Lugar Calls for a "Return to Realism" on Cuba

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar, a long time realist and serious strategic thinker about America's national security challenges, has just popped the bubble of those who have used Cuba for decades in their ineffective ideological crusades.

Lugar's team is releasing on Monday a new 'committee print' titled "CHANGING CUBA POLICY -- IN THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL INTEREST." (pdf here)

For US-Cuba policy junkies, the report is pretty breathtaking in its indictment of decades of American failure in trying to adjust Cuba's national government's behavior via sanctions and an embargo.

In his opening missive in the document, Senator Lugar states:

Economic sanctions are a legitimate tool of U.S. foreign policy, and they have sometimes achieved their aims, as in the case of apartheid South Africa.

After 47 years, however, the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of "bringing democracy to the Cuban people," while it may have been used as a foil by the regime to demand further sacrifices from Cuba's impoverished population.

The current U.S. policy has many passionate defenders, and their criticism of the Castro regime is justified. Nevertheless, we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests.

This report is important because it builds on questions that Richard Lugar asked in writing of Hillary Clinton during her Senate confirmation hearings. I noted then that buried in the many questions submitted by Lugar was an implied message to the administration that he would not accept any more illusions that the status quo in the relationship was working.

In response, Hillary Clinton promised a full administration review of US-Cuba policy which Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs Tom Shannon is leading now. What is also interesting is that someone close to Shannon and those potentially contributing to this policy review told me it would be important for the administration "to hear from Congress."

Lugar has now provided much ammunition in his powerful commentary on the need for US-Cuba policy to change, using what was essentially a trip report by Senate Foreign Relations Committee senior staff member Carl Meacham as a vehicle to convey his views. Meacham traveled to Cuba as part of a staff delegation in January 2009, organized by the non-partisan Lexington Institute.

Key findings of the report include that the Cuban regime has become fully institutionalized; positive developments are occurring in Cuba but should not be mistaken as structural reform; that popular dissatisfaction with Cuba's economic situation is the regime's vulnerability; and the regime appears to be open to some bilateral dialogue and cooperation.

The report endorses the rather minimal steps already promised by Obama on relaxing restrictions on "Cuban-American" travel and financial remittances to family members -- but then pushes forward on many other fronts with a sopisticated and methodical review of other steps the administration should consider, most of which are possible even within the confines of the Congressionally-imposed embargo.

This is a brilliant piece of policy and political craftsmanship.

I call it the "slippery slope strategy" in which Lugar is shining a big spotlight on the inadequacy and failure of US-Cuba policy that for too long has been held in place by domestic constituencies who were working at odds with the American national interest. Lugar is pushing buttons and nudging Obama's team into put itself forward constructively -- and with these steps, it becomes easier to see the broader embargo as a serious anachronism and a mistake that needs remedy.

US-Cuba policy is the only place in the world where the nearly extinct Cold War actually got colder -- and it's time this relationship thawed.

In her piece on this not yet released report today, Washington Post national security correspondent Karen DeYoung finishes with:

In his letter to senators, Lugar noted that Obama's election and the replacement of President Fidel Castro with his brother Raúl have generated debate important to U.S. security interests, "broader U.S.-Latin-American relations, and global perceptions of U.S. foreign policy."

"Despite uncertainty about Cuba's mid-term political future," Lugar wrote, "it is clear that the recent leadership changes have created an opportunity for the United States to reevaluate a complex relationship marked by misunderstanding, suspicion, and open hostility."

Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel once told me at a cocktail party that we were working together to make "realism the new liberal ideology."

It has been working, and Richard Lugar has just done his team on the Minority side -- as well as his colleagues Committee Chairman John Kerry and Senator Christopher Dodd, who has long set the "gold standard" in US-Cuba policy legislation and proposals -- a great favor by pushing this report into our national debate.

