Last week President Obama announced that the U.S. and Cuba would be taking steps towards normalizing relations between the two countries. Tanya Harmer writes that the move to end the Cold War in Latin America is a triumph for the principle of non-intervention, and for President Obama’s reputation in the region. She also warns that questions remain over Obama’s ability to negotiate an end to the 53-year embargo with Congress, the role of new sanctions against Venezuela and the desire of Cuban leaders to open up the country further

Harmer, Tanya

LSE Research Online

blogs.lse.ac.ukhttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/12/24/as-the-us-cuba-relationship-thaws-the-next-steps-depend-on-the-domestic-political-will-in-both-countries-towards-greater-openness/As the US-Cuba relationship thaws, the next steps depend onthe domestic political will in both countries towards greateropenness.Last week President Obama announced that the U.S. and Cuba would be taking steps towardsnormalizing relations between the two countries. Tanya Harmer writes that the move to end theCold War in Latin America is a triumph for the principle of non-intervention, and for PresidentObama’s reputation in the region. She also warns that questions remain over Obama’s ability tonegotiate an end to the 53-year embargo with Congress, the role of new sanctions againstVenezuela and the desire of Cuban leaders to open up the country further.Latin America never had a ‘Berlin Wall moment.’ Even as we celebrated the 25th anniversary ofthe fall of the Wall last month, US-Cuban hostilities continued. And as long as they did, the Cold War in LatinAmerica endured long after its sell by date. Finally, last week, things changed. As Latin American leaders haveproclaimed, the carefully stage-managed announcement that Cuba and the United States were ready to normalizerelations after fifty-three years spells the end of the Cold War for the region – or at least the beginning of the end.This is good news. The US-Cuban relationship has remained frozen for far too long; a relic of the past thwartingmeaningful change in Cuba and casting a shadow over inter-American relations. It is hard to argue thatWashington’s standoff with Havana achieved its goals. True, Noam Chomsky reminds us that it imposedeconomic havoc on the island and stopped Cuba achieving its “feared potential.” Yet the Castro brothers are stillin power and Cuba remains a communist dictatorship. Isolating the regime has not demonstrably helpeddemocracy or human rights on the island. On the contrary, continued US hostility has allowed the Cuban regime tomaintain its grip on power by threatening that anything less would make Cuba vulnerable to US imperialistdomination.For the United States’ image overseas, the refusal to deal with the Castro regime for over half a century hascorrosively cemented the idea that Washington is more than happy to disregard respect for state sovereignty andnon-intervention when it feels like it. Cubans are particularly sensitive to this. Since 1898, when the United Statesintervened in Cuba’s war of independence against Spain, Washington’s politicians have argued that they knowwhat is best for Cuba. The Platt Amendment, forcibly written into Cuba’s first constitution (1902-1934), gave theUnited States the power to dictate politics on the island and forbade Cubans from determining their own foreignrelations.After the Cuban revolution triumphed in 1959, Fidel Castro responded to this historical legacy by demanding thatthe United States government respect the island’s independence. He insisted on recognition without conditionsand non-intervention in Cuba’s internal affairs. He proclaimed that he was never going to hold elections with a gunheld to the Cubans’ head, especially when these preconditions were not applied to other dictatorial regimes.Fifty-five years later, the Castro brothers appear to have got the formal recognition they believe they and theircountry deserve. The announcement was obviously stage-managed to avoid the impression that anyone had won.There were no preconditions, only mutual prisoner exchanges and simultaneous broadcasts.Any kind of normalization always had to be carefully choreographed so as to represent the equal, mutualagreement of two sovereign nations if it was going to work. But insofar as it recognised Cuban independence andsovereignty, without demanding democratic transition first, it was a triumph for the Cuban regime.President Barack Obama talks with President Raúl Castro of Cuba from the Oval Office, Dec. 16, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)It is also a triumph for the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another state, which Latin Americanstates have fought for since the 1920s. And in this sense, it is a triumph for Obama’s reputation in Latin America.After years of disappointment in the region, he has been widely praised for having reset relations with Cuba andunderscored the United States’ acceptance of non-intervention. His move is arguably comparable in significanceto Jimmy Carter’s signing of the Panama Canal treaties in 1977. That, too, was a regionally celebrated move thatsought to redress an out-dated imperial position in the hemisphere, even if it cost Carter dearly at home.What comes next is harder to judge. Travel, trade, cultural exchanges and remittances will increase. The UnitedStates and Cuba will open embassies in Havana and Washington respectively. US and Cuban delegations will sitat the same table at the upcoming Summit of the Americas in Panama in April 2015. The two countries willcontinue to cooperate on fighting Ebola. Cuba will rightfully be removed from the US list of countries that sponsorterrorism.However, big questions remain. Answers to some of them depend on Obama’s relationship with a new RepublicanCongress. Congress can block the appointment of a future US ambassador to Havana. More importantly,Congress can refuse to put a decisive end to the US economic blockade against Cuba, which is still the Cubans’most urgent concern. With commodity prices falling and Venezuela’s economy in free fall, the Cuban regime canno longer rely on its neighbours’ oil-funded generosity. Opening up to the United States as a means of ending theembargo therefore comes at a good time, even if the 18-month negotiations leading to last week’s announcementpre-dated the current economic context.How Obama’s Cuba policy fits within his approach to the region is also hard to understand. The simultaneousannouncement that the United States is imposing sanctions against Venezuela as it normalizes US-Cubanrelations raises questions as to what the Obama administration’s strategy for Latin America is. If Obamaacknowledges sanctions have not worked in the case of Cuba, why apply them to Venezuela? In the past, Cuba’sleaders have been more than willing to sacrifice better US-Cuban relations for the sake of solidarity with its allies.Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has so far backed the normalization of US-Cuban relationsand thecorrelation of both policies has not appeared to affect the other. How problematic new US hostility towardsVenezuela will be in the future, especially if the normalization of US-Cuban relations does not move forwardquickly, nevertheless remains to be seen.The biggest question of all, however, is what happens in Cuba. Raul Castro has defiantly proclaimed that the thawin US-Cuban relations does not mean the end of Cuba’s communist government or that Cuba will renounce itsideals. And in many ways it is unconceivable that Cuba will return to what it was like before the revolution. It isdoubtful that Cubans want to turn their back on the gains in healthcare and education that have been made since1959. Yet, as Owen Jonesrecently wrote, social welfare policies and a gradual improvement in human rights “isnot good enough.” The dictatorship has to end.Rhetoric aside, it remains to be seen whether this has filtered through to the Cuban leadership. Raul Castro hasmade steps towards opening up the Cuban economy in recent years and it may well be that what is envisaged isa managed transition. If the regime wants any say in the process, the time to embark on such a transition is now.With no sight of a frail Fidel Castro in months and an aging revolutionary generation, time is of the essence. Atleast now, there is more breathing space to embark on a process of change and no obvious excuse not to.Please read our comments policy before commenting.            Note:  This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of U.S.App– American Politics and Policy, norof the London School of Economics.Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1AE86AT _________________________________ About the authorTanya Harmer – LSE International HistoryDr Harmer is a Lecturer in the International History at the LSE and Academic Director of the LSE-Columbia University Double Masters Degree in International and World History.  Dr Harmer wasHead of the Latin American International Affairs programme at LSE IDEAS between 2005 and2011 and now serves as a Research Associate for the Programme. Dr Harmer’s current researchfocuses both on the Latin Americanization of the Cold War in the mid-1970s.CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 2014 LSE USAPP

As the US-Cuba relationship thaws, the next steps depend on the domestic political will in both countries towards greater openness

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online