By Wayne S. Smith. He was at the US embassy in Havana from 1958 to 1961 and was chief of mission at the US Interests Section in Havana from 1979 to 1982 (THE GUARDIAN, 01/11/06):
The annual vote in the UN general assembly on the US embargo against Cuba is back this month. Last year’s result saw 182 member states oppose the blockade, with only four – the US, Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau – voting in favour. The embargo, and indeed overall US policy towards the island, have virtually no international support. No wonder: it is a failed approach.The essential elements of the embargo have been in place since 1960. As recently declassified documents confirm, the objective of the policy since the beginning has been to bring about the downfall of the Castro regime, an ambition pursued in vain for 46 years.
Early on, there may have been some logic to US efforts to isolate Cuba and bring down its government – at a time, that is, when Fidel Castro was trying to overthrow the leaders of various other Latin American states and moving into a relationship with the Soviet Union, one that led to the missile crisis in 1962. But all that is now ancient history. Castro has built normal, peaceful diplomatic relations in the region, while any threat posed by the so-called Cuban-Soviet alliance ended with the demise of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago.
And yet the Bush administration’s policy towards Cuba is more hostile than ever. This despite the fact that, immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, Cuba expressed its solidarity with the American people. It subsequently called for dialogue on joint efforts against terrorism. It also signed all 12 UN resolutions against terrorism.
Surely these overtures were worth exploring. But, no, the Bush administration rejected them out of hand and instead began calling for the downfall of the Castro government. As Roger Noriega, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, put it in October 2003: “The president is determined to see the end of the Castro regime, and the dismantling of the apparatus that has kept it in power.”
To bring that about, the administration appointed a Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, which, in May 2004, produced a 500-page action plan for the removal of the Castro government and for what sounded worryingly like the US occupation of Cuba: how to make their trains run on time, how to reorganise their schools, and so on. Shortly thereafter, it even appointed a US “transition coordinator”. As Jose Miguel Insulza, the Chilean secretary general of the Organisation of American States remarked, “But there is no transition – and it isn’t your country.”
The underlying premise of the document was that the regime was on the verge of collapse. Just a few more sanctions and it would all crumble.
That proved wildly optimistic. Two years on, the Cuban economy has a growth rate of at least 8%. New, crucial economic relationships have been forged with Venezuela and China, the price of nickel (now Cuba’s major export) is at record highs, and there are strong signs of the development of a major new oilfield off the north coast.
The Bush administration simply ignored this reality. In a new document issued on July 10 this year, it suggested that its “plan” was working and had produced a “new stage” in Cuba’s transformation. It also put a new objective: to prevent the “succession strategy”, in which Fidel Castro is succeeded by his brother, Raul. This was “totally unacceptable”, according to the Bush administration, which hinted that the Cuban people would not allow it.
But on July 31, it happened. Fidel announced that because of an intestinal operation, he was signing power over to his brother, who would be acting president. In Miami, there were celebrations in the streets, with shouted assurances that this meant the end of the Cuban Revolution. As one celebrant put it: “We’ll all be home within a month. The Cuban people will never accept Raul!”
But accept him they did. The Cuban people took Raul’s promotion in their stride, with calm maturity. They had always expected that if Fidel were for any reason incapacitated, Raul would take over. Now he had. He does not have his brother’s charisma, but is known to be an excellent administrator. The armed forces, which he commands, are without doubt the most efficient and respected institution in the country. Three months on, Raul is running the government effectively.
Seeming to follow Miami’s lead, however, the Bush administration has refused to accept the transition. It refuses to deal with Raul, as it had earlier refused to deal with Fidel. This is especially unfortunate for there is considerable evidence that Raul is more pragmatic than his brother and might be open to some degree of accommodation with Washington. That was something at least worth exploring, but following its usual pattern, the Bush administration simply closed the door.
Bush’s is not only a failed policy, it is one which does considerable harm. The US should want to see Cuba move towards a more open society, yes, with greater respect for the civil rights of its citizens. But given that the US has since 1898 been the principal threat to Cuban sovereignty and independence, any time it is threatening and pressuring the island, the Cuban government will react defensively, urging discipline and unity – which doesn’t encourage internal relaxation and liberalisation.
US policy, then, is actually an impediment to precisely the kind of liberalising changes the US – and its European allies – should wish to see in Cuba. And given the counterproductive nature of US policy, any country that supports that policy in effect works against positive change in Cuba.