What’s in a Name?

We are monitoring the breaking news that the State Department will order the departure of all non-essential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Havana. We hold as a top priority the well-being of our diplomats, and urge a swift investigation into the mysterious incidents that have inflicted harm upon them. We note Cuba’s efforts to investigate the matter, and Secretary Tillerson’s promise to continue cooperation with Cuba’s government. We are pleased diplomatic channels through which to cooperate on a matter such as this exist, and believe engagement is more important now than ever.

* * *

What’s in a Name?

“The appointment of an ambassador is a common sense step forward toward a more normal and productive relationship between our two countries.”

Those were the words of former President Barack Obama when, one year ago this week, he nominated Jeff DeLaurentis to the position of U.S. Ambassador to Cuba.

Alas, the Senate declined to vote on DeLaurentis’ nomination, leaving him to serve out the remainder of his three-year shift in Havana as the embassy’s chargé d’affaires. (DeLaurentis completed his term in July.)

Now, exactly 12 months later, we’re reminded of the misguided, schismatic criticisms of engagement that denied him a hearing, in the wake of the news that the U.S. will withdraw 60 percent of its staff from the U.S. Embassy in Havana and issue a warning cautioning U.S. travelers against visiting the island.

Let’s be clear: the presence of an embassy has played a key role in the development of productive, bilateral relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Through its diplomatic presence in Havana, the U.S. has held numerous bilateral dialogues and signed agreements with Cuba on issues including cooperation in law enforcement and national security, environmental protection, and public health. These exchanges have had real, tangible effects—massive increases in the seizure of narcotics and the resumption of commercial flights between the two countries, to name a few.

Diplomacy matters, and having an ambassador to direct the U.S.’ diplomatic efforts matters, too.

Last September, Florida Senator Marco Rubio said of DeLaurentis’ nomination, “Rewarding the Castro government with a U.S. ambassador is another last-ditch legacy project for the President that needs to be stopped.”

This line of thinking misses the point. Assigning an ambassador is a not a “reward” to a foreign government, but rather, a key component of promoting U.S. interests abroad. Titles matter, and formally appointing an ambassador expands the diplomatic work that a U.S. mission abroad can accomplish. Leaving an ambassadorial post open is a self-defeating policy that only limits the U.S.’ ability to facilitate dialogue.

In the wake of the mystifying “sonic incidents” in Havana, it is more important than ever that the U.S. demonstrate its commitment to engagement. In his meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this week, Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Rodríguez emphasized, “It is essential to count on the effective cooperation of the US authorities” in Cuba’s investigation into the events.

Filling official roles, like that of an ambassador, shows foreign nations that the U.S. is serious about diplomacy.

Moreover, in a situation like this one, it is important to keep channels of communication open. In times of uncertainty, our diplomats play a crucial role in ensuring that all parties are working effectively toward a common goal—in this case, ensuring the safety of diplomats in Havana.

As President Obama said last September, “Having an ambassador will make it easier to advocate for our interests, and will deepen our understanding even when we know that we will continue to have differences with the Cuban government … we only hurt ourselves by not being represented by an Ambassador.”

Rubio was right about one thing, though. Placing an ambassador in Havana would certainly create a lasting legacy—one of commitment to diplomacy and bilateral cooperation.

URGENT APPEAL – Preserve engagement with Cuba! Click HERE to support CDA’s advocacy work!

This week, in Cuba news…

Behind Closed Doors

The CDA community answered the call, and we have raised almost $10,000 for Hurricane Irma relief in Cuba! We are incredibly moved by your generosity. CDA’s Irma Relief drive continues through midnight tonight; donate here to provide emergency items such as water, food, shelter, and hygiene kits, as well as longer-term recovery supplies.

* * *

Many of us followed the publicly-traded barbs of this week. President Trump addressed the UN General Assembly Tuesday, stating, “The United States has stood against the corrupt and destabilizing regime in Cuba,” and declared, “We will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms.”

