The House Cuba Working Group Issues a Statement: What a Positive U.S. Cuba Policy Would Look Like
As the Administration’s Commission on Assistance
to a Free Cuba prepares to issue a second report, and as founding members
of the House Cuba Working Group, we offer a statement of principles for
policies to serve American interests and values.
The embargo is a spent force, at odds with America’s strategic
and diplomatic interests and our nation’s values.
Any hope that an ever-tightening American embargo could force political
change has been wiped away by Cuba’s successful economic adjustment
to the post-Soviet world. Cuba is not prosperous, but economic relations
with Asia and Latin America, remittances from Cubans abroad, and development
of the tourism, minerals, and energy industries have restored growth and
ended the crisis of the early 1990’s.
By barring a free flow of people, commerce, and ideas, the embargo blocks
contacts that would expand American influence in Cuba, including among
those Cubans who will set their nation’s course after Castro leaves
the scene.
The embargo is the precise opposite of the principled policies that we
and the Western democracies pursued toward the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe through the Helsinki accords and other measures.
By deviating from those principles of engagement in the case of Cuba,
even as we uphold them with regard to China and Vietnam, our policy blocks
an international consensus on Cuba policy and mires the United States
in a perpetual quarrel with countries with which we should be cooperating.
U.S. policy toward Cuba should uphold American humanitarian values.
Congress and the Administration are right to stand up for human rights
in Cuba and to defend victims of human rights abuses. However, opposition
to the Cuban government’s conduct should not lead to policies that
hurt the Cuban people.
The new sanctions that limit or eliminate the ability of Cuban Americans
to visit or assist their loved ones in Cuba are the first U.S. economic
sanctions that directly target the well-being of families.
It serves no purpose in our foreign policy to send Cubans the message
that reduced contact and fewer acts of charity among Cuban families will
help solve their country’s political problems.
These measures place our values in question and have no strategic consequence.
The Administration estimates that the new sanctions block the flow of
$500 million annually in an economy that is growing, by Administration
estimates, at a rate of 5.5 percent, or $2 billion per year.
American policy should heed Cuban history and respect Cuban sovereignty.
Just because Fidel Castro invokes the causes of Cuban sovereignty and
nationalism does not mean that these values are not dearly held by the
Cuban people. Indeed, they are deeply rooted in the island’s history,
where the struggles for freedom from domestic oppression and foreign domination
have been closely linked.
By declaring that “there will not be a succession” after Castro,
naming a “Cuba transition coordinator” in the State Department,
and issuing a detailed transition plan for nearly every aspect of Cuba’s
public affairs, the Administration has led many Cubans to believe that
it wants to design Cuba’s future. Cuba’s Catholic bishops
stated that the Administration’s 2004 report “threatens”
the Cuban nation, and nearly all dissidents expressed similar sentiments.
American policy should send signals that cause Cubans to welcome
change rather than fear it.
The recommendations in the Commission’s 2004 report told Cubans
that when change comes, they could be evicted from their homes by the
former owners, they may have to pay for health care services, and retirees
may have to return to work.
It is counterproductive for the United States to state opinions on these
and other policies that Cubans alone will have to decide. These statements
feed the perception that the United States is challenging Cuban sovereignty,
and they increase fears among Cubans that “transition” implies
loss and dislocation in their personal lives. The only ones who benefit
are the Cuban propagandists who publicize these statements in articles,
television spots, and billboards.
Current policies to promote “transition” place the
United States at a strategic disadvantage.
Our influence in Cuba, as elsewhere, depends on communication. Greater
contact with American diplomats, American ideas, and American society
is a key element of the “transformational diplomacy” that
Secretary of State Rice espouses.
Yet the Administration has progressively reduced communication between
the United States and Cuba, in spite of its goal of influencing Cuba toward
a complete political and economic transformation. This is precisely the
wrong course. The Administration should encourage, rather than restrict,
travel for religious and humanitarian programs, family visits, and academic
and people-to-people contacts. Engagement does not equate with moral approval.
We would do well to emulate policies followed by friends and allies such
as Canada, Mexico, Britain, and Spain. All stand firm on human rights
while building contacts throughout Cuba’s government and society.
No one can predict how Cuba’s political future will evolve. But
we can predict that regardless of America’s size and economic weight,
our deliberate lack of contact and communication will reduce American
influence. The time to remedy this problem is now.
JEFF FLAKE
Member of Congress
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT
Member of Congress
JO ANN EMERSON
Member of Congress
JAMES P. McGOVERN
Member of Congress
