I had the privilege on Friday of attending a Pacific Council on International Policy luncheon discussion with US Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg, a thoughtful and intelligent State Department appointee who holds the position of Hillary Clinton’s top deputy. In the discussion a guest asked the Deputy Secretary an interesting question: why did the changes recently announced by the administration simply not go far enough, particularly for humanitarian organizations?
First, a bit of context. Last week, as many have already heard, the White House announced changes to regulations and policies governing certain travel to Cuba and non-family remittances to the island. The press release was titled “Reaching Out to the Cuban People”—no doubt an attempt to preclude Congressional opponents from claiming that the changes might be evidence of a soft stance against the Castro government. Democrat John Kerry, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, commended the decision, saying:
“These measures, expanding people-to-people relations between the United States and Cuba and allowing Americans to send funds to Cubans for private economic activity, open the way for the good will of citizens of both countries to forge deeper ties that are in our national interest today and in the future. This is an important step. If governments cannot solve the problems between them, at least they should get out of the way and let citizens work toward finding solutions.”
So that’s something.
The individual asking the question above had a point, however, as he explained that his organization—which has operated for years in Cuba offering humanitarian aid—has to receive approval from the Treasury, the State Department, and who knows who else every time they head to the island. For him, it’s a bureaucratic nightmare that does not change at all with the new announcement.
The Deputy Secretary’s answer was defensive. He reasoned that the administration had made several improvements to Cuba policy since President Obama took office, and that Havana had made no effort to return the gestures of good faith. The stalemate since then (and the reason for not having gone further with the current policy changes) Steinberg attributes to lack of reciprocation on the Cuban side.
Another guest then took the floor. He countered Steinberg’s comments, arguing that amending our Cuba policy is not, in fact, something that should require reciprocation to proceed. He even guessed that the Obama administration itself recognized this.
Following the session, a fellow guest wondered aloud to me: Who had the stronger point? I responded by email as follows:
[Guest one] is correct to some extent: the trouble he has to go through to provide humanitarian aid in Cuba, a goal fully aligned with US government intentions, is laughable (except that it isn’t terribly funny). But his snippy anger with the Deputy Secretary and Obama is perhaps misplaced, as much of the regulations that affect his processes are in place due to congressional legislation that the Executive and the State Department really do not have the power to tear down. Obama is taking a few of the moves he can take without the support of Congress (not all, so as not to upset Ileana Ros-Lehtinen into noncooperation on other issues, but some), but there remains in place an embargo that complicates all dealings with Cuba and that the executive can do little to affect.
[The Deputy Secretary], to some extent, is also correct: the Obama administration made very public and considerable gestures to Cuba in lowering the restrictions on travel between the two countries. And they called for a signal of reciprocation and were spurned by Havana. The Cuban government’s argument, basically, was that lowering of travel restrictions is not a sign of good faith when it is something that should have been done years ago — “a day late and a dollar short”, if you will — and as long as the crippling embargo remains in place they don’t see that a small country like Cuba owes a gesture in return. So [Steinberg]’s argument is a little misleading. Sure, we can say that the US did something and Cuba did not actively try to reciprocate, but that’s missing the point. They’re not so much trying to spurn us as they are trying to tear down the same embargo they’ve fought for years and thus far have no reason to believe it will be loosened.
[Guest two] has the strongest argument, if I interpret his comment correctly. There are long-standing policies that have done the United States no good and have affected zero political change in Cuba, and the Obama administration fully admits this yet will not tear them down. That is what [Guest two] was saying: that in the case of some of the long-standing Cuba policies, no reciprocal action by Havana should actually be necessary. The United States simply needs to improve its policy, do away with that which is anachronous, and approach Cuba in a new way, regardless of what Cuba is doing (but certainly made easier by the fact that Cuba is indeed pursuing important economic changes and has been steadily releasing political prisoners for the past seven months).
In the end, then, we continue to be headed in the right direction, we just have not gotten very far.
