Cuba

What the Next President Should Do About Cuba

Patrick Doherty — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:30:00 -0400

Check out this post from our sister site, The Havana Note:

What the Next President Should Do About Cuba

Fifty years of what is now a failed policy is enough. It's time to get a new policy for Cuba and with it a new vision for U.S. relations with Latin America. Check out our own Col. Lawrence Wilkerson as he describes what the next President should do about Cuba.

Who Needs a Summit for Cuba?

Patrick Doherty — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:32:00 -0400

I just posted a blog over at The Havana Note, where I challenge the need for any kind of high-level summit to get a better outcome on Cuba. What we really need to do is get out of our own way.

Check it out at The Havana Note.

White House Threatens Swiss Over $42b Iran Gas Deal

Patrick Doherty — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:57:00 -0400

As the Japanese are wont to say, "business is war." Apparrently, that is how the Bush White House sees the recently-announced deal between Switzerland and Iran over a $42 billion natural gas contract. And, living up to the their own dysfunctional war planning record, the White House is now considering a retaliation against Switzerland where it hurts the United States most: by ending the Swiss sponsorship of the U.S. and Cuban Interests Sections. That will teach them not to mess with us.

Of all the pathetic evidence that the Bush Administration had degraded U.S. influence in the world, this is up there. Rarely have we seen how weak the man behind the curtain really is.

It also is an object lesson in global leadership. Part one of that lesson is that states will always seek to satisfy their own calculation of their national interests. Unless the interest equation is changed, inertia will rule in the affairs of sovereign peoples. The Swiss need gas, Iran has it. The Bush administration did not, apparently, care enough to insert themselves effectively in the Swiss decision loop.

Part two of that lesson is that the international order is fundamentally governed more effectively by attractive forces than by coercive forces. The U.S. has done an incredibly poor job of making the American vision of the world the most attractive option since the end of the Cold War, especially since 9/11. This is not rocket science. Europe uses the attractiveness of its 450 million high-income consumers as the world's largest carrot. China even understands that it is easier and more effective to buy friends than to threaten them.

The choice of targeting the interests sections, however, is doubly idiotic. The Sections in Havana and Washington preserve what little formal and informal communication happens between the U.S. and Cuba. The military-military coordination on counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics is especially vital. At a time when Raul Castro is starting a series of tentative but consistent, liberalizing steps to reform the Cuban economy in the direction of free markets, and yet China and Venezuela have more influence in Havana than the U.S., this move is just further evidence of the limits of the kind of pugilistic nationalism that this White House has elevated into policy making primacy.

The next administration, if it is interested in global leadership, needs to find a vision of the world that can out-attract the other visions on offer. It also needs to end our counter-productive policy on Cuba.

Iran-Europe Gas Deals Alarm US

By Daniel Dombey in Washington, Anna Fifield in Tehran,and Haig Simonian in Zurich

Published: May 1 2008, The Financial Times

The US and its allies are worried that the sanctions regime against Tehran is under threat from a possible new wave of European investment in Iran's strategically important gas sector.

Tehran has already concluded gas deals with Chinese and Malaysian companies - ending a protracted lull in investment in its energy sector - and has alarmed Washington by reaching an agreement with a Swiss group.

The dilemma threatens to expose the limited US influence over foreign companies' strategic decisions.

Although Washington and its allies have convinced the United Nations Security Council to sign up to three sets of sanctions against Iran's nuclear and missile sectors and banks, it has been unable to broaden such international measures into the key energy sector.

Until recently, informal US pressure - combined with the difficulties associated with doing business in Iran - had appeared to dissuade many companies from signing formal contracts.

Now, the US fears that a 25-year supply agreement concluded in March between Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft Laufenburg (EGL) of Switzerland and Iran could encourage other deals, particularly in the gas sector, despite American calls for tougher sanctions against Tehran over its controversial nuclear programme. The Swiss government says the deal could be worth up to €27bn ($42bn, £21bn).

"The worry is that the Swiss deal will lead others, such as the Austrians, to confirm energy investments in Iran, and that companies like [France's] Total could then follow suit and sign contracts of their own," said one western diplomat. He pointed out that the EGL agreement ended a period in which European energy companies had largely confined themselves to agreeing only non-binding memoranda of understanding with Iran.

