President Obama’s move to normalize relations with Cuba ignores
the advice of Cuban-American Congress members that further engagement will be
more harmful than helpful. Discussions of funding for a US Embassy in Havana
continue to spark controversy in Congress.
Alan Gross’s release gave the Obama administration too much
false hope. Gross’s imprisonment shows the vulnerability of both the Cuban
people and American visitors, shielded under Castro’s anti-democratic
constraints. It demonstrates the long-standing lack of free speech and
political opposition in Cuba, and a government that is unprepared to handle
additional concessions.
Loosening economic policy towards Cuba derives from the
impression that more money will mean more freedom for the Cuban people.
However, this is not necessarily true. First, more money means additional funds
for the Castro administration. This helps them cumulate power and damages the
possibility of other political parties forming. Second, Castro’s government
does not prioritize dialogue with Washington. Instead, the US providing
concessions sends the message that Castro does not need to change his
oppressive nature. This leads to a third point, that the movement towards
economic engagement shows weakness. Keep doing what you are doing and
eventually, the US will give in. Is this a safe message to send to ISIS?
Most baffling to me is the refusal to listen to the most informed
members on the subject—Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX),
Senator Bob Mendez (D-NJ), and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). These are just 4 of the 7 Cuban-American
Congressmen (and women) opposing further engagement with Cuba. This opposition
comes from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Rubio and Ros-Lehtinen expressed
their strong discontent with Obama unilaterally reversing US-Cuba foreign
policy and emboldening the Castro regime.
Rubio responded to
Obama’s State of the Union on US News, saying, “I don’t know of a single
contemporary, reluctant tyranny that has become a democracy because of more
trade and tourists. China is now the world’s richest tyranny, Vietnam continues
to be a communist tyranny. And [Myanmar] Burma, even though they actually
agreed to some democratic openings when the U.S. recognized them
diplomatically, they have actually begun to take back a lot of those democratic
openings.”
Cuba owes more than
signs towards human rights and a less oppressive political culture. The
Castro’s are accountable for $6 billion in assets seized from American citizens
and businesses after the 1959 Cuban revolution. Those who agree with President Obama—that
the embargo and current state of US-Cuba relations are outdated—fail to
acknowledge recent acts and potential capabilities. If the country were ready
for the embargo to be lifted, it would not have American prisoners until as
recently as last month. It would not have a number of political prisoners still
jailed for their anti-Castro sentiments. Let us not forgot the motivations
behind upholding the embargo in Cuba: a communist, state-owned economy (still
largely in place), previous cooperation with the Soviet Union, allowing
missiles to nearly touch the Florida shore, and ties with Islamist tyrannies
and other Latin American rogue states.
The relaxed travel
restrictions to Cuba now make it seemingly easy to cross the border. Americans
no longer have spending limitations during their visits and have permissible
use of US credit and debit cards. However, there is too much uncertainty to
allow such unrestricted travel and spending. With Gross’s release so recent,
Obama cannot ensure that travelers will not be subject to the same consequences
as Gross. Democratization is a long-term process, one to which Castro has not
fully committed. Rather, American lives are at stake because of Obama’s
obsession with being the popular kid at the international lunch table.
While it is
difficult to confirm which solution will yield the most successful outcome for
Cuba, Obama’s unilateral and rash thinking are most concerning. With 7 Cuban-Americans
between the Senate and the House, representing both parties, it is unimaginable
that Obama overlooks their opinions and expertise. These are the members with the most relevant
insight and first-hand knowledge. Hopefully the democratic process will triumph,
and propping up embassies in Havana or loosening the embargo will not happen
during this unfitting time.
Engaging with Castro
and providing unwarranted concessions is a symbol that America will eventually submit
to the most stubborn, anti-democratic nations. Conceding to Cuba’s
long-standing oppressors has weakened the US’s international position and has
damaged the hopes of political protesters in Cuba. If Obama would consider the
voices of his fellow Cuban politicians, maybe he would recognize the issue.
