"Cuba's Economic Revival"

So, will Cuba's economic reforms have the desired effect? And will it have any effect on US policies towards Cuba?

Inside Story Americas discusses with guests: Peter Kornbluh, the director of the Cuba Documentation Project at the National Security Archive; Philip Brenner, a professor of US foreign policy at American University; and Philip Peters, the vice president of the Lexington Institute think tank.

Miami's Ignored Experts [Updated]

If you watch Spanish-language television and news in Miami, you won't hear a variety of opinions on U.S.-Cuba relations.

This is most apparent when one looks closely at the "experts" that appear in the news reports. One night, after the Obama administration last month moved towards the lifting of Cuban travel and remittance restrictions, two evening television news stations (Telemundo 51 and Univision 23) had already interviewed their Cuba "experts." Interestingly, all of them were from UM's Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies (ICCAS). While one station spoke with research associate Jose Azel [one example], the other had interviewed ICCAS director Jaime Suchlicki and senior fellow Andy Gomez. (Both reports featured no other "expert.") And, they all spoke about how the Obama administration was engaging in "unilateral concessions" to the Cuban government.

Outside of the Spanish media bubble there are plenty of "experts" on the subject of U.S.-Cuba relations, besides the people at UM, with very different views on the matter. Very few have made it on Spanish media, like Phil Peters [video of interview here], and some are entirely ignored. Unfortunately, the local English-speaking news media also does not do well to present these ignored experts.


DANIEL P. ERIKSON

Daniel Erikson was in Miami in February (at the local Books and Books) to present his book "Cuba Wars: Fidel Castro, the United States, and the Next Revolution," but, despite a small mention in the Miami Herald, his book presentation went ignored by the local TV news media, and, of course, the Spanish TV media. Why would the author of a book on U.S.-Cuba relations, which was later nominated as a "book of the year" by Foreward Magazine, be ignored when he is in Miami? Even before the nomination, Erikson's book had received excellent reviews by other foreign policy analysts. Go figure.


REESE ERLICH

One month before Erikson appeared in Miami, Reese Erlich launched his book tour in Miami (also at Books and Books) for "Dateline Havana: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Future of Cuba." While Erlich is not an academic policy analyst, he is a life-long journalist who has received numerous awards and support from other influential journalists for his work.

So far, "Dateline Havana" has been well-received by two foreign policy analysts, Robert Farley of the University of Kentucky and Mavis Anderson of the Latin America Working Group. Having myself read some excerpts from the book at Google Books, "Dateline Havana" looks enlightening, well-researched, and highly-recommended.

You can view video of Erlich's book presentation at Books and Books here (courtesy of C-Span), and read a review and internet discussion with the author here.

Like Erikson, Erlich's appearance in Miami was ignored despite the excellent research he completed in Cuba recently. His book presentation in Miami was filled with interesting points and facts about Cuba, such as Cuba's rank on the Human Development Index, which is collected by the UNDP from various nations worldwide, and the view that change in U.S.-Cuba policy will not come from Washington, but rather "from the grassroots to the House, Senate, and eventually to the White House."

So, which Cuba "expert" shall Miami ignore next? Maybe Julia Sweig.


JULIA SWEIG

If you watched Comedy Central's Colbert Report last night, Sweig was on the show to briefly share some thoughts about U.S.-Cuba relations, and advertised her newest book scheduled to come out next month titled "Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know."

So far, the book is being described by the publisher as "informative, pithy, and lucidly written, it will serve as the best compact reference on Cuba's internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community."

Sweig has written extensively on Cuba, Latin America, and considered "one of DC's finest Latin America policy divas" on the subject. She's also participated in numerous reports on U.S. policy towards Cuba, and it baffles we why she has not been interviewed on local television.

These expert opinions need to be shared and reported more often by the local media, otherwise everyone is just going to repeat what Jose Azel, Jaime Suchlicki, and Andy Gomez are saying. Which is the same political rhetoric that has perpetuated the Cold War mentality for nearly a half-century.

[Update]

I could write a whole lot more about the subject of the local Spanish media (and sometimes English-language media) and how they fail to report on the various expert viewpoints on Cuba, so check the comments for additional thoughts. But I also wanted to highlight something else.

In 1978, UNESCO reaffirmed their commitment toward the "freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." No doubt this principles should also apply to the Cuban government, but its should apply equally (or even more strongly) to the U.S.

In the case of the local television media, and their ignoring of various expert perspectives concerning Cuba, the 1978 resolution reminds of an important right that we should consider:

"Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and is the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated

[. . .]

"Freedom of information requires as an indispensable element the willingness and capacity to employ its privileges without abuse. It requires as a basic discipline the moral obligation to seek the facts without prejudice and to spread knowledge without malicious intent."

"Seeking facts without prejudice" when it comes to reporting about Cuba, is something that the local Spanish media is undoubtedly having trouble with.

Tomorrow at Books and Books

Daniel P. Erikson, author of The Cuba Wars will be appearing at Books and Books in Coral Gables tomorrow, at 6:30pm. The event is co-sponsored by Florida International University's Latin American and Caribbean Center and the Cuban Research Institute.

The book has been well-received by academic experts on Cuba, and I myself found it very informative. Erikson's book is intelligent and prescient. Go see Erikson tomorrow at Books and Books if you can.

Here's excerpts from a book review [PDF]:

"Daniel Erikson opens his book by acknowledging that the U.S.‐Cuban conflict has become so deeply ingrained in the psyches of both nations that making any significant changes in the future will be equivalent to making a train jump off its tracks."

"The 'Next Revolution', as Erikson calls it, will be an organic one in which Cubans will be the central actors and U.S. politicians and lobbyists may be forced to watch from the sidelines. Though this may be a difficult pill for stateside groups to swallow, Erikson implies that they have only themselves to blame, having failed for fifty years to conceive of an effective strategy for dealing with Castro’s Cuba."