He added: "There is a lot of attention on sanctions on Iranian banks, but investment in the energy sector is much more important for Iran's economy." Iran has the world's second-largest proven gas reserves, but exports far below its potential.

Flynt Leverett, a former US National Security Council adviser on the Middle East, says pressure is growing on non-US companies to conclude supply contracts with Iran in the wake of the deals already signed between Tehran and Sinopec of China and SKS of Malaysia.

So angry is Washington about the Swiss deal that it has suggested that Switzerland's role as the US representative in Cuba and Iran could be at risk.

Swiss officials reply that no international sanctions prohibit investment in the Iranian energy sector, and that the gas supply contract signed by EGL is intended to alleviate energy shortages in Italy. "For almost 30 years, Switzerland has rendered good services to the US as their protecting power in Iran," said a Swiss foreign ministry spokesman.

The website of the US embassy in Bern carries a series of questions about the gas deal, explicitly raising the question of whether Switzerland's role is "in jeopardy". Officials there merely say that Switzerland has a mandate to represent the US "at this time".

Following the deal, some European leaders have voiced concern about new investment in liquefied natural gas, the sector in which groups such as Total, Royal Dutch Shell and Austria's OMV have struck preliminary agreements but have yet to sign formal contracts. Iran has warned such companies they need to conclude deals by June or it will look elsewhere for investment.

Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, said in the US last month that he wanted to broaden sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme "to include investment in liquefied natural gas".

At present, there are no such sanctions at either UN or EU level against investment in Iran's gas sector.

European diplomats say it is unlikely that the EU will agree formal sanctions on the Iranian energy sector in the immediate future - instead it is concentrating on measures against Iran's Bank Melli. Foreign ministers from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany meet in London tomorrow to discuss further action against Iran. Diplomats say Mr Brown's words are an attempt to increase the political pressure against new investment in the sector.

Under US law, investments of above $20m (€13m, £10m) in Iran's energy sector can lead to US retaliatory measures, But Mr Leverett said Washington's options were limited. "The EU would effectively take us to court [at the World Trade Organisation] and the US would probably lose," he said.

Hojatullah Ghanimi Fard, head of international affairs at the National Iranian Oil Company, said Tehran was legitimately supplying an international need. "Would it be wise to deprive common people of consuming countries of supplies from Iran?" he asked.

Just What Is Happening in Cuba?

Patrick Doherty — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:37:00 -0400

Our own Col. Lawrence Wilkerson reminds us that the transition in Havana from Fidel to Raul Castro is almost complete, that the initial reforms expected by a Raul administration are starting and that United States policy toward the island continues to to relegate Washington to the sidelines. I would take it a step further: by maintaining the embargo, we continue to give Raul the gift we gave his older brother--the perfect excuse for poor economic performance and a ready-made tool for whipping up Cuban nationalism. I look more at this issue in Mind the Gap: How the Miami Generation Gap Could Shape Cuba Policy

Comrade and General Raúl Castro Ruz has now, it seems, taken full control of the reins of government in Cuba and el commandante y jefe, Fidel Castro—who for nearly half a century successfully defied nine (not counting Ike, who knew better) American presidents—has receded more and more into the background noise of a slowly changing Cuba. But what does this successful and now almost complete transition portend for the 11 million Cubans who deserve a better life?

Well, that is the question on everyone's mind who follows Cuban affairs. From a very cynical viewpoint like that of Patrick Symmes in the most recent edition of Harper's Magazine ("The Battle of Ideas"), to the very realpolitik views of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, to the yammering of strident right-wingers like Roger Noriega, we receive frequent prognoses, plans, or pronunciamientos.

But what is really going on?—apart from the carefully contrived rhetoric of Dade County spinmeisters, Administration hacks, or even on-island government mouthpieces. It's hard to tell, really.

Cellphone use, limited property rights, incentives for farmers, moves toward shaped privatization, increases in salaries, and other initiatives reach our ears and entice but it's very hard to tell what they mean for average Cubans. And, as with most situations of rising expectations, we don’t know if the situation will get out of hand, as viewed by the leadership, and a severe backlash result, or further openings will occur, or what.

Whether Symmes knows it or not is debatable, but the central theme of his very film noire-like article is that Cuban dissidents are few and far between, ill-equipped, ill-resourced, and compose an inchoate group of ne'r-do-wells. Irony of ironies, but they appear in Symmes' descriptions to be much like those who tried to wade ashore at the Bay of Pigs in 1961 and whose remnants, aged but still defiant, now occupy a decrepit training camp in southern Florida.

