The most common argument against easing US regulations on travel to and trade with Cuba is misleadingly convincing: opponents of US policy change say that the Cuban state has done nothing to deserve a unilateral friendly move by the United States, and that there is no sign from Cuba of willingness to reciprocate.
On these grounds, New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez has pledged, with some support, to block the Cuba provisions in the current omnibus bill in Congress. The provisions would otherwise drop regulations on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba and allow Cuban-Americans to travel to the island annually (replacing the current once-every-three-years policy). But provisions of this sort fall under the category of unilateral friendliness, and furthermore, they were added without any opportunity for debate into a $410 billion spending bill that is otherwise unrelated to foreign relations. Senator Menendez, the only Cuban-American Democrat in the Senate, has thus argued that the provisions are both undemocratic and unreasonable, saying that “if the [bill] is signed by the President as is, he will be extending a hand while the Castro regime maintains an iron-handed clenched fist.”
The White House has thus far declined to respond directly to his comments, merely pointing out that the Executive branch has had no part in the bill thus far.
The counter-point answer they could have given is two-fold.
First of all, Senator Menendez’s “iron-handed clenched fist” comment isn’t entirely accurate. Back in December 2008, Raúl Castro offered to release prisoners held on the island in return for a similar gesture from the United States—namely, the release of the Cuban Five. There is no reason to believe that he would be unwilling to make similar “gestures” now.
But more importantly, this argument misses the point. Human rights observance and governance have not changed much on the island, it is true. But this is precisely why new methods are needed and the old must be discarded; 50 years of the same US policies have produced no democracy and no greater freedoms. Why would Senator Menendez want to keep such failed policies in place?
The Brookings Institution’s “US Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition” project addresses this issue head-on in the video below.
Key quotes from this exchange:
“We look at these measures not as rewards, but fundamentally as tools that are necessary in order to advance policy.”
—Carlos Pascual, Brookings Institution
“Our policy has been all too convenient for this regime. It has been a significant source of legitimacy for the regime, internal and external, and has helped the regime, in fact, stay in power for 50 years.”
—Carlos Saladrigas, Cuba Working Group