Among the many people that Erikson interviewed for his book Marifeli Perez-Stable provided one commentary that I totally agree with. (Other insightful essays from Marifeli Perez-Stable can be found on her website.) Here's an excerpt (pages 134-135):

"Perez-Stable did not foresee immediate change on the horizon, although she predicted that change would come eventually: 'Sooner or later, things in Cuba will start changing, and once that happens, the hard-liners on both sides will just have to run and see how they can keep the polarization going.' But she envisioned a fierce battle to preserve the status quo breaking out in Miami and Havana... 'Miami is moving, and Cuba is as well, except we don't know fully about it yet.' She added,'I think the hard-liners who retain the hard line may find the ground shifting from under them.'"

From what I've been hearing on Radio Mambi, this is already happening. And in Washington, the shift has begun.

But His Head Looks Wierd [Updated]

That was a short coma huh? Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (photo, far right) earlier this week met with Fidel Castro, later telling reporters that both talked for about an hour together and that Fidel was "doing well."

That meeting with Fidel took place on Wednesday, and earlier today the Argentinian government released a photo of that meeting. Some are now saying its been manipulated.

Just last week rumors of Fidel's health reached near hysteria. Local paper Diario Las Americas reported that Fidel Castro was in a coma, Cuba analyst Andy Gomez from ICCAS said that "high sources" from Washington were saying Fidel was "gravely ill," exile leaders in Miami held an emergency meeting on Saturday to prepare for a possible "great change" inside Cuba, and Val Prieto from the Babalu Blog couldn't decide which wine to celebrate with.

This kind of thing seems to occur regularly in Miami, just like it did in 2007. That year the rumors of Fidel Castro's death had also reached similar proportions. Strangely, even before Fidel Castro underwent surgery in 2006, these kind of rumors existed. As far back as 1998, a Cuban exile doctor by the name of Enrique Huertas told Diario Las Americas:

"the health of Cuba's tyrant is smashed, without possible treatment that can adequately resolve his situation... he has an undetermined cancerous problem, but with signs of metastasis, whose effects have been seen in his television appearances in recent days."

Yup, more than a decade ago!

So, Fidel Castro now reappears in a photo after several signs allowed some to suspect the worse, and now they can't believe it. Writers for the Babalu blog agree that the picture looks fake, and Radio Mambi's Ninoska Perez-Castellon believes it too has been manipulated.

According to Perez-Castellon, Fidel Castro may be alive, but the head of Fidel on the picture does not match. She believes that Fidel probably looks far worse, and that the Cuban government most likely "photoshopped" a healthier-looking head on Fidel. Perez-Castellon recalls Fidel's two prior photos (shown above) were "he's skeletal. He's even missing hair in his beard. And now, all of a sudden, hair is covering his ears!"[MP3]

But compare the three pictures above. You can view them closely here, here and here. In my opinion, Fidel Castro looks identical in all of them. Sure his hair looks shorter in some, but (newsflash) hair grows! And Fidel's beard looks the same. So, I'm thinking, is Ninoska Perez-Castellon and the writers at Babalu so biased its affecting their visual perception? Must be. But, they are not alone.

I just watched the 11PM news and Telemundo51 interviewed Jaime Suchlicki, from ICCAS, and he said that Fidel Castro looked "mummified" in the photo. Telemundo also interviewed Andy Gomez, also from ICCAS, and he said that Fidel looks very weak because in the photo he's using President Fernandez de Kirchner to hold himself up. Well, they may be right, or they may be totally wrong.

There's only a few pictures to analyze, and in all of them Fidel looks the same. To suggest anything about his health condition from so little evidence could lead to misinformation.

For example, in 2006, after Fidel Castro transferred power to Raul after undergoing intestinal surgery, Jaime Suchlicki told local news reporters: "I'm more inclined thinking about either that [Fidel is] so deteriorated or that he's dead." You see, Suchlicki was wrong then, and he may be wrong now.

I personally don't have much confidence in the work that comes from the Institute of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS).

So, in conclusion... You can believe that Fidel Castro is in reality a walking zombie whose photos have all been deceptively altered (for who know how long) by the Cuban government. And, that President Fernandez de Kirchner (not to mention all others who have visited Fidel Castro) is lying to the world because she was perhaps bribed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, all of whom are part of an elaborate "political marketing operation" (as local Spanish-language news station AmericaTeVe put it) to simply settle a few tired rumors.

OR... You can believe that Fidel Castro is fine and still recuperating.

(Boy, being a militant against Fidel Castro is exhausting.)

[Update: Along the Malecon blog has the new Fidel photo in high-resolution, and additional background on its delivery to President Fernandez de Kirchner.]

Courage and Leadership

With the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama just a week away, several US-Cuba policy analysts have already made their recommendations to the coming administration. Fortunately, there seems to be a strong agreement among many experts supporting US engagement instead of isolation.

I noticed (through the Havana Journal) that Wayne Smith, Cuba Program director at the Center for International Policy, shared his US-Cuba policy recommendations at Counterpunch last week. He suggested seven steps, most of which would increase people-to-people contacts between the two nations.

This week, Cuba experts Peter Kornbluh (senior analyst at the National Security Archive) and William LeoGrande (dean of the School of Public Affairs at American University) made a strong argument in favor of engagement and dialogue between the two governments.

And also this week, the Center for Democracy in the Americas released a report titled: 9 Ways for US to Talk to Cuba and for Cuba to Talk to US. This report is excellent. It includes nine essays that provide US-Cuba policy recommendations on nine different issues, such as security, migration and academic exchanges. The main mission of the report:

"Cooperation in these fields will give political leaders in both countries the confidence they need to close this fifty-year chasm of mistrust, so we can finally engage in the difficult negotiations that will bring this conflict to an end."

But, in my opinion, behind these policy recommendations lies the instinct to solve our problems humanely between neighbors, which brings me to Key West Mayor Morgan McPherson. I first noticed this story on the Cuba Journal blog, an article originally from the Key West Keynoter, reporting on a proposed diplomatic convoy from Key West to Cuba.

