 30th, all provisions will probably be supplanted by more fundamental change available through executive orders and notices in the Federal Register or by new legislation.
The BBC went to the core of the issue:
The measures announced in the US bill represent a first move in broader efforts to ease the US trade embargo and end travel restrictions for all Americans.
However the path is not certain report Clark and Robles:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, who backs the current restrictions, said she believes the travel measure wouldn't pass on its own, because most Republicans and about 80 Democrats are opposed.
Winning the battle begins in the Obama Administration whose allies and supporters must insist to the White House and to Tom Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, that vision and boldness be the product of the interagency review, including general licenses for all non-tourist people to people travel.
The question is still in play, as the Miami Herald also reported today
Cuba watchers say it's unclear whether he will lift restrictions not just for Cuban Americans, but for American academics, church groups and others as well. Key administration posts in charge of such decisions have yet to be filled.
The link changed for Sen. Lugar's excellent letter calling for a new policy and Carl Meacham's far reaching report after the final text was issued, although the PDF appears to be the same version as the draft.
The House debate on the Omnibus Appropriations bill has begun on C-SPAN.com or TV
(and can be viewed later in its archive).
The bill contains language on Cuba with several positive aspects that was inserted by Representative Serano with the assistance of Representative Castor. It should be considered a significant forward step that shows how the majority can use the rules to its favor and is upsetting to the hard liners in Florida. Passage helps build momentum for stronger action by the Obama administration and Congress.
It will be interesting regarding prospects for legislation to end all travel restrictions to see whether Sen Martinez can use Senate rules to block the bill, Sen. Menendez (pictured above) gets involved and Sen Reid accommodates him. (See Miami Herald story and on line poll here.)
However if the legislation survives intact, it is only a partial victory. The section on Cuban American travel is non-enforcement language. It does not suspend or reverse the law. Oddly travel for agricultural sales receives a general license but not family or other non-tourist travel. OFAC's politically distorted role in the Bush Administration is also a target.
[Text of Cuba language can be seen here.]
Passage will effectively enable at least annual Cuban American travel for the balance of the fiscal year. However, it does not remove from President Obama the responsibility to use his authority to enable general licenses for all twelve categories of non-tourist people to people travel, including Cuban American, educational, religious, humanitarian, cultural, sports and "support for the Cuban people".
The comment page of the Office of Public Liaison can be used to put all non-tourist travel on the agenda of the interagency review of Cuba policy through this link.
The urgency and importance of making your voice heard to President Obama is reflected in a report yesterday from our friend and colleague in Miami Silvia Wilhelm.
Senator Menendez was on Miami TV right now very positive that the only thing the administration is going to allow is a roll back to the Clinton era family travel and that absolutely NOTHING else is going to move and that if it came down to listening to Lugar or him and others in the community, Obama would listen to him and others.
A homeless man in Vedado, Cuba, by Jay K.
In Senator Richard Lugar's excellent report on Cuba, his staff writes that the one persistent threat to the regime in Havana is economic discontent.
Of course, one could say the same about President Obama, but with a significant difference in degree. In Havana's case, we are talking about the potential for popular unrest leading to mass migration and possible political upheaval. Here in the States the threat would only the loss of political capital and not getting re-elected.
And yet, both presidents are running out of cash. Here in Washington, President Obama took the opportunity to start the week off defensively by saying that he intends to halve the federal budget deficit in five years, to balance out his massive massive new federal stimulus spending.
Across the Florida Straits, a new AP report paints another striking parallel. Instead of a housing bubble bursting, the immediate cause of Cuba's problems is the damage caused by the 2008 hurricane season which destroyed a third of the crops and a third of the housing on the island. Now Havana is forced to provide three-quarters of the food eaten by the Cuban people in the form of a monthly ration, up from one half before the storms. Between increased food bills and decreased tourism, falling nickel prices, and the lack of investment in Cuba's energy sector, this island nation is having a hard time of it.
In terms of setting the conditions for progress diplomatically, this is not so bad. We need to remember that the Cuban strategy is a neo-Yugoslav one. They never again want to be dependent on one patron, but need patrons to balance the books. So, they are diversifying their dance card, to include Russia, China, Venezuela. But also the EU, Brazil, and, as their fifth largest trading partner already, the United States.
But even this strategy is not enough to allow them to weather the hardship of falling export prices, rising import costs and massive reconstruction bills.
There is a lot of movement on Cuba right now. As the gentleman from Indiana put it, the leadership changes in both countries has created an opportunity for improving U.S. policy. There are a lot of other factors making this the time to move as well.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar, a long time realist and serious strategic thinker about America's national security challenges, has just popped the bubble of those who have used Cuba for decades in their ineffective ideological crusades.