On the other hand, if there is a sound statement of strategy with regard to how the U.S., el coloso del norte (and, under George W. Bush, el coloso sin una cabeza!), ought to be responding to all this ferment and creeping change in Cuba, it is without mistake that of Senator Dodd's:

Our Cuba policy has been agonizingly static for almost fifty years.

It has neither served America’s interests nor brought democracy to the island.

When Fidel Castro ceded power to his brother Raul, we reached a critical moment.

We all now have a choice -- either we engage the Cuban people and leadership to help shape the landscape for the next fifty years, or we remain on the sidelines to no one's benefit.

I believe we must dramatically alter our posture towards Cuba, by ending the trade embargo, lifting travel restrictions and caps on remittances to the struggling Cuban people, and by engaging in bilateral and multilateral talks on issues of mutual interest.

The only certainty guaranteed by our Cuba policy over the past forty years has been the continuation of Fidel Castro’s grip on power.

Once we embark on this road to reform, I am confident that it will be nearly impossible for the Cuban government and its people to turn back.

And the same will be true for us.

I'll take Dodd's prescriptions even further:

If the U.S. does not change its policy toward Cuba—and change it more or less along the lines Dodd proposes—then regardless of the outcome of the changes now taking place on the island, plus those changes undoubtedly to come, the United States will be on the outside peering in, not on the inside helping to shape change. Indeed, not even on the outside ready to assist change. We will be, as we have so often been under the feckless leadership of Richard Cheney and George W. Bush, out in the cold—with no influence, no weight, and no friends.

If only our presidential election were tomorrow morning!

- Lawrence Wilkerson

Nukes and Cuba On Day One

Sam Sherraden — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:59:00 -0400

One of the very coolest and most informative blogs I check in on a daily basis is ArmsControlWonk.com published by my New America Foundation colleague Jeffrey Lewis.

Both of us were asked by the Better World Campaign to offer comments for its "On Day One" initiative. He talked nukes, and I talked Cuba. . .though I'd also like to talk about Israel/Palestine, Syria, China, Iran, climate change, oil/energy, and nukes. I may fool them and wear different hats and perhaps a moustache to make myself appear differently.

Obama, Clinton Debate How to Change Cuba Policy

Patrick Doherty — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

With Fidel Castro stepping down this weekend (see earlier TAS posts here and here), and after a bit of behind-the-scenes nudging from some of our colleagues, last night CNN and Univision asked Senators Clinton and Obama about how they would handle Cuba if they were president. And it was no brief exchange, Cuba took 9 of the debate's 90 minutes. Check it out:

For the transcript, continue reading or click here.

UNIVISION's JORGE RAMOS: Thank you very much (SPEAKING IN SPANISH).

Thank you so much for being with us, and let me start with a little news. After nearly half a century in office, Fidel Castro resigned as the head of the Cuban government. Ninety miles off the coast of the United States, we might have a new opportunity.

The question for you, Senator Clinton: Would you be willing to sit down with Raul Castro, or whoever leads the Cuban dictatorship when you take office at least just once, to get a measure of the man?

CLINTON: Well, Jorge, I hope we have an opportunity. The people of Cuba deserve to have a democracy. And this gives the Cuban government, under Raul Castro, a chance to change direction from the one that was set for 50 years by his brother.

I'm going to be looking for some of those changes: releasing political prisoner, ending some of the oppressive practices on the press, opening up the economy.

Of course the United States stands ready. And, as president, I would be ready to reach out and work with a new Cuban government, once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change that direction.

I want to bring the region together, our European allies who have influence with Cuba, to try to push for some of those changes, and to make it very clear that, if Cuba moves toward democracy and freedom for its people, the United States will welcome that.

CLINTON: And as president, I would look for opportunities to try to make that happen and to create the momentum that might eventually lead to a presidential visit.

But there has to be evidence that indeed the changes are real; that they are taking place; and that the Cuban people will finally be given an opportunity to have their future determined by themselves.

RAMOS: Very simply, would you meet with him or not, with Raul Castro?

CLINTON: I would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening, because I think it's important that they demonstrate clearly that they are committed to change the direction. Then I think, you know, something like diplomatic encounters and negotiations over specifics could take place.

