Castro Resignation Demands Rethinking of US-Cuba Policy

Fidel Castro's 49-year reign in Cuba ended this week with a whimper, not a bang as many Cuban Americans long hoped for, but many Cuba experts doubted.

In fact, Fidel's announcement Tuesday was really only the last step in a long process leading to his departure that began 19 months ago when Fidel dropped from sight after abdominal surgery.

More than fifteen years ago Wayne Smith, former Head of the US Interests Section in Cuba under President Jimmy Carter, told me that if Fidel was savvy, he would hand power over to his successor while he was still alive, thereby ensuring his hand in easing the country into a post-Fidel era. Despite one's views of Fidel, no one denies his political acumen.

Raul Castro, Fidel's younger brother is nearly guaranteed to be his immediate successor.

And while there is little doubt that Fidel has Raul's ear, it is also clear that Cuba is quietly, without guns or fireworks, entering a new age. Raul has already proven to be a very different kind of leader than his older brother.

After spending time with both Fidel and Raul in Cuba on various occasions during the past quarter-century as a researcher of US-Cuban relations, it has been obvious to me -- and to the world -- that Fidel inherited more than his fair share of charismatic genes, while Raul was the more methodical, thorough, and pragmatic brother.

Raul Castro's military career forced him to be a realist. As head of the armed forces, Raul oversaw the opening of the economy to foreign tourism, to US dollars and to limited private enterprise.

In the "inter-regnum" period of the last 19 months, there is ample evidence that Raul's quiet vision is slowly changing the Cuban political landscape. Raul has advocated fearless, critical debate, sponsoring town-hall meetings that encouraged people to speak freely about their economic troubles and limits on their rights to travel, albeit within the context of the Communist Party.

Raul has also championed the concept of closer relations with the United States offering repeatedly to discuss normalizing relations between Havana and Washington.

But the Bush administration, strangled by a myopic 49 year-old failed foreign policy, ruled Raul's offers for renewed talks out once again this week, scorning Raul as "Fidel Lite."

Washington's witty but short-sighted response to the first real change in Cuba in almost half a century is profoundly disappointing but sadly predictable.

If Mr. Bush were able to see beyond his antediluvian cold war lens, he would seize this historic moment that -- by no act of his own -- has serendipitously dropped into the final moments of his presidency.

Heralding this moment as a new era, Bush could welcome dialogue between the two countries, loosen restrictions on cultural and academic exchanges, and discuss trade opportunities long desired by the US business community.

Alas, despite quiet but monumental changes taking place 90 miles from our shore, the only thing consistent about Cuba is Bush's inability to grasp the possibility of what has fallen into his lap.

Donna Rich Kaplowitz holds a Ph.D. in Latin American Studies from Johns Hopkins University where she served as Deputy Director of Cuban Studies. She has taught at American University in Washington, and at Michigan State University. She is the author of three books and numerous articles on Cuba. She lives with her family in East Lansing Michigan.

Comments

[IraG]

Excellent, informative article. To bad that this government will not or cannot follow reasonable solutions to problems as described.

[onab]

In Thursday night"s debate between the two democratic candidates, the participants outlined different timetables and preconditions for meeting with leaders of staunch adversaries such as Cuba, which may have a ripe moment in Castro"s semi-exit, and Iran, where militant adversary Ahmadinejad is always an issue.

The candidates would approach the prelude to negotiations differently. Clinton seems prepared to set benchmarks. That is, steps leaders of a country must take to essentially be "rewarded" (the carrot) with diplomatic initiatives linked to their good behavior. Obama wouldn"t necessarily recognize that ripe moment and would set only a few preconditions, such as opening the press and releasing [political] prisoners, perhaps unilaterally making his move.

It appears there are gradations in "preventive/preemptive" behaviors. A kind of "soft" preemption is the closest point on the continuum: our overture requires very little positive signal from the target.

"Hard" preemption is the furthest point on the scale, namely, an invasion or other slightly less "invasive" act.

The middle grades are varying degrees of meeting some level of expectations on our part. While Obama is near a soft preemption, Clinton is closer to a harder preemption.

The candidates clearly differ on how far, or even whether, adversaries must open their systems to be rewarded with negotiations. The current administration has slid down the scale for the most part, deciding perhaps that a middle preemption, while our troops are hamstrung in Iraq, is the safest course.

[marich]

This is a fascinating article. Keep writing. Given your ideas here, it seems to me that Obama would most closely align with your opinion and suggestions for opening up US discussions with Cuba. Please comment.

[reneec]

The most informative articles on Cuba I have sesen on HuffPost. As Cuba transitions to its new power structure, we need more articles from you to help us understand it.

[rfcnyc]

Great article. Having visited Cuba, I saw firsthand that the Cuban people need a new kind of leader because Fidel was not helping the people have a decent economic life.

[Berettasskeeter]

I love how the American Left is trying to portray Raul as some sort of moderating influence. This is the same Raul who was a committed Communist before Castro. This is the same Raul who engineered, along with Che, the building of a massive Cuban gulag. This is the same Raul who ran the secret police, and is responsible for the deaths, both directly and indirectly, of tens of thousands of innocent Cubans. This same Raul has a fortune in the bank from raping the Cubans with foreign families, and from the nationalization of once foreign-held Cuban property.
Semper fi

[kylab]

Thanks for highlighting an important international issue that is easily lost in all the other news and "news." President Bush has certainly done his share of bungling historic moments--with tragic results. Let's hope this opportunity to engage with Cuba and Raul Castro is one that can wait for the next administration.

[KathleenH]

Thanks for a very informative article! Perhaps with a better world view, the next administration can build bridges not only for trade and and other beneficial communication but also for the families who for decades have longed for reunification.

[Pdubya]

Ron Paul is the only candidate that has openly stated changing foreign policy with Cuba and opening up trade - as the only fruitful and meaningful way to undermine communism there.

[iral]

Superb article that unfortunately will be blindly ignored by a White House that has no inkling of how to effect peaceful relations in the world.

[AKTonForestRd]

I didn"t realize Raul Castro was more moderate than his brother. Since our Cuba policy has failed for a half-century, it sounds like his rise to power is the perfect time for the U.S. to shift course.