The newest issue of the Economist falls into the more and more common “honeymoon” rhetoric trap in its discussion of current developments in US-Cuba relations: an article dated today is entitled, “Honeymoon cancelled: A familiar mistrust descends.“
The analysis is lacking two distinctions: one, the distinction between public perception and government intent/activity; and two (again), between honeymoon and courtship.
On the former: although the public seems to see no progress in the relationship and may perceive the recent series of events as debilitating for future prospects, in fact much has happened between Havana and Washington since Obama’s inauguration, and government tends to have a broader lens for viewing US-Cuba relations. Cuba’s troubling problems with dissidents and the barbs exchanged between Washington and Havana over issues of contention do not change the facts that (1) there are issues of mutual concern on which cooperation between the two sides will be much more beneficial than silence, and (2) the embargo and travel ban do not follow U.S. interests in terms of supporting Cuban citizens, supporting the U.S. agricultural sector, and allowing its own citizens freedom of movement; therefore, they must eventually be changed.
The latter point we’ve made before. The period of optimism in Washington and Havana that followed Obama’s inauguration is indeed waning. This is because of the recurrence of difficulties and “snags” that have characterized the relationship for decades and which did not disappear immediately simply through the election of a new head of state in the United States. The two sides are still slowly assessing each other, exchanging in fits and spurts that are followed by cautious steps back, then forward again. It is a courtship, not a honeymoon, and this distinction is important because the language defines how we think about the relationship: here, the marriage has yet to come.
