Marifeli Perez-Stable

Published in The Miami Herald
November 5, 2009

The Obama administration may be going down a dead end. In an Oct. 13 meeting with Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Obama said: “Tell Raúl that if he doesn’t take steps, I won’t be able to go further.” A few days later the Spanish foreign minister met with Raúl Castro. We don’t know if he delivered the message.

What’s wrong with Obama sending Raúl a message? Nothing, but this one was leaked to El País, Spain’s premier newspaper, so any chance that Havana might have responded vanished into thin air. In any case, the administration shouldn’t give the Cuban government so much power over U.S. policy.

Since the Cold War ended, the Cuban Democracy (1992) and Helms-Burton (1996) acts have conditioned normalization of relations to Havana’s progress on human rights and democratization.

Hanging by a thread

At first blush, the CDA made some sense. After the Soviet collapse, Cuba’s survival hung by a thread, or so many in Washington thought. Helms-Burton is another story. Had it not been for Cuban fighter jets downing two unarmed civilian planes over international waters, killing four people, a watered-down HB or no HB at all might have been the outcome.

Nearly two decades later, the regime sails on. The Bush years brought us thundering rhetoric and a Cuban transition office in the State Department, neither of which led anywhere. In an earlier column, I recommended the Clinton administration’s template as a starting point. But even that effort might have run afoul. In November 1999, Clinton himself said:

“Every time we do something, Castro shoots planes down and kills people illegally or puts people in jail because they say something he doesn’t like.
I almost think he doesn’t want us to lift the embargo because it provides him an excuse for the economic failures of his administration.”

A decade ago a prestigious group of Republicans called on Clinton to convene a bipartisan commission on Cuba. A full-court-press review of U.S. policy hadn’t been done since the 1970s. Clinton passed on their recommendation, so now it’s been 35 years.

Obama’s new beginning won’t lead anywhere either unless an honest, no-holds-barred reassessment happens. The CDA and HB acts have made U.S.
policy hostage to Havana. If Havana doesn’t make a gesture, will the White House simply say “We tried” and move on? Can’t the administration come up with new ways of challenging Havana?

For example, Cuba wants the “five heroes” back, the men convicted and jailed for spying. Why not propose an exchange for American fugitives living in Cuba? Swapping them for the pro-democracy activists still imprisoned from the Black Spring of 2003 is a nonstarter, an indecent suggestion. But the ante can be upped.

If former President Clinton is right that Castro — Fidel for sure, Raúl probably not — thrives on the embargo, doesn’t it behoove the White House to figure out a way not to play his game?

A democratic Cuba is and should be our North Star. Using Clinton’s template would gain Obama time for a thorough review. Meantime, a wholesale licensing of travel for academic, cultural, scientific, business and humanitarian purposes while granting Cubans visas to visit the United States with similar purposes can work in our favor.

The Obama administration should not fall into the trap of believing that time is on its side. Presidents Bush I, Clinton and Bush II all thought that a free Cuba would happen on their watch. What’s needed is a policy that advances U.S. interests without giving Havana a veto. Waiting for a Cuban gesture before doing anything else would do just that.

`A new beginning’

At the Americas Summit last spring, President Obama said: “The United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba. I know there is a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day.”

Maybe the administration can do something that breaks the tired two-step such as sending an emissary to meet with Raúl Castro.

If nothing significant happens soon, the White House will have sadly missed an historic opportunity.

If, however, something is already cooking, let’s hope there are no premature leaks.