Cuba, December 17th: sequences and consequences.

by Rafael Hernández

source cubanow

With the aim of furthering our contribution to the comprehension of the United States-Cuba relationship, the cuban magazine Temas submitted to a select group of researchers on both shores this brief questionnaire, aimed at estimating the challenges of 17D and its possible sequences on the short- and the mid-term. The publication of this series was initiated on Catalejo, Temas’s blog, on January 5, the eve of the 54th anniversary of the severing of diplomatic relations.

Temas: What was the meaning of the new policies between the United States and Cuba? What are the decisive measures adopted by both parties? What forthcoming steps would be key?

Rafael Hernández (Politologist and director of Temas review):The practice of exchanging or liberating prisoners through a bilateral agreement exists ever since the swapping of the 1,200 members of the 2506 Brigade for drugs and baby food (1962). Several thousand former insurgents, clandestine operatives and CIA agents benefited from an amnesty as part of the dialogue undertaken with Carter (1977-79). And many more that were not “political prisoners”, by the way. What is new about December 17th is that, for the first time, the United States and Cuba do not deal with each other from positions of superiority/subordination or confrontation, but as legitimate and equal actors in terms of international law, by agreeing, jointly, on concrete actions. Although there is still noroadmap for normalization (beyond diplomatic relations), the path for drafting it has been opened up.

While this is happening, an eruption of neo-Cubanology has confused the peace pipe with an act of political contrition and with the end (this time around, at last!) of socialism. They pin the cause of the re-establishment not on Washington, but on Havana (“the Castros’ age,” “the approaching end of the alliance with Venezuela”), together with its major consequence: “to open up a transition” (“after the Castros”) in which the United States would be the most reliable actor for both the people and the government.” Fortunately, diverse scholars specialized in those relations are contributing to understanding their true scope.

Temas: The exercise of politics in the United States and in Cuba was conditioned by a permanent confrontation, by the use of coercion by the former and the situation of fortress under siege by the latter. How much will this panorama change after the new relations? What paths should be taken to make them progress; at what paces?

Rafael Hernández:The re-establishment of relations is a great step forward, because it means that diplomacy will play a hitherto unprecedented role. But upgrading the interest sections to the rank of embassies, and standardizing the mechanisms of diplomacy do not by themselves put an end to other resources such as economic pressures, established military and security devices, or political-ideological rivalry. There is much work to be done in all those areas, (and not only between embassies) for dialogue to prevail and above all to overcome the major obstacle, which is not the blockade, but the legacy of mutual distrust.

Obama and Raul lack the time, the political resources and the strategic and economic interests that allowed for the forging of abi-partisan policy towards China and Viet Nam. They must go forward by means of specific agreements that will not require a green light from Congress, particularly travel and commercial and financial transactions licenses. Nevertheless, a viable agenda would include much more. Besides direct mail, telephone and internet communications, there might be exchanges of radio and TV programs; updating the migration accord, shutting down the program to lure Cuban doctors, allowing for the return of Cubanmigrants; agreements on interception of drug trafficking, naval and air security, coordination between the armed forces and the coast guards, control of epidemics, protection of species, hurricane relief, preservation of the shared environment, academic and cultural exchangebetween public institutions. Both presidents have two years ahead of them to go beyond the point of no return, which would amount to building a too-expensive-to-dynamite bridge before they conclude their mandates.

Temas: ¿How would the new policies interact with the intra-hemispheric relations of both countries? What changes might be generated on this scenario with respect to the present-day context?