Key West Mayor McPherson wants to arrange a convoy of "city officials, community leaders, and other residents" to initiate US-Cuba diplomatic talks once Barack Obama is in office. "We're in a perfect position to act," says McPherson. According to the story, McPherson had this idea after Cuba was seriously hit by two devastating hurricanes last year.

"We should have been the individuals ready to send them aid," says McPherson, noting that he tried to "get some movement through [President] Bush" but was unsuccessful.

Best of luck to Key West Mayor Morgan McPherson. He's being very courageous, as a politician in South Florida, to take a leadership position in an effort that could bring positive change for many. May President Barack Obama have the same courage to fulfill his promises on US-Cuba policy.

On Freedom

So I was reading through the Miami Herald stories on Cuba the other day, and ran into this one: Rights Group Prods Obama to Lift Cuba Travel Ban. And boy was I surprised to read who the group was.

Freedom House describes itself as "an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world." But, before you go running for the hills, Freedom House does not have the same agenda of Pres. George W. Bush.

I'm sure some of us still remember Bush's 2005 inauguration speech stating that "the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." Then, a few days later, 50 US Marines were killed in a helicopter accident in Iraq, with 2006 and 2007 becoming deadlier and deadlier for US troops.

Freedom House does not advocate a military strategy. Instead, they support "nonviolent civic initiatives." And, despite justified criticism of its funding ties from the US State Department, Freedom House has recently made impressive steps in its independent analysis of freedom in the world.

One impressive report from Freedom House came out in May of last year. It was called Today's American: How Free? According to them, it was "the first time that Freedom House, best known for its annual survey of the state of freedom around the world, has produced a book-length report on an individual country." According to the Washington Times, the report found "significant flaws in the U.S. criminal justice system, counter-terrorism strategies and the treatment of minorities and immigrants."

The chapter on counter-terrorism policies summarizes "that a number of the actions taken by the [Bush] administration in its war on terrorism present genuine threats to the individual rights of American citizens and of foreign citizens caught up in the counter-terrorism net."

The chapter on racial inequality shows "that poverty for blacks remains far higher than for whites and indeed exceeds the rate for most immigrant groups, including groups that have come to America in substantial numbers only recently."

Back to Cuba, Freedom House has continuously reported on the Cuban government's repression of its citizens' political and civil rights (2002-2008 Country Report on Cuba available). They've repeated described Cuba as the "Worst of the Worst" [PDF] when it comes to freedom for its people. And, my criticism would be that Freedom House, unlike other rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, does not make policy recommendations in its reports. But, that may now change.

This past Wednesday, Freedom House called for a reassessment of current US policy towards Cuba. Freedom House's executive director, Jennifer Windsor, states:

"Cuba remains one of the most repressive countries in the world... It is well past time to reassess a policy that impedes the ability of American citizens to freely interact with Cubans on a large scale and thus expose them to unfettered information about the outside world. We call on the incoming administration of Barack Obama to reexamine the embargo and to immediately lift the restrictions on remittances and travel to and from the island."

"While the Bush administration expanded American support for democracy activists in Cuba, U.S. policy would be even more effective if Americans were allowed to engage more freely with Cuban counterparts... Those countries that have moved from dictatorship to democracy in recent decades have done so in large part because of the movement of people and ideas across borders."

These comments from Freedom House also follow a recent report based on nearly 180 interviews of Cubans on the island. The report, called Change in Cuba, found that "Cubans see little prospect for change, and even the prospect for change seems to give them more anxiety than hope. There is widespread fear that political change will bring crime and insecurity to Cuba."

Also, Cubans "are uninformed or misinformed about Cuba's democracy movement. The Catholic Church provides a small space for some cultural and social activities, but respondents did not see the Church stretching beyond this into a civil or political role. Young Cubans, while particularly disillusioned, are usually apathetic. The most common response to government injustice is to complain and conform."

While this Freedom House report on Cuba is an informal investigation of Cuban attitudes (unlike Gallup's 2007 survey of 1000 Cubans from Havana and Santiago) and filled with anecdotal observations, the conclusions are still worth considering.

"Cubans must find ways to initiate and encourage civic engagement by their fellow citizens. Democracy activists and other civil society actors (e.g. artists, musicians, religious groups, youth groups) have created a space, however small, within which to act with relative independence from the state. Encouraging these groups to continue creating space for civic activity and to expand their outreach may help ordinary citizens take the initial step of participating in small-scale, low-risk activity."

The recommendation to lift the US travel ban on Cuba is also based on the premise of "[p]olicies that contribute to the strength of movements of civic mobilization [that] may make the difference in the struggle to replace dictatorship with a democratic order." Those are some of the findings of another recent Freedom House study.

I believe these are very important statements from Freedom House, and should be seriously considered by our political leaders. Embracing our rights of movement and travel opens up so many possibilities that can enhance the lives of not only Cubans, but of ourselves.

If you want to do more to support the right to travel to Cuba, please check out the TakeAction page at the Latin American Working Group, and John McAuliff's blog which includes several goods links and an online petition calling on the Obama adminsitration for "a policy of engagement and diplomacy" with Cuba.

More on The Cuba Wars

Hey everybody! I've just finished watching Daniel P. Erikson talk about his recent book, The Cuba Wars, through the C-Span Archives. Boy, do I love those archives.

Erikson's latest book has gotten great reviews, and even Marc Falcoff, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and "conservative" political analyst, has described the book as "one of the best written" on the subject of US-Cuba relations, "rich in detail" and "enormously fair-minded." Wow. Congrats to Erikson.

Please note that the video I'm talking about is from last November at a Brookings Institution event, but still relevant, worth watching and highly recommended for those who want to know more about US-Cuba relations. Participants included Marc Falcoff and Peter Hakim.

Another participant, Carlos Pascual, Brookings director of foreign policy and the event moderator, also had some great comments on US-Cuba relations which are not to be missed. In general, most of the participants of the event made very good arguments on why US policy towards Cuba should begin directing itself towards engagement, especially in efforts to create new contacts with the people of Cuba, within its social institutions and internal opposition.