It's time that we stopped letting other national leaders, like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, colonize the affections and interests of Cuban citizens who are actually interested -- like the rest of the world -- in whether Obama has the guts and vision to generate some meaningful strategic shifts for the United States.

Cuba is the lowest hanging ripe fruit on America's tree of foreign policy options. Change is easy there -- and overdue.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Ed. Note: Photo above on the right side is of former Senator Birch Bayh, Senator Richard Lugar, New America Foundation/American Strategy Program Director Steve Clemons, and Washington College C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience Director Adam Goodheart at a November 12, 2007 Senatorial Colloquy at Washington College. The top photo of Senator Lugar was also taken at the same Washington College Senate Colloquy.

Comments

[JohnTy]

Surprising how many Americans - and not just Cuban Americans - find their way to Cuba - as I found on a recent trip!

For what it is worth those Cubans I met who were most anti the current regime were the most hopeful that the embargo will be lifted following the election of Obama. Most Cubans that I talked to were very cynical however - and expect no real change in US policy.

The main changes that Cubans want are economic changes - but they will not willingly give up their free heatlh care or their education system. I would judge that bourgeois political freedoms are rather a long way down on most people's wish lists.

[Sunlituplands]

Sanctions are a poor tool for modifying behavior in a desired direction. Even in the case of South Africa, sanctions were not the primary motive for change. Sanctions empower the gov't of the target nation domestically, and impoverish and unify the target nation's populace. There are better ways to achieve our goals.

[krkrbtsaz]

Sanctions can modify behavior if they are multilateral in nature and the aims are relatively modest. They are not very effective when it comes to bringing about regime change- Cuba is a good example of that.

Having said that, it is not exactly clear that engagement is going to do the trick. Engagement has been oversold. In the case of China and Vietnam, it has led to economic liberalization but no democracy. In Burma, it has not led to any improvement in the human rights situation.

And again, in the case of Cuba, people in the US seem to forget that Canada and much of Europe have pursued a policy of engagement. This policy of engagement has had no meaningful effect or change in outcome on the Cuban economic or political scene in over 15 years.

Basically, the US and Europe have overstated their power. They have mistakenly believed that if only the right policy was pursued, change would occur in Cuba. In reality, right or wrong, the Cuban government is in control of the situation on the island, and they will decide Cuba's future- not the United States or anyone else.

[balickistan]

well enough gravitas. lets go look at mostly naked brazilians.

[balickistan]

outside of economics, this is a good republican. his insights are sharp, well thought out and timely. sadly, most repubs will balk. hell, there will be more demonstrations and anger in miami, than that elian kid kerfuffle. well done sen. lugar, another well reasoned position.

[peterg76]

He never actuallys say "return to realism," which is just as well since you can return to something you've never done.

[BarryS]

next time Obama wants repub votes, all he has to do is say "if I don't get 10+ votes. I'll pull a Nixon and be in Havana in the morning." Bet that gets them lickity split

[observer151]

It was mostly US actions which tilted Castro towards the Soviets.

In 1960, Cuba expropriated property owned by foreigners, including those owned by US sugar companies, and assets owned by United Fruit Company. Twenty-year bonds at 4.5% (market rate at the time, backed by the full faith and credit of Cuba) were offered as compensation, but the offer was rejected by U.S. ambassador Philip Bonsal, who requested the compensation up front. Only $1.3 million was paid to U.S. interests before deteriorating relations ended all cooperation between the two governments. Cases like Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964), and the retroactive 2nd Hickenlooper Amendment didn't help matters either.

In contrast, property owners and governments in Great Britain, France, Canada, Italy, Sweden, Mexico, and Spain accepted the terms of compensation for their confiscated property.

FYI, United Fruit had played a large role in the U.S. decision to overthrow the Guatemalan government in 1954 when land was nationalized there for land reform. SecState John Foster Dulles had been both a stockholder and legal adviser of United Fruit. His brother Allen Dulles, director of the CIA, had been president of the company. United States U.N. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge had been a member of United's board of directors. Walter Bedell Smith, who had preceded Dulles as CIA director, had become the president of United Fruit after the overthrow of the Guatemalan government in 1954. Smith was on Eisenhower's staff during WWII.