Rafael Hernández: This is not the hemisphere of the Alliance for Progress, whether for the United States or for the South; communism is no longer “the threat,” and counter-insurgency and the North’s economic assistance are no longer “the solution.” It is more concerned with inequality, poverty, social exclusion, corruption, stability and citizens’ safety (with the military under civilian control), the development of regional and sub-regional integration projects (MERCOSUR, UNASUR, CELAC) and independent global strategies (BRICS, G-20, etc.),and it no longer places all its eggs in the basket of a unilateralist North. In spite of Obama’s call for leaving behind the legacies of “communism and colonialism,” what has been surpassed to this moment is the Cold-War anti-communist phobia of the days when the current governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, would have been labeled as “Marxist” at the service of “extra-hemispheric powers;” meanwhile, those of Brazil, Chile, Argentina would have been questioned because of their commercial preferences vis-à-vis China (“extra-hemispheric” and “communist,” to top it all). Even though there are no other ruling communist parties, and the Cuban political system does not enjoy the sympathy of many governments, this hemisphere is more comfortable for the Island than for the United States. In fact, its presence at the Panama Summit in three months’ time will be precisely the result of that hemispheric gravitation, not of a decision or a concession by the United States. The option of not attending the Summit due to Cuba’s presence would have been the more costly, and this must have weighted on Obama’s decision to place all of his Cuban chips on the move of December 17th.

The United States might take advantage of the Summit not only to present their usual list of demands on human rights and democracy, but also to offer something new, such as respect for Cuban sovereignty and their commitment to cooperate with Raul’s government without giving in to pressures or to provocations by the enemies of peace with the Island.They might propose that Cuba adhere to all the multilateral agreementsthat exist with other countries (drug-trafficking and crime control, hurricane relief, communications, the environment, etc.), and this would create strong intra-hemispheric pressure for Cuba. This new attitude, instead of the fossilized ideological wrangling, would reap more fruit from their recent Cuban sowing, enable Raul to speak more in tune with December 17th and demonstrate before the hemispheric forum their determination to avoid unnecessary confrontations and provocations such as the ones being mounted right now by the enemies of dialogue, including the so-called “Cuban civil society” political groups and their promoters.

Temas: Are the societies and the political cultures on both sides ready for this encounter? What are their comparative advantages? What are their main deficits?

Rafael Hernández:Although Cuba does not concern the United States as the US worries Cubans, when it comes to a meeting of the two, the respective cultures play a key role. There are differences (that predate “the Castros”) between the respective visions on democracy and freedom, not to speak of equality, citizen’s rights, sovereignty and what President Wilson called “creating a safer world for democracy.” Probably not only President Obama, but Barack the human being truly believes in the goodness of “promoting his values” (December 17th) in Cuba and everywhere, because they are universal; and where they are not (Africa, the Middle East, China, Afghanistan, Russia, et al.), there exists a deficit that should be corrected. We Cubans should understand that this has more to do with cultural ethno-centrism than with ideology. If this is about a meeting and coexistence with that northern society, certain virtues would be useful (such as patience, perseverance, prudence), as well as the capacity to discern between the (genuine) imperialist impulse and that ethno-centrism, even if they are both linked.

With respect to democratization and freedoms, anyone could verify that there has not been in the course of the past half century, a more auspicious time as this for a change in Cuban political culture. This process is moving forward. It would be very counter-productive to attempt to accelerate or channel it using the relationship with the United States or with some other foreign power. Although the decompression of relations might favor it, ideological extremism or yokes on either side might cloud it make it an uphill process.

One of the cultural obstacles is the double standard. Although the logic of its China and Viet Nam policyis used to justify December 17th, for the United States, Asians are strange inhabitants of the antipodes, not of small islands “below the United States” that were, until recently, its “possessions.” For the culture of Big Brother, the Chinese government can prevent an organized group from merely approaching Tiananmen Square, regardless of their intention; and the Vietnamese government can arrest its anti-government bloggers without risking the worsening of bilateral relations. In fact, the normality between them includes a bilateral mechanism that has met annually for the past twenty years to consider those differences on human rights and democracy.

However, there are also comparative advantages for the meeting. Cubans are culturally more North Americans than most people in the hemisphere. Northerners can feel less foreign in Havana that in other capitals, not to say safer. They can verify that Cubans do not need so much “help to enter into the XXI century” (Obama, December 17th), rather to have unhindered access to technology. It would be better for both societies to meet without attempting to meddle in each other’s businesses, like neighbors who share the same passion for baseball, Studebakers, the music called Latin Jazz, domestic appliances, hip hop, modernity, films, the sites of common history in New York and Havana, and so many other things.

Tweet