A second round of migration talks, slated to take place in Havana this month, has been pushed back to February, drawing out what has already been a slow process of re-engagement between the United States and Cuba. The U.S. State Department claims that the delay was “at the Cuban government’s request.” Meanwhile, a senior Cuban official told the press that Havana was “ready to hold talks in December” and the date change was at Washington’s bidding.
Both sides, of course, say that the delay has nothing to do with politics (then why does each blame the other?)—only bureaucratic concerns. But as yet, these talks are one of the few signs of the very highly anticipated changes occurring in the relationship between the two nations. Their postponement adds to the feeling that relations are stalled, each side waiting for something from the other, and neither budging. The Associated Press reports, in fact:
Cuban officials say they have made concrete proposals to the United States to hold talks on counternarcotics, disaster preparedness and other issues—but have not heard back. Washington, in turn, says Cuba has done little to inspire confidence that it will allow social, political or economic changes—something the U.S. said is a prerequisite to moving forward.
Stalemate.
However, many believe that the ball is still in the Obama administration’s court. Last week’s short Los Angeles Times editorial summed up the opinion of many, saying, “the U.S. embargo has too long served the Castros as a pretext for cracking down on dissidents. Try something else.” And the author’s suggestion of what that “something else” might be sounded much like that of Human Rights Watch (see their report: New Castro, Same Cuba); the administration should forge a common policy with the EU that pushes for political prisoner release and other human rights improvements, while making it clear that regime change is not part of the agenda.
At any rate, someone has to make a move.