Speaking on why this is necessary in the case of the internal opposition, Pascual says: "They need resources, they need contacts, they need support."

Marc Falcoff from AEI also seemed to agree. Falcoff mentioned that US policy limiting remittances to Cubans, which can become a vital source of financial support for some on the island, didn't make much sense. Falcoff had his doubts since 2004 when the restrictions on remittances where being debated. "Those remittances do relieve the situation for a lot of families and also create a situation for the government because it creates a whole class of Cubans who don't owe anything, or as much, to the Cuban government," said Falcoff in 2004.

For Falcoff, receiving money from abroad can help Cuban families become more independent from the government. But, this idea doesn't apply in all cases. At the Brookings event, Falcoff seemed to ponder the idea of cutting off US funding to Cuban dissidents as an act that could give them the necessary legitimacy of independence. Double wow.

The question then arises on how best to help the internal Cuban opposition, and at the same time help them preserve an image of independence from external influences.

The Cuba Wars

With the 50 year mark of the Cuban Revolution approaching (January 1st), I'm taking the time to read what Cuba experts are saying, gather my thoughts about US-Cuba relations, and see in what direction Mambi Watch will go in the new year. I've been busy as well with other things, but I hope to post new material soon.

In the meantime, PRI's The World recently released an audio interview with Daniel P. Erikson, senior associate for U.S. policy and director of Caribbean programs at the Inter-American Dialogue, concerning his new book The Cuba Wars: Fidel Castro, the United States, and the Next Revolution.

According to the summary, Erikson's book is based on "more than a dozen trips to Cuba since 2001 and more than fifty interviews of major players in Washington, Havana, and Miami." I have not read the book yet, but the reviews are enticingly good, and the PRI interview is excellent. Here's some quotes:

"Well, I think that the rationale for the [economic] sanctions [towards Cuba] has changed over time... when the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, then the [US] rhetoric really began to shift much more towards democracy and human rights and trying to bring an end to the Castro government.

"Unfortunately, however, the sanctions have not been particularly effective in trying to hasten some form of political change in Cuba. I think, if anything, they've probably done the opposite. I would argue that isolation from the United States has actually been one of the core political strategies of the Cuban government that has allowed it to stay in power for decades."

[Click here for the PRI interview, and here for a slightly extended online version.]

Must-Read

Pay a visit to Phil Peter's Cuban Triangle blog. He's got great news updates concerning Cuba, and has recently linked to an excellent article he wrote for Real Clear World. It's a must-read.

9 Ways to Improve US-Cuba Relations

Congratulations to the Brookings Institution on their recent report aimed at US policy towards Latin America (even though I disagree on some points), and especially towards Cuba.

Brookings' report for significant change in US-Cuba relations is premised on repeated calls to meet "global challenges" in the Latin Region through "hemispheric partnerships." Furthermore, "Cuba has long been a subject of intense interest in U.S. foreign policy and a stumbling block for U.S. relations with the hemisphere’s other countries, the members of the [Brookings] Commission felt it necessary to address the issue here."

Its a very interesting read throughout, and fully available online [PDF]. The policy recommendations towards Cuba are below (hard-liners prepare yourselves).

- Lift all restrictions on travel to Cuba by Americans. The ability of Americans to travel to Cuba would allow for better understanding, promote small businesses, and provide information to the Cuban people.

- Repeal all aspects of the 'communications embargo' (radio, TV, Internet) and readjust regulations governing trade in low-technology communications equipment. This would encourage the transfer of information and a freer flow of ideas.

- Remove caps and targeting restrictions on remittances. These financial measures would help get resources directly into the hands of ordinary Cubans, empowering them, improving their standard of living, and reducing their dependence on the state.

- Take Cuba off the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism List. This classification is widely deemed to be factually inaccurate. There has been no evidence in the past decade to maintain this classification for Cuba, and top U.S. military leaders have called for the country’s removal from the list.

- Promote knowledge exchange and reconciliation by permitting federal funding of cultural, academic, and sports exchanges. In parallel, U.S. nongovernmental organizations should be encouraged to establish ties with their Cuban counterparts and enhance grassroots dialogue.

- Provide assistance to the Cuban people in recovering from natural and human-made disasters. It would also allow the licensing of construction and other goods needed to support postdisaster recovery efforts.

- Encourage enhanced official contact and cooperation between U.S. and Cuban diplomats and governments. The U.S. government should propose a twelve-month period of intense dialogue, targeted at the exchange of defense attachés and the appointment of ambassadors. Military-military and civilian-military contacts should be fostered. Respectful and cordial relations would be resumed by allowing the Cuban Interests Section in Washington access to U.S. policymakers and expect reciprocity in Havana.

[I can hear Chris Simmons' head spinning in his office right now.]

- End opposition to the reengagement of the international community with Cuba in regional and global economic and political organizations. Cuba should be allowed to participate in relevant seminars, and the international financial institutions should be allowed to conduct fact-finding missions in Cuba.

- Work with the members of the European Union and other countries to create a multilateral fund for civil society that will train potential entrepreneurs in management and innovation. Providing capital to establish small businesses that improve the livelihoods of large segments of the population could increase the demand from within Cuba for expanded economic freedoms
and opportunities for advancement.


Whew! I recommend the full report [PDF]. The US-Cuba policy recommendations begin on Page 28.

[Video Presentation available, courtesy of C-Span.]

I'm Back!

Well, let's get the ball rolling again.

Honestly, I don't know if I will be able to post as often as I would like, but I feel the need to write about certain events that have occurred recently concerning US-Cuba relations, and would finally like to get those thoughts out. In which case, this blog can again serve some purpose. (I'm telling you, it just pulls you back in.)

It's been about 5 months since I last posted, so let's quickly review some missed events.

Last March I highlighted some prognostications made by two Cuba experts, Phil Peters (from the Lexington Institute) and Andy Gomez (from the Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies), basically believing that Cuban President Raul Castro would soon make some economic changes.