But we've had this conversation before, Senator Obama and myself, and I believe that we should have full diplomatic engagement where appropriate. But a presidential visit should not be offered and given without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest, and in this case, in the interests of the Cuban people.

BROWN: Senator Obama, just to follow up, you had said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuban, Iran, North Korea, among others, so presumably you would be willing to meet with the new leader of Cuba.

OBAMA: That's correct. Now, keep in mind that the starting point for our policy in Cuba should be the liberty of the Cuban people. And I think we recognize that that liberty has not existed throughout the Castro regime. And we now have an opportunity to potentially change the relationship between the United States and Cuba after over half a century.

I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda, and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time.

But I do think that it's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: One other thing that I've said, as a show of good faith that we're interested in pursuing potentially a new relationship, what I've called for is a loosening of the restrictions on remittances from family members to the people of Cuba, as well as travel restrictions for family members who want to visit their family members in Cuba.

And I think that initiating that change in policy as a start and then suggesting that an agenda get set up is something that could be useful, but I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some of the progress that Senator Clinton was talking about.

BROWN: But that's different from your position back in 2003. You called U.S. policy toward Cuba a miserable failure, and you supported normalizing relations.

BROWN: So you've backtracked now...

OBAMA: I support the eventual normalization. And it's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. I mean, the fact is, is that during my entire lifetime, and Senator Clinton's entire lifetime, you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba.

So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. But that's going to happen in steps. And the first step, as I said, is changing our rules with respect to remittances and with respect to travel.

And then I think it is important for us to have the direct contact, not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally. I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. And this moment, this opportunity when Fidel Castro has finally stepped down, I think, is one that we should try to take advantage of.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Senator Clinton, do you want a quick response?

CLINTON: Well, I agree, absolutely, that we should be willing to have diplomatic negotiations and processes with anyone. I've been a strong advocate of opening up such a diplomatic process with Iran, for a number of years.

Because I think we should look for ways that we can possibly move countries that are adversarial to us, you know, toward the world community. It's in our interests. It's in the interests of the people in countries that, frankly, are oppressed, like Cuba, like Iran.

But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting, without preconditions, with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And it should be part of a process, but I don't think it should be offered in the beginning. Because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of somebody like Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad and others.

CLINTON: And, as President Kennedy said, he wouldn't be afraid to negotiate, but he would expect there to be a lot of preparatory work done, to find out exactly what we would get out of it.

And therefore, I do think we should be eliminating the policy of the Bush administration, which has been very narrowly defined, and frankly against our interests, because we have failed to reach out to countries, we have alienated our friends, and we have emboldened our enemies.

So I would get back to very vigorous diplomacy, and I would use bipartisan diplomacy. I would ask emissaries from both political parties to represent me and our country, because I want to send a very clear message to the rest of the world that the era of unilateralism, preemption and arrogance of the Bush administration is over and we're going to...

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Very briefly and then we're going to move on.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: I think, as I said before, preparation is actually absolutely critical in any meeting. And I think it is absolutely true that either of us would step back from some of the Bush unilateralism that's caused so much damage.

But I do think it is important precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago.

Because the problem is, if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it's important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.

OBAMA: That is the kind of step that I would like to take as president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

Castro Retires: A New America Media Compilation

Patrick Doherty — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

What should the United States do now that Fidel Castro is about to depart from the scene? The New America Foundation's U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative held a major conference call analyzing the significance of the news and was called on by domestic and international media to comment on this historic opportunity.

Here's a selection of our appearances:

Historic Opportunity, by Steven Clemons, The Guardian
Castro's Exit is a Giant Opportunity, by Steven Clemons, The Philadelphia Inquirer
For Cuba Experts, Castro Presents Opportunity for Change, by Mike Nizza, New York Times' 'The Lede'
U.S. Cuba Polcy Could Get New Look, by Richard Wolf, USAToday
Our Failed, Punitive Policy, Anya Landau French, The Washington Post
Fidel Castro's Resignation Gives American Inventors New Hope For Havana, Nightly Business Report
Castro Hints at Younger Face for Cuba, by Carol Williams, L.A. Times
Anti-Embargo Groups Call for Lifting Sanctions, by Pablo Bachelet, Kansas City Star
As Cuba's Power Shifts, So Should U.S. Policy, Editorial, Palm Beach Post
White House Rejects Calls for an End to Embargo, by Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian
US Awaits Its Own Transition to Review Cuba Policy, by Jim Lobe, AntiWar.com
The Cuba Embargo Stays: Bush, by Richard Sisk, New York Daily News
A Broker's Role for Canada, by Tim Harper, Toronto Star