That same day, Cuba retorted, rejecting “tying any improvement in bilateral relations to the introduction of changes in the Cuban constitutional order,” as well as “the political manipulation of the human rights issue as a pretext to justify US policies.”

However, while public statements paint a picture of discord, in private, our bilateral relationship is starting to resemble something normal.

Behind closed doors

The U.S.-Cuba Law Enforcement Dialogue met last week to discuss, among other things, the mysterious sonic incidents affecting U.S. and Canadian diplomats. The FBI has reportedly traveled to the island three times, invited and welcomed by Cuban authorities, and by all accounts, Cuba has given them an unprecedented level of access.

In fact, the Associated Press reported this week that Raúl Castro personally summoned the top U.S. diplomat to discuss this matter, that he was “baffled” and “concerned,” and that he showed far more desire to cooperate on the issue than expected.

The Law Enforcement Dialogue also discussed important functions such as cooperation on terrorism, cybercrime, and drug trafficking.

On Monday, U.S. and Cuban diplomats met in Washington for the sixth Bilateral Commission, the mechanism designated with the task of advancing normalization. The significance of this meeting at this time cannot be overstated. Despite publicly aired unrest, we continue to work together. We continue to advance cooperation on often understated issues such as environmental protection, public health, and combating trafficking in persons and narcotics.

One last thing—we took note last Friday when five Senators, led by the architect of President Trump’s new Cuba policy, Marco Rubio, penned a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asking him to close the U.S. Embassy in Havana and expel all Cuban diplomats in the U.S. Our friend Bill LeoGrande said it best: “Closing the U.S. embassy makes no sense. It would punish Cuba for actions whose perpetrator remains unidentified, and it would seriously damage U.S. interests.”

There’s a lot we do not know about the sonic incidents. But we do know diplomacy matters, and an open dialogue is essential to the U.S.’ ability to safeguard its affairs at home and abroad.

This week, in Cuba news…

Special Report: Cuba Recovers After Irma

Hurricane Irma slammed into Cuba over the weekend, leaving 10 dead and causing destruction and flooding across the island. Irma, which made landfall in the country’s northeastern provinces as a Category 5 storm, was the strongest storm to hit Cuba in 85 years, according to Reuters.

Damages

The hurricane wrought havoc in Cuba’s keys, badly damaging most structures and all but destroying the international Jardines del Rey airport in Cayo Coco. Cuba’s President Raúl Castro released a statement Monday, saying, “Given the immensity of [Irma’s] size, practically no region has escaped its effects.”

Though Havana avoided a direct hit, the capital city saw extensive flooding, with 36-foot waves rising well over the Malecón (seawall) and seawater reaching one-third of a mile inland, according to Reuters and the Associated Press. The U.S. Embassy in Havana, which is located along the Malecón, saw structural damage to its fence and severe flooding inside the building.

According to CubaDebate, 7 of the 10 reported deaths across Cuba occurred in Havana, mostly due to falling structures and live electrical cables lying in the city’s flooded streets. Much of the island remains without power or cell service.

Cuba had evacuated over 1 million people, including over 8,000 tourists, prior to the storm’s arrival.

Economic impacts

Irma has brought consequences for a number of Cuba’s principle economic sectors, including the sugar and tourism industries.

According to Granma, 300,000 hectares of sugarcane crops and 40 percent of sugar refineries in Cuba suffered some degree of damage from the storm. Cuba harvested 436,000 hectares of sugarcane in 2015, the last year for which data was available.

Meanwhile, the extensive damage to the Cuban Keys has left many of the country’s most popular resorts uninhabitable. President Castro stated that damages “will be recovered before the start of the high season” for tourism.

Response

In his statement, President Castro said, “It is not time to mourn, but rather to rebuild what the winds of Hurricane Irma tried to destroy.” Countries including Ecuador, Bolivia, and Russia have stated their intention to deliver aid to the island.