[balickistan]

excellent post.

[krkrbtsaz]

One of the common misunderstandings is that the United States "pushed' Cuba into the Soviet sphere and that the "Cuban situation" is entirely the fault of the US. While the US can certainly be faulted, we have to look at a couple of key facts. Castro's two most important advisors, his brother Raul, and Che Guevara were both communists. Raul was a more doctrinaire communist following the Soviet line of thinking and certainly Che was more radical. Fidel was more of an opportunist. All hated the United States.

In 1958, in his famous quote to his confidant Celia Sanchez, Fidel said "When this war is over, a much wider and bigger war will begin for me, the war I am going to wage against them. I realize that is going to be my true destiny." Because of Fidel's beliefs and the influence of his key advisors Raul and Che, it was pretty much a given that Fidel was not going to be a friend of the US. Another way of saying it, he was looking for a fight, and he got exactly what he wanted.

[SethBLiNK]

Great that this is coming from a Republican, albeit a famously independent-thinking one. What would have been the response if Lugar had delivered this during the Bush-Cheney-Rice regime?

[terrierist]

Good for Lugar. Now if only other members of congress could also come to their senses.

[beaupritchard]

Way beyond time to end the siege of Cuba.

[j-stl]

I remember the same arguments being used by pragmatists in regards to South Africa 20+ years ago. Oddly enough, "[then Senator Lugar] led the Senate effort to secure passage of the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which imposed economic and political sanctions on South Africa."

Further more: "During his initial chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1985 to 1986, Senator Lugar was instrumental in promoting democracy around the world. He played a pivotal role in the 1986 Philippines election that brought Corazon Aquino to power."

I agreed with him then, and I don't agree with him now.

source: http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/

[wmfor]

Those two examples you mention were examples of EFFECTIVE policy.

The Cuban policy has been anything but effective. It has been, in fact, counterproductive, and Lugar is to be commended for recognizing that.

[j-stl]

That is what the pragmatists said after 20+ years of ineffecitve sanctions against South Africa. They even rolled out the same argument that sanctions were hurting the black population disproportionately. And whatever happened to promoting democracy?

If the sanctions hurt the poor and the Cuban leadership cares about their people more than themselves, than they should step aside. The fact they don't means they aren't for the people and wouldn't survive an election.

[Dystopic]

The Soviets put missiles in Cuba.

The Soviet Empire crumbles

We are now" freinds" with the former Soviets

Yet, still sanctions on Cuba.

I am tired of buying my Cuban Cigars from Canada.

[strick9]

I remember when Castro was received as a hero to the Cuban people after overthrowing Batiste and organized crime he supported. When he refused to become a US puppet he was demonized by our government much the same as Chavez and Morales. These men have all received the support of the majority of their people that were exploited by the rich ruling class for many years. Perhaps this was because our government has feared the rise of the working class in this country to demand a share of the wealth we produce. The bankers and corporations that export our jobs to third world countries to maximize their profit may loose control. George Bush refused help from Cuba after Hurricane Katrina. How sick is that?

[petphotos]

When I joined the Air Force in 1961, they wanted to know if you even knew a Cuban, and all the details. Scared stiff.

[timberdoodle]

Cuba has long defined the U.S. for years now as all informed people, world wide, were aware these sanctions only hurt the people not the leadership and served as a joke when Americans referred to their country as the land of the free yet couldn't buy a cuban cigar.

In almost all circumstances sanctions don't hurt the leadership of any country just it's ordinary citizens and only seems to be used by U.S. politicians to show how Macho they are with their foreign policies.

[WmC]

A Republican calling for a foreign policy based on rationality and realism? Will wonders ever cease?