Lugar's team is releasing on Monday a new 'committee print' titled "CHANGING CUBA POLICY -- IN THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL INTEREST." (pdf here)
For US-Cuba policy junkies, the report is pretty breathtaking in its indictment of decades of American failure in trying to adjust Cuba's national government's behavior via sanctions and an embargo.
In his opening missive in the document, Senator Lugar states:
Economic sanctions are a legitimate tool of U.S. foreign policy, and they have sometimes achieved their aims, as in the case of apartheid South Africa.
After 47 years, however, the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of "bringing democracy to the Cuban people," while it may have been used as a foil by the regime to demand further sacrifices from Cuba's impoverished population.
The current U.S. policy has many passionate defenders, and their criticism of the Castro regime is justified. Nevertheless, we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests.
This report is important because it builds on questions that Richard Lugar asked in writing of Hillary Clinton during her Senate confirmation hearings. I noted then that buried in the many questions submitted by Lugar was an implied message to the administration that he would not accept any more illusions that the status quo in the relationship was working.
In response, Hillary Clinton promised a full administration review of US-Cuba policy which Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs Tom Shannon is leading now. What is also interesting is that someone close to Shannon and those potentially contributing to this policy review told me it would be important for the administration "to hear from Congress."
Lugar has now provided much ammunition in his powerful commentary on the need for US-Cuba policy to change, using what was essentially a trip report by Senate Foreign Relations Committee senior staff member Carl Meacham as a vehicle to convey his views. Meacham traveled to Cuba as part of a staff delegation in January 2009, organized by the non-partisan Lexington Institute.
Key findings of the report include that the Cuban regime has become fully institutionalized; positive developments are occurring in Cuba but should not be mistaken as structural reform; that popular dissatisfaction with Cuba's economic situation is the regime's vulnerability; and the regime appears to be open to some bilateral dialogue and cooperation.
The report endorses the rather minimal steps already promised by Obama on relaxing restrictions on "Cuban-American" travel and financial remittances to family members -- but then pushes forward on many other fronts with a sopisticated and methodical review of other steps the administration should consider, most of which are possible even within the confines of the Congressionally-imposed embargo.
This is a brilliant piece of policy and political craftsmanship.
I call it the "slippery slope strategy" in which Lugar is shining a big spotlight on the inadequacy and failure of US-Cuba policy that for too long has been held in place by domestic constituencies who were working at odds with the American national interest. Lugar is pushing buttons and nudging Obama's team into put itself forward constructively -- and with these steps, it becomes easier to see the broader embargo as a serious anachronism and a mistake that needs remedy.
US-Cuba policy is the only place in the world where the nearly extinct Cold War actually got colder -- and it's time this relationship thawed.
In his letter to senators, Lugar noted that Obama's election and the replacement of President Fidel Castro with his brother RaÃƒÂºl have generated debate important to U.S. security interests, "broader U.S.-Latin-American relations, and global perceptions of U.S. foreign policy."
"Despite uncertainty about Cuba's mid-term political future," Lugar wrote, "it is clear that the recent leadership changes have created an opportunity for the United States to reevaluate a complex relationship marked by misunderstanding, suspicion, and open hostility."
It has been working, and Richard Lugar has just done his team on the Minority side -- as well as his colleagues Committee Chairman John Kerry and Senator Christopher Dodd, who has long set the "gold standard" in US-Cuba policy legislation and proposals -- a great favor by pushing this report into our national debate.
It's time that we stopped letting other national leaders, like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, colonize the affections and interests of Cuban citizens who are actually interested -- like the rest of the world -- in whether Obama has the guts and vision to generate some meaningful strategic shifts for the United States.
Cuba is the lowest hanging ripe fruit on America's tree of foreign policy options. Change is easy there -- and overdue.
-- Steve Clemons
Ed. Note: Photo above on the right side is of former Senator Birch Bayh, Senator Richard Lugar, New America Foundation/American Strategy Program Director Steve Clemons, and Washington College C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience Director Adam Goodheart at a November 12, 2007 Senatorial Colloquy at Washington College. The top photo of Senator Lugar was also taken at the same Washington College Senate Colloquy.
If I might stretch my blogmate PatrickÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s metaphor two postings back, readers of The Havana Note cannot afford to be wallflowers at the dance between Congress and the White House if they care about its success.
The White House needs to know that real people, especially those who elected Barack Obama, are impatiently tuning their instruments because one month after inauguration the promise of immediate unlimited travel and remittances for Cuban Americans has still to be met.