Prior to the storm reaching Cuba, the country sent nearly 800 doctors to affected Caribbean islands, according to Granma.

Donate to relief efforts in Cuba: PBS NewsHour has consolidated a list of charities working on Hurricane Irma relief efforts.

Groups working in Cuba include OXFAM, UNICEF, and Caritas.

Keep up with CDA on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram!

Cuba and Our Good Name

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary, is this week’s guest contributor to the Cuba Central News Brief. He served as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff from 2002 to 2005, and as Associate Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning staff from 2001 to 2002, during which time he focused on East Asia and the Pacific, political-military, and legislative affairs. Prior to working in the State Department, Col. Wilkerson served in the U.S. Army for 31 years.

* * *

“Who steals my purse steals trash … But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.” – Shakespeare’s Othello

Immediate attention today is turned to whether or not the Government of Cuba caused intentional harm to U.S. and Canadian diplomats through a series of sonic incidents in Havana. Frankly, it looks more like spyware gone bad than an intentional effort to do harm. Damage is done, nonetheless, as the U.S. has reciprocated with the expulsion of two Cuban diplomats from Washington.

Long-term concern, however, relates to President Trump. In short, what exactly is Trump’s Cuba policy today? Are his administration’s incremental reversals of previous U.S.-Cuba policy all we shall see, or will there be more, and more substantial, reversals of what was beginning to look like a warming relationship?

Even the small steps backward—and most certainly more substantial ones—are detrimental to U.S. national security, and while many aspects of that negative impact are readily discernible—from cooperation in managing drug trafficking to the environment—the most dangerous aspect, as with the U.S. practice of torture from 2002–2006, goes largely unreported.

Simply stated, the reputation of America is as powerful a component of its standing in the world—perhaps more so—than its vast array of tanks, warplanes, and warships. For the billion people in the Western Hemisphere, and increasingly for the six billion others in the rest of the world, the U.S.’ Cuba policy is another nail in the coffin of the American empire. Of late, nations around the world have been hammering in such nails with alarming frequency and vehemence.

From the now utterly nonsensical embargo on Cuba—essentially an abuse of the use of sanctions bordering on an act of war—to the unseemly and unconstitutional restrictions on travel to the island by U.S. citizens, U.S.-Cuba policy would be the laughing stock of the world if it were not so indicative of America’s present policies—and thus a serious matter indeed. What a worsening of this policy would do is add immeasurable weight to a now swiftly-coalescing world opinion that America is no longer worthy of global leadership.

A dramatic historical moment in 1956, during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, sums up brilliantly what reputational power is all about. The moment is described eloquently by Eisenhower biographer Jean Edward Smith. The occasion was President Eisenhower’s having compelled Great Britain, France and Israel to reverse their combined invasion of Suez:

“Never in the postwar era was American prestige higher than in the aftermath of Suez. Small nations could scarcely believe the United States would support Egypt, a Third World country, in a fight against two of America’s oldest allies, or that it would come to the aid of a Muslim state resisting Israeli aggression. ‘Never has there been such a tremendous acclaim for the President’s policy,’ Henry Cabot Lodge reported from the United Nations. ‘It has been absolutely spectacular.’”

Eisenhower understood what reputational power meant in the world. He knew it outweighed all the panoply of war of which, ironically enough, he was arguably one of the foremost practitioners.

Today, with America’s reputation in tatters all over the globe, in the wake of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, torture, walls on the Mexican border, and strategic missteps from Berlin to Beijing, the very last thing Washington needs is another policy disaster. To reverse the opening to Cuba would be a serious blow to U.S. security in the Western Hemisphere and add another blow to that security, already in serious jeopardy, elsewhere in the world.

That is the last thing the nation needs; it would make us poor indeed.

* * *

URGENT APPEAL – Preserve engagement with Cuba! Click HERE to support CDA’s advocacy work!

This week, in Cuba news…