How Open Is the Opening to Cuba? By Bruce L. R. Smith

     President Obama’s supporters congratulate him for “going big” in his opening to Cuba, restoring full diplomatic relations and proclaiming his intention to reverse a half century of failed policies.  At first look, this was indeed a bold move, not a mere loosening of a travel restriction (as Obama did when he took office in 2009). But it is a reopening of embassies, releasing of political prisoners, and paving the way for much broader economic relations in telecommunications for a start– and this all done with the help and the blessing of the Pope.  Apparently, eighteen months of secret negotiations were required.       Upon closer examination, there is less here than meets the eye.  The gains are more limited and what has actually changed is not quite what was proclaimed.  Consider, first the stated rationale for Cuba’s interest in the deal.  Raoul Castro has declared that Cuba is interested in a revival and rescue of its morbid economy, but has no intention whatsoever of changing Cuba’s one-party government.  The U.S. for its part has declared that the reopening of embassies requires that American diplomats have full rights to move about the country and speak with anybody they choose, not to be hemmed in and nor restricted in their movements as is currently the case.  This does not augur too well for a meeting of the minds anytime soon.  The first meeting of high-level officials from the two sides, which took place yesterday, January 22, in Havana, unsurprisingly it produced no quick resolution of this issue or other items discussed.
     The Cubans demanded, as conditions for further progress, the immediate lifting of the U.S. embargo against Cuba and the removal of their country from the State Department’s list of countries engaged in terrorism.   The first condition of course cannot be met by unilateral action, but requires action by Congress.  The claimed diplomatic advantage of the Cuban opening within the hemisphere is thus easily negated.  Those who are reflexively anti-American can and surely will declare that Obama’s opening to Cuba is phony because it is meaningless unless accompanied by the immediate lifting of the embargo.  Gaining Congressional support was not made easier by the fact that Obama did not include any Republicans in his secret negotiations, (he did phone Senator Menendez to “inform” him of the pending action but at the eleventh hour and did not even pretend to solicit advice from the Senator or any other Congressional Republican).  
     On the matter of Cuba’s removal from the terror list, the President, for all of the proposed boldness of his move, took no position, suggesting that he would seek a “recommendation” from the State Department and act accordingly.  Removal from the terror list is critically important from Cuba’s point of view because U.S. banks are chary of dealing with any country or bank that has even the remotest connection to terrorist financing.  
     The lifting of the embargo is a very complicated matter.  Before Congress can even consider lifting the embargo, a whole host of statutory requirements must be met relating to human rights, fulfillment of various claims, changes in political representation, plus additional other matters.  On top of this, there is a backlog of unresolved disputes relating to the seizure of properties and assets by Cuba from American investors following Fidel Castro’s seizure of power from the corrupt ancient regime of Fulgencio Batista.  Experience suggests that such disputes usually take years to resolve after protracted litigation and or arbitration.  So if you had any idea of rushing down to your neighborhood tobacco store for Cuban cigars or calling your travel agent for a quick flight to Havana, you can forget about it.  There is a way you can sign up for one of the twelve or so categories of cultural and educational exchange, a process which has been made easier to navigate and the categories have been broadened to expand travel by Americans.  But these are incremental gains and will mostly mean only a modest increase in tourism.
     Another long-term issue likely to emerge in future negotiations is the question of the American Gitmo base.  Some Americans believe that the base has no strategic significance anymore, but this is by no means a universal view and raising the issue would certainly complicate negotiations with the Cubans and inflame political passions here at home.
     All of this suggests that it will be difficult for American firms to operate freely in Cuba anytime soon and that diplomatic relations will move forward only slowly and with many bumps along the road.  There is also a danger that, if official relations are complicated and progress is slow, the shadow network of illicit money and criminal activity which bedeviled Cuban-American relations in the old days will return with a vengeance.  Collaboration between law enforcement might be a desirable first step in building toward a secure long-term diplomatic opening with Cuba.   

***

Bruce L.R. Smith is a Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. Professor Smith made his career principally at Columbia University in New York City and at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D. C. He lives in Washington, D. C. with his wife Elise, a health attorney and association executive representing and advising skilled nursing facilities. Mr. Bruce L. R. Smith has B.A. & M.A. from The University of Minnesota and a Ph.D from Harvard University.

I’m Feeling Tortured by All This Torture Talk... An Op-Ed by Bruce L. R. Smith

     You can’t turn around these days without running into somebody’s opinion about torture.  Not that this is not a very serious subject or to deny anybody’s right to an opinion, but I’d like to register my own belief that it’s time to blow the whistle on the discussion.  Both the attackers and the defenders are wearing me down.  Yes, some serious missteps and indefensible practices took place and, yes, it’s fruitful at times to acknowledge one’s sins.  But several questions are in order: for one, what is the statute of limitations on public confessions of sin?  Is it useful to continue to deplore and engage in hand-wringing for American atrocities committed in WWII, lynchings in the South, water -boarding by US troops in the Spanish-American War, public hangings in the Wild West, and other shameful episodes in the nation’s past?  One has to weigh the good that can come from public disclosures against the harm that can be done.  What is the good that could come from the Senate torture report?  Not much.  From public shame, Senator Feinstein and others have argued, there is the potential that future behavior might be influenced for the better.  The CIA actions after 9/11, however, have already been thoroughly aired, investigated, and commented upon, and whatever deterrent effect there is likely to be has already been recorded.

      On the other side what is the harm that can come from reopening the old wounds and prolonging the discussion?  There is very considerable evidence that serious harm will result.  Relationships with foreign governments and their security services are bound to be affected, and for the worse.  Americans have no discipline and political changes can result in new Administrations disclosing damaging information about past Administrations in order to show themselves in a momentarily favorable light and/or to discredit their political opponents.  Moreover, if you are not going to prosecute officials, and the Justice Department and the Obama Administration, had already decided that CIA officers were not going to be prosecuted, is it fair to continue to pillory them in the media?  There had been a tradition that had survived even the nasty politics of  the recent past of a nonpartisan or bipartisan tradition in national security matters and particularly in the most sensitive aspects of intelligence work.  Putting out a report done by one side of the political spectrum to deplore the mistakes of a previous Administration of the opposite party goes a long way toward undermining that tradition.  The Obama Administration’s mild protests on the timing of the report’s release, while endorsing the release, and the report’s substance and tone, make it clear that fulfilling campaign talking points have trumped the tradition of bipartisanship in national security and intelligence matters.

     Consider a homely analogy.  Most Americans can relate to a situation where something unfortunate has happened to the family in the past.  It sounds good to say that the family must acknowledge its mistakes and promise not to repeat them.  But if the family matter is not so clear, and there were extenuating circumstances that help to explain what some family member did, it would not help smooth out matters if one side in the family dispute declared that it was going to call out the other family member(s) on TV or in the newspaper as the best way forward.  Would this be likely to ease or to exacerbate the family crisis?  It does not take great wisdom to see that sometimes the best way to solve a problem or to resolve a family dispute is to drop it.  Time, if given half a chance, will heal all wounds, wound all heels, and generally restore “the mystic chords of memory that unite every hearth and hearthstone across this great land.” (By Abe Lincoln in his 1st Inaugural Speech)

***

Bruce L.R. Smith is a Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. Professor Smith made his career principally at Columbia University in New York City and at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D. C. He lives in Washington, D. C. with his wife Elise, a health attorney and association executive representing and advising skilled nursing facilities. Mr. Bruce L. R. Smith has B.A. & M.A. from The University of Minnesota and a PhD from Harvard University.