It should also hear a grace note that Cuban American travel is a humanitarian obligation and not sufficient policy change. Two-thirds of all Americans (including Cuban Americans), 84% of Obama supporters, and virtually all the heads of state who will be meeting the President at the Summit of the Americas want better evidence of change they can dance to.
The ball room is witness to dancers spinning in the opposite direction. Previewing far reaching recommendations by Senator Richard Lugar and a Republican staff report scheduled for release on Monday, Karen de Young wrote in SaturdayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Washington Post
"An administration official said yesterday that it was "not unreasonable" to expect that Obama would ease constraints on family travel and remittances to Cuba before he attends the mid-April Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago."
Ask President Obama for more than a family travel only warm up dance by using this link to the White House Office of Public Liaison.
Congress needs to be likewise induced by constituents to improve its sense of rhythm in order to become a more convincing partner. HR 874 and S 428 require scores of bipartisan cosponsors, an essential objective. But they will take too long to obtain to have much impact in the current interagency review of Cuba policy. (text and current list accessible here )
Calls, faxes and e-mails to your Representative and Senators should include
1) Will you cosponsor HR 874 or S 428 to end all travel restrictions?
2) Will you ask the White House to quickly authorize general licenses for Cuban Americans and other non-tourist travelers?
Shards of glass are being thrown on the dance floor by the hard right US-Cuba Democracy PAC which contributed $753,500 in the 2008 election cycle, up from $569,624 in 2006. This PAC opposes liberalizing family and all other travel.
Its 177 House recipients featured 90 Democrats who received 59% of the funds, including key leaders Berman ($5,000), Clyburn ($10,000 + $5,000), Engel ($7,500), Hoyer ($6,000), Obey ($6,000), Wasserman Schultz ($10,000 + $10,000), and Sires ($10,000).
In the Senate, 9 of 24 recipients were Democrats, most notably Reid ($5,000), Menendez ($2,500 + $5,000) and Nelson ($5,000 + $10,000). The new Senator from New York, Gillibrand, received $9,000 as a House candidate.
You can see the full list, with some surprises, as well as the overwhelmingly South Florida Cuban American donor list here. Such relatively small special interest donations from out of town will have limited effect, and can even be an embarrassment, if counter-balanced by concerned constituents.
An opportunity to discuss how to end travel restrictions will be available in Washington at the March 5-6 consultation and lobby day
Another chance to meet allies is the first annual Cuba Trade Expo Jon Bedard is organizing in Miami March 19-21. Virtually all of the speakers are well known to the advocacy community. Jon is discounting the registration fee for organizations that help publicize the expo.
Image by juanelo66
During the Cold War, the principal rationale for maintaining the embargo on Cuba was that, as a revolution-exporting Soviet client 90 miles to our south, Cuba posed a clear and present threat to the United States.
That has all changed. To oversimplify, Cuba, now a nation of organic farmers, medical missionaries and welfare recipients governed by a inefficient communist regime, poses no direct threat to the United States, and is dead set against ever again becoming dependent on one patron.
In the absence of that Cold-War rationale, pro-embargo advocates have fallen back on the regime's human rights record for not changing policy. The argument goes that in order to improve human rights protections in Cuba we need to maintain all elements of our hard line policy as "leverage."
Here's what the Americas director of Human Rights Watch, Jose Miguel Vivanco, had to say about the relationship of the embargo to human rights promotion, back in 2006:
It is hard to think of a policy that has a longer track record of failure. Cuba is no more open now than when the embargo was first imposed four decades ago. If anything, the policy consolidated Mr Castro's hold by giving his government an excuse for its problems and a pretext for its abuses. Moreover, because the policy was imposed in such heavyÃ¢â‚¬â€œhanded fashion, it enabled Mr Castro to garner sympathy abroad, neutralising international pressure rather than increasing it. While other governments may have been concerned about political repression in Cuba, they were unwilling to be seen as siding with a bully.
In other words, unwinding the embargo creates the opportunity to turn the anti-embargo coalition of nations into a pro-human rights coalition of nations.
That's the kind of interest-based, "smart," and sophisticated policy that should be the hallmark of the Obama administration. Incremental approaches that overemphasize the bi-lateral issues at the expense of strategic and that think of the embargo as "leverage" over human rights conditions are just not going to get us anywhere.
Literally. Slow, tit-for-tat diplomatic dances with Cuba simply grant Cuba the ability to drive the timetable and prevent the U.S. from improving its relations in the hemisphere that are much more important than any bi-lateral U.S.-Cuba issue will ever become.