U.S. policies do not serve national interests

April 5, 2004

This op-ed appeared in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel April 5.

By: Paolo Spadoni
Paolo Spadoni is a doctoral candidate in the department of Political Science at the University of Florida. He has visited Cuba four times, conducting research on foreign investment in the island, U.S. sanctions, and U.S. financial flows in the Cuban economy.

In the midst of the recent bombings in Spain, the turmoil in the Middle East, and the weak growth of American jobs, both George W. Bush and John Kerry are paying close attention to a “seemingly” minor issue: Cuba.

Kerry recently pledged to be tough on Cuba and accused the White House of “leaving a trail of broken promises” in spite of its harsh anti-Castro rhetoric. In response, the Bush administration reaffirmed its support for stiff sanctions on the island and criticized the Massachusetts senator for muddling up his personal position on Cuba by reversing his previous stance against the embargo.

In the politically pivotal state of Florida, the same story repeats itself every four years, as partisan bidding for Cuban-American votes takes center stage. Since the end of the Cold War, major changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba have always occurred in presidential election years. The constant result has been policies that do not serve U.S. national interests and do not respond to changes in Cuba.

When Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., introduced in the House the Cuban Democracy Act in February 1992, Bush’s father opposed the bill, claiming that the restoration of the ban on U.S. subsidiary trade with Cuba would create more international opposition to U.S. policy and thus more support for Castro. But when Democratic opponent Bill Clinton traveled to Miami in April of that year and announced his endorsement of the CDA, Bush changed his mind and signed the law.

A similar story occurred with the passage of the Helms-Burton law in 1996, which targeted foreign investors in Cuba that “trafficked” in U.S. expropriated properties. When Jesse Helms, R-N.C., introduced the legislation in the Senate in 1995, Clinton resisted the bill, fearing retaliatory measures by U.S. major trade allies. However, the tide turned drastically in February 1996, when Cuban forces shot down two Cuban exile planes over the Straits of Florida. With the Cuban-American community outraged by the action and Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole, R-Kan., backing Helms-Burton, Clinton felt compelled to sign the law in order to avoid political fallout in an election year.

The year 2000 produced an apparent deviation from this pattern as Clinton, who was not up for re-election, signed a resolution that eased restrictions on U.S. food exports to Cuba. The real difference from previous electoral contexts was that the Democratic nominee Al Gore had clearly distanced himself from Clinton’s Cuba policy, thus giving the outgoing president enough room to pursue a less confrontational approach on Castro. While Clinton cleared the way for the sale of U.S. food to the island, Gore tried to hamper Bush’s quest for Cuban-American votes in Florida by vowing to resist any openings to the Castro government.

Clearly, U.S. Cuba policy has little to do with Cuba and much to do with domestic politics. When the Cuban government ended its active support for revolutionary forces in Africa and Latin America and its close ties with the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Washington tightened the embargo with the CDA. When Castro promoted liberalizing economic measures in 1993 and 1994 and began to send timid signals to the U.S. for an improvement of bilateral ties, especially on migration issues, the United States reinforced its sanctions with Helms-Burton.

U.S. moves to relax the embargo have followed the same perverse logic. When Cuba’s economic reforms slowed down, and in some cases reversed, in the late 1990s, Washington lifted some restrictions on agricultural trade with Havana under increasing pressure from U.S. farmer groups. Last year, following the long-term imprisonment of 75 dissidents and the execution of three hijackers in Cuba, both the Senate and the House voted overwhelmingly to lift the travel ban to the island.

Locked in a bidding war over which candidate could be tougher on Castro, the 2004 presidential campaign may well lead, as in the past, to major changes in U.S. Cuba policy. However, the policy should be responsive to Cuba and serve the interests of the United States, not those of domestic groups that are willing to pursue their goals regardless of the behavior of the Castro government.