From the Havana Note:
The Cuba Embargo Does Not Give US Leverage -- It Harms American Interests, by Steve Clemons
Some Key Statements on US-Cuba Relations and the News from Fidel Castro, by Steve Clemons
Time to Retire America's Failed Cuba Policy, by Sarah Stephens
Fidel Castro's Advice for Politicians, by Gail Reed
Fidel Castro Not Returning to the Presidency, by Steve Clemons

Planning for a Post-Fidel Cuba

Patrick Doherty — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Today, New America's U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative gathered leading Cuba watchers and scholars to discuss the implications of Fidel Castro's announcement that he will not seek nor will he accept the role of Cuban President and Commander-in-Chief. (On Sunday, Feb. 24, the Cuban Council of State is expected to hand power to Fidel's brother, Raul Castro, ending Fidel's 49-year rule with a constitutional succession.)

An MP3 audio recording of this conference call is available here.

Participants in the call, which I moderated, included:

Rep. Jim McGovern
U.S. Congressman (D-Mass.)
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (ret.)
Co-Chair, U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative
Former chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell
Julia Sweig
Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Peter Kornbluh
Director, Cuba Documentation Project, National Security Archive
Sarah Stephens
Executive Director, Center for Democracy in the Americas
Jake Colvin
Director, USA*Engage, National Foreign Trade Council

Planning for a Post-Fidel Cuba

Patrick Doherty — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Today, the New America Foundation's U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative gathered leading Cuba watchers and scholars to discuss the implications of Fidel Castro's announcement that he will not seek nor will he accept the role of Cuban President and Commander-in-Chief. (On Sunday, Feb. 24, the Cuban Council of State is expected to hand power to Fidel's brother, Raul Castro, ending Fidel's 49-year rule with a constitutional succession.)

An MP3 audio recording of this conference call is available below. Participants in the call, which I moderated, included:

Rep. Jim McGovern
U.S. Congressman (D-Mass.)
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (ret.)
Co-Chair, U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative, New America Foundation
Former chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell
Julia Sweig
Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Peter Kornbluh
Director, Cuba Documentation Project, National Security Archive
Sarah Stephens
Executive Director, Center for Democracy in the Americas
Jake Colvin
Director, USA*Engage, National Foreign Trade Council

TWN: Transitions in Havana and Transitions in Miami

Patrick Doherty — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Steve Clemons, writing at The Washington Note, has this to say about the linkage between Cuba policy and the politics of South Florida:

THE Cold War continues to rage in one last place in the world -- and that is between the United States and Cuba. It makes no sense for a democratic American government to unconstitutionally inhibit the travel of its own citizens to Cuba -- when it has embraced China and Vietnam and is on the way to normalizing relations with North Korea.

One of the protectors of the status quo and a failed American embargo of Cuba is Lincoln Diaz-Balart, one of two Diaz-Balart brothers currently serving as members of the Florida Congressional delegation.

Lincoln and his brother are nephews by former marriage of Fidel Castro -- and any scant investigation of the battle lines in the US-Cuba standoff will show the situation to be something of a nasty, Kentucky-style family spat.

But things are changing. Some of the elders who served on the board or as senior staff of the hawkish Cuban American National Foundation have defected from the pro-embargo Miami cartel against Cuba. Younger generation Cuban-Americans have also departed from the strident position of some of their elders.

And now there is news that Lincoln Diaz-Balart is underperforming in his fundraising and that the popular former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez is gaining some ground in unseating Lincoln, who has too frequently harmed American national interests by not using his influence and networks to change the course of US-Cuba relations rather than promoting a feud that serves only the interests of a small group.

I'm glad to see Raul Martinez putting pressure on him -- and this blog plans to watch this race closely as it may be the first time in a long time that a popular Democrat with more enlightened views on where to take US-Cuba relations might unseat one of the most recalcitrant embargo promoters in Congress.

-- Steve Clemons