They came. They shook hands. They talked.
No demonizing rhetoric. No hand buzzers. No finger wagging.
They were downright civil, if not overtly chummy. They made statements indicating commonality. They gave rationales for looking to the future.
In so doing, Barack Obama and Raul Castro made history on the sidelines of the Summit of the Americas in Panama. In so doing, they also made sense.
A couple of days later that was manifested when President Obama sent a message to Congress urging that Cuba be formally removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The one that dates to 1982 and also includes Iran, Syria and Sudan. The president’s announcement, preceded by a State Department review, is a major step in facilitating the normalization of relations between the two countries–a process that was initiated last December.
But nobody’s breaking out the mojitos yet.
A not-quite-veto-proof Congress now has 45 days to weigh in, as only it can. So, cue the “sell-out” and “appeasement” rhetoric from the usual suspects. To no one’s surprise, Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, both Cuban-American presidential aspirants, didn’t miss a rhetorical beat in decrying detente with Cuba and denigrating Obama over his role in expediting it.
When it comes to Cuba, the 2015 reality is this: Much remains to be done (only Congress can end the formal embargo), too many partisans still espouse less-than-helpful agendas, but momentum seems finally on the side of history. Finally.
Here, however, is where we need to finally break from the zero-sum dynamic that has inevitably accompanied this issue and forestalled bilateral progress for half a century. We know how it has gone rhetorically when it comes to proposing a normalization of relations with the Communist island-nation 90 miles off our coast.
“Are you for rewarding a dictator who shows contempt for democracy and human rights or are you for standing up for America’s first principles?” Pick a side. No nuance, geopolitical context or sense of enlightened self-national-interest is allowed. If they were, there would be references to allies and trade partners, from Saudi Arabia to Vietnam, who are far less democratic and far more autocratic than Cuba.
It’s the sovereign version of: “Yes or no? Are you still beating your wife?”
We all need to recognize that for some this will always be personal. From Brothers to the Rescue to Cuban Americans in Miami and Tampa who were tragically disenfranchised by the Cuban revolution. Until you have walked in the shoes of those who have lost their country–and all the emotional trauma that embodies–you can’t condemn an attitude of bitterness and non-negotiation absent regime change in Havana.
We should all be able to get that.
Having said that, however, we should all be able to acknowledge this. Personal vendettas can never be the basis for American foreign policy. If so, we’d have nothing to do with Japan after what it did at Pearl Harbor. Or nothing to do with Vietnam, where nearly 60,000 Americans died.
U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor acknowledged as much in her comments after the president’s announcement urging the removal of Cuba from the state sponsor of terrorism list.
“As Americans, we fought two wars with Germany, fought a bloody conflict with Vietnam and have moved forward over time to the benefit of the people of those countries,” noted Castor. “It is long past time that we do the same for the people of Cuba.”
More change is inevitable once diplomatic relations are formally restored and embassies opened.
That means multi-front cooperation–from fighting terrorism and drug traffickers to addressing environmental and immigration issues. These regional priorities can no longer be held hostage to a Cold War-relic policy. It also enhances U.S. credibility–global as well as hemispheric–to not be seen clinging to a failed strategy that punishes all the wrong people as a way of getting back at the Castros.
It’s also a given that no state–and no region–benefits more from normalized U.S.-Cuba relations than Florida and the Tampa Bay area, home to 90,000 Cuban Americans. It includes TIA island hops as well the untapped trade potential via Port Tampa Bay, the closest deep-water port to Havana.
And an unfettered travel policy would not only accommodate family reunions, but would also open up Cuba to American tourism and business investment. Regime change by other means.
And lest we forget, Tampa’s roots are Cuban. Before there was post-revolution Miami, there was Tampa–including livestock exports, the José Martíconnection and the cigar factories of Vicente Martinez Ybor. Now Tampa is on the cusp of regaining a special, synergistic relationship.
And none of this happens without somebody finally doing something about a counterproductive, time-warped, vendetta-driven foreign policy. Por fin.