Peters believed that the Cuban government had given some indication for reforms, and thought that those reforms would come "within a year." And, Raul Castro made those changes a lot faster than anticipated. Peters made these comments while interviewed on the Spanish-language show Maria Elvira Live last September (watch the interview on YouTube, courtesy of Harmonious Howl). Maria Elvira was skeptical of Raul Castro making any economic reforms, but publicly invited Phil Peters to come back a year later if those changes had occurred.

Maria Elvira, its time to schedule Peters back on the show for next month.

Andy Gomez from ICCAS made similar comments in a PBS interview more than a year ago, giving Raul Castro six months to a year to make "minimal economic reforms." Gomez stated in the interview that he feared a "large migration out of Cuba" if Raul didn't make those changes. Gomez happened to be partially right. Raul Castro made minimal reforms, but there is still a large number of Cuban immigrants coming to the US illegally. But, not at the dire level Gomez was fearing.

Furthermore, there are no signs of a significant internal instability in Cuba (a scenario the US Defense Intelligence Agency was keeping its eye on for "six or seven months" starting last February). Especially, one that would immediately threaten the power of the Cuban government. And, despite the public denouncements of continued repression against the internal Cuban opposition (which should be a great cause of concern to defenders of human rights), a general state of stability, nevertheless, remains around the island.

In the following posts I will return to some past moments (such as the Chris Simmons controversy), especially since I believe more commentary and facts went ignored, but I'm also happy to again contribute to the diversity of opinions being made in the blogosphere concerning the case of US-Cuba relations.

Thanks to all who have linked to this blog. I am humbled and honored.

Mambi Watch (Dec. 2006 - Mar. 2008)

"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."

- Martin Luther King Jr., Beyond Vietnam speech, 1967.


"As applied to this case, an empathetic approach would begin with the assumption that neither the United States nor Cuba holds the balance of virtue, and that the aims of both countries deserve to be accorded respect. It requires careful listening to both sides, devoid of the temptation to rush to judgment... Were U.S. officials to develop a degree of empathy for the Cubans, they would need to listen openly to what Cubans say rather than to presume they know best... That is, they would need to end the embargo and to relinquish Guantanamo."

- James G. Blight and Philip Brenner, Sad and Luminous Days, 2002.

Last Words

Finally.

Last post I forgot to include the excellent work of the Center for International Policy through their Cuba Program, and their recommendations for US-Cuba cooperation in drug interdiction. This and other cooperative efforts are found in the recent Melanie Ziegler book, "US-Cuban Cooperation Past, Present and Future."

Anyway, I will be keeping my eye on developments in Cuba and related US policy. There's always something happening. I hope to return in a year to review the developments and prognostications made by US-Cuba observers, namely four of them.

• Recently, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, warned the Armed Services Committee that internal Cuban instability "is something we need to watch over the next six or seven months."

• Last July, Andy Gomez, senior fellow at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, said in a PBS interview: "I say that Raul [Castro]-like many of my colleagues that watch Cuba on a regular basis-Raul's in charge of the day to day operations. Raul's got six months to a year to bring about some positive change. I'm not talking political reform. Minimal economic reforms. If he doesn't, then I dare to say, that you can have a large migration out of Cuba." Gomez predicts a worst case scenario of half a million migrants.

• Last September, Phil Peters from the Lexington Institute was interviewed on the Maria Elvira Live! show. [Watch the interview here.] He said: "I predict... there's no guarantees, no proof, but the sensation I now have is that there are many things being done [in Cuba] to prepare for an economic change, that within a year we will see initial steps [toward change]. Regardless if Fidel remains alive or not."

• And then, there's a very dire prediction made by a Cuban historian (hint) who over the phone, last year, told me: "in two years... the blood is gonna flow" in Cuba. Obviously a militant.

So, I look forward to returning. In the meantime, keep updated with the blog list on the side, especially with the Cuban Triangle Blog, and best wishes to all.

Solutions

It is my personal belief that a peaceful process of normalization lies ahead between Cuba and the US, and that others also share this view. Throughout my readings of current and past US policy recommendations, it seems that there is strong and growing support for this goal. And, there are various other indicators (scientific, historical, political) that have led me to this assumption. I have great faith in international institutions and their universal principles in finding solutions to future global problems, just as many others do.

Throughout my research for Mambi Watch I have found that many political analysts on Cuba have worked together in finding possible solutions to the US-Cuba conflict. Most of these recommendations are aimed at the US, and I think that is a good start. To point the finger elsewhere is to ignore a major factor in this asymmetric bi-lateral relationship.

Below are US policy recommendations that I feel are the best road maps to building trust between Cuba and the US, and leading both toward normal relations. They are the recommendations of political analysts that have been observing Cuba and US policy towards Cuba for a long time:

- US-Cuban Relations in the 21st Century: A Follow-On Report (Task Force Report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, 2001)

- A Road Map for Restructuring US Relations with Cuba (The Atlantic Council of the United States, 2007)

The Task Force Report by the Council on Foreign Relations is very thorough in providing a bi-partisan framework for future US policy, and the Atlantic Council report is a summary of similar recommendations, including some important additional notes. There are also two books that I feel contribute immensely to repairing US-Cuba relations:

- Sad and Luminous Days: Cuba's Struggle with the Superpowers After the Missile Crisis by James G. Blight and Philip Brenner, 2002.

- US-Cuban Cooperation, Past, Present and Future by Melanie M. Ziegler, 2007.

The Blight and Brenner book provides an excellent mental framework for future US policy towards Cuba (and other nations). According to their approach of realistic empathy:

"Were U.S. officials and U.S. advocacy groups to adopt an empathetic approach to Cuba, three changes would be necessary. They would need to: (1) no longer assume the worst about Cuba; (2) acknowledge the legitimacy of Cuban fears; and (3) renounce the Platt Amendment."

Ziegler's book provides the historical lessons from "confidence building measures" (CBMs) between Cuba and the US, and argues:

"At the very least, CBMs offer a new pathway for U.S.-Cuba relations that would be an alternative to the tired politics of the past. The U.S. policy of undermining Castro with the U.S. embargo has punished both countries for over forty years, and the unofficial policy of waiting for the biological solution is likewise flawed."

"Working to build confidence between the two countries serves the long-term interests of both. When the inevitable transition comes, an established pattern of cooperation will make it easier to re-establish healthier diplomatic ties between the United States and post-Fidel Castro Cuba."

All sources above do not demand that the US embargo be lifted unilaterally. But, the two books above disagree with the hard-line position that the embargo be used as a "bargaining chip" in future negotiations. The US embargo symbolizes one of the measures used to threaten Cuban sovereignty with, and it has the potential to derail any future efforts to build trust between the two nations. Nevertheless, demands for its unilateral termination may also be difficult to achieve, and thus a gradual process of termination may be best, perhaps within a time-table. Since this process may be more art than science, I believe an international body like the OAS or UN can better handle bi-lateral promises of ending the embargo, with a separate time-table for the release of Cuban political dissidents arrested in the crackdown of 2003. In fact, RAND Cuba analyst Edward Gonzalez proposed something similar in 1991:

"An inter-American approach has several advantages. It removes the emotionally charged issue of US-Cuban relations, deprives Castro of the opportunity to rally the Cuban population against the imperious Yanquis, and leaves the Cuban leader further isolated and without recourse to the world community should he choose to defy Latin American pressures for democratization."[*]

But, instead of "democratization," I feel the release of the remaining 2003 political prisoners (within a fixed time-table) is just. External demands for democracy upon any nation (even by international bodies) can still be perceived as threats to sovereignty, and can have negative impacts. Low-level diplomacy is best for encouraging a democratic process.

The policy recommendations above are very promising in re-establishing a climate of mutual respect between Cuba and the US, and changing the threatening asymmetrical relationship that exists. Still, the road map to US-Cuba normalization is long and may include unforeseen obstacles, such as "spoilers" like armed groups on both sides. In addition, the process of Cuban reconciliation can also become a long process. But, even drastic examples like Rwanda, can provide lessons on the need for dialogue, reflection and forgiveness. In this case, there are two possible frameworks available:

- Cuban National Reconciliation: Task Force on Memory, Truth and Justice.

- Varela Project's National Dialogue.

The Task Force on Memory, Truth and Justice outlines several historical events that require attention and deep reflection. Still, if the democratic processes in Cuba is slow, strong feelings may linger many years ahead, such as in Rwanda. And, perhaps the Cuban government may take actions to delay a potential democratic transition, such as in Zimbabwe.

The road ahead only becomes clearer if one makes efforts to achieve their desires. In which case, I am hopeful for a peaceful transition to normal US-Cuba relations.

[*] "The Beginning of the End for Castro?" by Edward Gonzalez, in "Cuba in the Nineties: A Special Report" by the Cuba Roundtable of Freedom House, 1991.

Comments by John McAuliff

[Below are excellent comments by John McAuliff, executive director of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, from a recent Brookings conference on Cuba. (Unedited transcript PDF)]

When Americans go to Cuba, they see a complex reality, not the ideological hero of the left or the ideological villain of the right. They meet Cubans who have all kinds of views and are prepared to talk about those views. They begin to recognize the role of nationalism and the respect for sovereignty in the dynamic. This is not a history that begins in '59; it's a history that begins in the 19th Century or the 18th Century and certainly was a major factor in the development of Cuban self-awareness throughout the 20th Century. It is not the same country as portrayed by exiles who have their own agenda.

Now, I'm Irish-American. I portrayed the Brits' role in Northern Ireland to equal one-sidedness, as I hear Cuba now described today, but that's not the reality and that's not what Americans need to be knowing if they're trying to determine their country's policies.

It's also totally inconsistent for [the US] to have this policy towards [no] other country in the world. No other country suffers from this travel restriction, whether it is a country that [has] virtually the same political system, [or] legal system -- [such as] China or Vietnam. [T]he U.S. is a leading source of tourists to Vietnam today aside from China, which is a next door neighbor. And Vietnam's political system is not so different than Cuba's. We don't object in an organized fashion to the Vietnamese party or the state, [and] that doesn't inhibit our tourists at all. There are other countries that are far worse that you can go to [such as] North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran. Also, our limits on travel... give attention to a special interest group. As intense as its feelings are, it's a tiny percentage of the American population. It's even now a minority of it's own population. It does not reflect two-thirds of Americans who think we should have normal relations with Cuba and believe there should no longer be travel restrictions, nor does it, as I said, reflect the 40 percent that would travel there on vacation, nor the 55 percent of Cuban-Americans that think all restrictions should be ended, not just the revenue restrictions.

According to the [latest] GAO report [WP article], 120,000 Americans every year go to Cuba through third countries without any license. A lot of those are Cuban-Americans, but a lot of them aren't. The Cuban figures have about 40,000 non-Cuban American Americans traveling there and it cannot be controlled.

Finally, and I'm still just talking about the United States, the ending of travel restrictions can restore our national reputation faster than anything else. Our policy towards Cuba is as damaging as our war in Iraq. We're considered an arrogant bully ["greatest threat" (PDF)] by much of the hemisphere and much of the world. They think we're obsessed. It's an echo of the Monroe Doctrine, the Platt Amendment, the concept of the Caribbean as a U.S. lake. [O]ther countries share our goals, but they think we [use] silly and counterproductive means; that is, they'd like to see a Cuba more democratic [with] greater respect for human rights, but they think engagement leads to change, [and] isolation doesn't.

The "Un-Fidel"?

Just finished watching Brian Latell, senior research associate at UM's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS), on C-SPAN at a Heritage Foundation event (MP3 of speech included).

Those familiar with Latell's latest book (considered to include one of the first biographies of Raul Castro) will not be surprised that he spoke mainly about Cuba's new president: Raul Castro. He said that Raul was "the Un-Fidel," and "more flexible... more pragmatic," and open to "structural and conceptual changes" inside Cuba. But, Latell also warned the audience at the Heritage Foundation (which included former US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega and Frank Calzon from the Center for a Free Cuba) that Raul Castro is "playing with fire" with respect to open debate on the island and raising expectations. He sees unfulfilled promises in the short-term having unpredictable consequences, and therefore there's "no telling where Cuba will be [one] or two years from now."


THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

I also noticed that Brookings has a full transcript of an event they held early last month called Cuba: Opportunities and Challenges. The event included several Cuba experts in four different panels. I finished reading the transcript of the first panel, and so far it provides an informative exchange of opinions.

Here's an excerpt from Jaime Suchlicki, director of ICCAS, talking about why we should keep the US embargo, until the Cuban government makes the first move:

"So, change in the policy now without a significant opportunity for change in Cuba, without a significant and irreversible quid pro quo from the Cuban government, would be a denial of 40 years of American foreign policy [and] would send a message to other [governments] in Latin America that we are willing to support a military government in Cuba, that we will be supporting a dictatorship by the succession, and therefore we're willing to start again."

On the same panel, Vicki Huddleston, former Deputy and Coordinator of the State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Cuban Affairs from 1989-1993 and Principal Officer at the United States Interest Section in Havana from 1999-2002, responds to Suchlicki in the Q&A session citing a different Cuba policy during the 90s:

"More [people] were coming into Cuba, more care packages were coming into Cuba, and more families were able to help their loved ones. And what did that mean? That meant the Cuban people were better off. And what does it mean when the Cuban people are better off? They have greater independence."

"It's not a concession to let people travel to see their families. It's not a concession to get people enough food so they don't want to risk a trip across the Straits. These are the things that empower people, and these are the things that we saw did make a difference in Cuba, and it did lead to [14,000] people signing a petition."

The Brookings Conference

This past Wednesday, the Brookings Institution hosted a conference about Cuba called "Cuba 2008: Opportunities and Challenges." So far, I haven't found any reports or summaries of the event, except from the US-financed Radio Martí. The report by Radio Martí on this event is very short and leaves one with little information on this day-long, multi-panel conference. Once an official report is released I will make sure to provide a link.

According to the Radio Martí report (in Spanish), "despite there being divergent opinions" among the twenty panelists involved (who come from various backgrounds), "the majority agreed that the final goal should be that democracy in Cuba be decided by Cubans on the island."

The day-long conference was made up of four panels, each discussing different topics about Cuba at different scheduled times throughout the day. The panelists ranged from Jaime Suchlicki, director of UM's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS, which receives some funding from the US government), to John McAuliff, executive director of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development.

Radio Martí does mention one point where "some experts" did have "divergent opinions," such as whether the democratic transition in Cuba will be a long process or a short one.

Radio Martí quotes Phil Peters saying that while public debates are taking place on the island, it is still not known if this will lead to significant democratic changes. Peters also tells Radio Martí that the opposition in Cuba have strong ideas in favor of democracy, but that we must also consider if Raul of Fidel remain in charge before making a judgment. As a result, Peters sees no political changes "on the horizon" in Cuba.

Radio Martí then quotes Andy Gomez, another researcher from UM's ICCAS who participated in the Brookings conference, saying: "Myself, as a Cuban, born in Cuba, the first thing I want is democracy tomorrow." Gomez believes that "we" (the US) need to continue our support of Cuban civil society and help "sustain it and maintain it."

Gomez has gone on record to say that the US "should've probably lifted the embargo when the Soviet Union fell apart, and let everything go in, particularly people with new ideas, and give people the opportunity, those in Cuba, to hear how the rest of the world was going on." But, Gomez now supports the US embargo as potential political leverage in demanding "at least three conditions" from the Cuban government: "Respect for human rights, the release of all political prisoners, and give the Cuban people, within the first 18 months to two years, the opportunity to choose who they want as their next leader." Gomez has also stated that once Raul Castro is seen as the definitive new leader of Cuba "[he's] got six months to a year to bring about some positive change. I'm not talking political reform. [Rather] Minimal economic reforms. If he doesn't, then I dare to say, that you can have a large migration out of Cuba."

Among the other panelists were political analysts who oppose the US embargo like Vicki Huddleston, Julia Sweig, Carmelo Mesa-Lago, Riordan Roett and others.

[Photo above of Havana]

More Reactions

From International Herald Tribune:

"Our policy really is one of utter sterility," said Wayne Smith, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a onetime chief of mission at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. "We warn the Cubans not to go for transition but it has already happened, and short of some kind of massive military action, which we're in no position to take, there's nothing that we can do."

John Kavulich, senior policy adviser at the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, said the administration demands would most likely be nonstarters. He said the technology and educational opportunities Bush offered are being provided to Cuba by Venezuela and China.

Bush has remained largely silent, [Phil] Peters said, while Raúl Castro consolidated his control over Cuban institutions by establishing his own relationships with world leaders and opening dialogue with the Cuban people.

Meanwhile, the doomsday scenarios predicted for Cuba once Fidel Castro left power - a violent uprising by dissidents and an exodus of Cuban refugees - never materialized. "The administration realized they had missed the boat," Peters said. "Succession has already happened."

From Associated Press(Will Weissert):

"I really hoped for something more," said dissident economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe. "Change in Cuba will never be radical and happen overnight like President Bush said."

He said he would like the U.S. embargo loosened to let Cuban-Americans travel more freely to the island and suggested it shouldn't rule out talks with Raul Castro, who has shown signs of being open to some economic reforms.

"The United States negotiated with North Korea and the results were something positive. I don't see why they can't negotiate with Cuba."

But another leading dissident, Martha Beatriz Roque, said she was pleased that Bush said Cubans themselves must bring about change. "There's no intention to invade Cuba," she said. "That's important, because the Cuban government wants to make us believe there is."

From Associated Press (Ben Feller):

"The president, in his commendable desire to make Cuba free, has unwittingly made it more likely that both Raul and Fidel will celebrate the revolution's 50th anniversary in January 2009," [Vicky] Huddleston said. "And Fidel — aging and infirm — will probably be around to celebrate having outmaneuvered two Bush administrations and 10 American presidents."

From UK Member of Parliament Colin Burgon:

"The ignorance of international law of the current US President is very well known. However, this latest statement on the internal affairs of a Cuba is tantamount to calling for a coup against a sovereign state. The UN position on US interference in Cuba is crystal clear in its condemnation, as is that of the UK government, or so we are told. It is time for our government to state publicly that it cannot be acceptable for the US to dictate affairs in other countries and to remind our special friend of the UN Charter. The arrogance of the US is both worrying and lamentable."

From Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque:

"You will never force us to our knees," Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque said in response to Bush's speech, which came 15 months after ailing leader Fidel Castro handed over power to his brother.

Perez said that was an "invitation to violence" by Bush. "Cuba categorically rejects the stimulation of violence and the invocation of the use of force," he said at a news conference.

On the Political Front (Part 1)

The Center for International Policy (CIP), and other co-sponsors, yesterday held a conference on US/Cuba relations. The meeting was titled: "Imperatives for a New Cuba Policy." Among the guests yesterday were well-known opponents of current US policy towards Cuba: Wayne Smith, Joe Garcia, Phil Peters, Alfredo Duran, Robert Muse, and others.

A summary of the event should be released soon, and will be linked and reviewed here, but the CIP today offers us a glimpse. It's not too optimistic it seems. Robert Muse, lawyer specializing on US/Cuba laws and long-time opponent of US policy, puts it bluntly:

"PAC contributions have ensured that Congress is now at stalemate over Cuba policy... Therefore, if relations are ever to be normalized between the United States and Cuba, the lead must come from a future American president. By reverting to the Clinton era policy of relaxation of specific elements of the embargo in response to positive developments in Cuba – for example economic reforms – he or she will have taken the first confidence-building steps toward a normalization of relations with Cuba. If such leadership is demonstrated by a future White House, Congress may be expected to ratify its results. The alternative is permanent estrangement between the U.S. and Cuba, regardless of who governs the latter."

US-CUBA DEMOCRACY PAC

The PAC contributions that Muse speaks of is most likely a reference to the US-Cuba Democracy PAC (USCD PAC), which recently celebrated their defeat of important amendments presented by long-time US embargo opponents in the House. The recent USCD PAC newsletter called it a "historic victory." Founded in 2003 (as a response to relaxed restrictions on agricultural trade with Cuba in 2000), the USCD PAC has progressively grown in wealth and influence on Capitol Hill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the contributions for the USCD PAC since 2004 has steadily risen from $580,245, to $828,204 in 2006. A recent article in The Hill by Ian Swanson, described the further successes of this "relatively small special interest group."

Swanson's article focuses on how freshman Democrats in the House recently voted on an amendment by long-time US embargo opponent Rep. Charles Rangel. The amendment was aimed "to remove certain banking restrictions related to Cuba's payment for agricultural purchases from U.S. producers." It failed with a vote of 182 versus 245. Swanson reports: "Fifty-two of the 66 Democrats who voted against Rangel’s amendment have received one or more contributions from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC since the beginning of the 2007-2008 cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings... [USCD PAC] has given $56,000 to 22 Democratic freshmen this year, and 17 of those freshmen voted against Rangel’s amendment."

While those numbers average to approximately $2,500 for every Democratic freshman, there are exceptions in general contributions. Swanson points to Rep. James Clyburn from South Carolina who received $10,000 from USCD PAC and voted against the Rangel amendment, but "who has previously voted to lift the Cuban trade embargo" at other times. Back in 2001, Clyburn seemed to be very optimistic about relaxed agricultural trade with Cuba publicly stating:

"South Carolina should take this time to prepare for what I hope will finally be the opening of a new market for our State's farmers and pharmaceutical companies. This State is ideally situated for trading with Cuba, because products produced here are within a day's travel to the island that is just 90 miles off the coast of Florida."

Records from the 2006 election cycle show that USCD PAC rarely gives $10,000 contributions to House Reps; only two received $10,000, one received $9,000, and four received $8,000 from a total of 166 candidate contributions.

Swanson quotes Rep. Charles Rangel saying he "was blindsided." But, one should not blame USCD PAC alone for the defeat. There are Democrats inside who have "been very active this year on Cuba-related issues."

[Part 2]

Good or Bad? (Part 1)

Back in February, I wrote about an article that appeared in Foreign Policy Magazine. The article [PDF] was a debate about Cuba and Fidel Castro, matching Carlos Alberto Montaner versus Ignacio Ramonet.

Ignacio Ramonet writes for Le Monde diplomatique, a monthly news magazine that covers international affairs, and Carlos Alberto Montaner is a world-syndicated columnist that covers international issues, with a focus on the Latin region.

In my February post, I wrote how this debate was "a stalemate between opposing views, reflecting how in general there are little attempts to bridge the political gap." I also mentioned how the opposing sides provided "no convincing argument" in my opinion. (Babalu blog obviously saw it very differently.) Looking at the article again, I see Ramonet's argument MORE convincing than Montaner's.

One main disagreement I have with Montaner (among others) is his description of how "[n]o one is more anxious to abandon egalitarian collectivism than the legion of engineers, doctors, technicians, and teachers forced to live without the slightest hope of betterment." Egalitarian collectivism? According to past polls and other sources about the attitudes of Cubans, there are many indications that the majority of Cubans still favor revolutionary principles (such as equality over freedom), especially the universal educational and health institutions that are highly criticized in Miami, especially by hard-liners. Montaner's confident belief that educated Cubans are "anxious to abandon" a construct that is viewed very favorably in Cuba, seems to be based more on desire than fact. On the other hand, Ramonet presents a more realistic view of what past research indicates.

Anyway, the big question that Foreign Policy Magazine asked in February (Was Fidel Castro Good for Cuba?) was a question incorporated in an international poll conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

In their report, released last July (full PDF report), concerning various attitudes in the developing world, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found time to incorporate two questions concerning Cuba and Fidel Castro while doing surveys in South America. The results come from surveys of about 800, over-18-year old adults each from Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela.

[Part 2]