A few weeks ago, on an any-day sort of day, my grandmother came home to her Los Angeles bungalow and sorted her mail, tossing junk and sorting bills, when she came upon a statement from her bank. The notice she pulled from the envelope indicated that the balance of her 401k, a fund to which she had been contributing for years and drawing from only recently in modest amounts, was $0.00.

She panicked, and why would she not? The statement had no mention of the reasons for which her account had—seemingly without warning—dropped to nil. Her frantic calls to my family failed to reach more than voicemails that evening as she grasped for an explanation and for help from loved ones, her husband (my grandfather, the one who had for nearly 60 years handled financial questions for her) having passed away over a year before. She was confused and feared that she had lost her savings, and what came to her mind was this: is Obama a socialist after all?

Yes, my grandmother suspected that Washington had appropriated her personal retirement savings, her assumption partially a function of large media fusses over health care that have led to President Obama’s branding as a socialist. But on the surface her problem was an issue with a bank. With the great financial crisis not yet far behind us, it would not have been surprising to jump to a different conclusion about the solvency of the bank or the honesty of its management. To have instead immediately assumed foul play by the government, indeed, outright theft by the government of the money that she had so painstakingly set aside for years: this came from a deep seated fear and mistrust of government intentions.

And whence would this come? Well, my grandmother is a Cuban migrant, having moved in 1960 from Havana to the United States.

I drew some insight from this story, or at least anecdotal evidence for theoretical musings.

Many of the generational differences in political leanings among Cubans in the United States (Cuban migrants and Cuban-Americans born here) can be attributed to having experienced or not experienced flight and exile, an otherwise impossible to understand experience that rends families and uproots lives built and cherished. My grandmother was displaced from the home she had made in Marianao and found herself with little in the way of money and belongings trying to raise three children in a foreign country. Her instinct to draw parallels to any apparently comparable infringements upon her livelihood, even a half century later, is entirely logical to me. Similarly, I greatly respect the reasons for differences in opinion between us on questions of U.S. policies toward Cuba—her views are no doubt shaped by a deep and difficult to mend hurt that I cannot imagine.

And if I may bring this story back to the big picture for a moment: to me, the shifting political character of the Cuban-American community toward a younger demographic that is more inclined to loosen embargo restrictions, including travel, is an indication that the emotional (and traditional) response to Cuba policy is not the best one. The generation that grew up knowing well their family histories and the U.S. history in Cuba but not having experienced the pain of flight is the impartial jury that can more reasonably weigh what U.S. policy toward Cuba is appropriate.

In the end, we learned that neither the bank nor the Obama administration had taken my grandmother’s savings. Her money had been transferred to a new account under a different number for several no doubt important and valid reasons, and the bank had previously sent notice of this change, as she discovered from an apologetic bank representative that evening (apparently my grandmother missed their earlier important letter).

When she told me the full story, I gasped when I should have and I laughed when I should have, and I understood it, start to finish.

I wonder what she will think of Obama if he loosens restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba?

Photo: My grandmother at a market in Havana, circa 1955. (Photo credit: Evans/Three Lions/Getty Images)

Whispers abound, as do headlines: Obama may ease US travel to Cuba even if Congress won’t act.

The separate powers of the Executive and Congress prevent President Obama from acting solo on a number of issues, but educational travel to Cuba is not one of them. The Executive does not need congressional approval to ease existing travel regulations that prevent most Americans from freely traveling to Cuba. Washington Post columnist Al Kamen predicted this week without flinching: “[L]ook for Obama administration action, after Congress leaves town, to loosen travel restrictions.”

(That would be welcomed in Havana, where officials are currently steamed by the US Treasury’s insistence upon again placing Cuba on its list of state sponsors of terrorism—a designation Havana protests annually).

Speculation has gone so far as the wishful thinking that if Obama maybe does further loosen travel restrictions, Congress will then perhaps be encouraged by the President’s support for the measure and repeal a wider ban on travel by Americans to the island.

John McAuliff of the Havana Note takes a swing at these issues, rounding up the relevant source material in his piece this week. Take a look here.

(Photo credit: Getty Images)

So Fidel did, in the end, appear and speak before the Cuban National Assembly—just in a separate meeting from that of his brother Raúl (though the current President Castro joined this meeting as well to hear Fidel speak). In his 12-minute speech on Saturday, Fidel repeated his recent warnings that tensions between the United States and Iran could lead to global nuclear war, and discussed the threat of climate change. Both of these topics are lofty for the average Cuban, concerned with their own day-to-day and the difficulties caused by ongoing economic troubles in the country. Why no word of his assessment of the domestic scene?

Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez’s writings in the Generation Y blog are followed closely around the world for the personal glimpses they provide into life in Cuba (albeit from one citizen’s perspective). This week one of her insights felt like a near revelation to me. Her words:

“Even if he doesn’t censure, if Caesar does not applaud, things go badly. It is unthinkable that Fidel Castro is unaware of the appetite for change that is devouring the Cuban political class; it would be naive to believe that he approves.”

How interesting… while the world continues to wait for Fidel to comment on the domestic issues that he tends to gloss over in his “Reflections” and has more recently avoided in his numerous public appearances, we fail to take note that Fidel has never been one to abstain from comment on something he applauds domestically or internationally. And his critique is as frequent as it is frank, but focuses only on foes, be it internationally (mainly the United States) or domestically (e.g. Cuban officials deemed traitors). In this case, his silence is a statement in itself; as Sanchez points out, it would be silly to think that Fidel did not notice the goings-on domestically, or that he did not realize the weight his own statement on such issues holds. But he will not criticize his brother or meddle in public opinion in a way that might be unfavorable to Raúl’s ends.

So what is the desenlace? Is his silence on the announcements of impending economic reform and of the release of Cuba prisoners going to manifest itself in a “things going badly” way, as Yoani suggests? Or is it a tacit signal that although he disapproves, he accepts that he has ceded leadership on such issues and will not stand in the way?

(Photo credit: Javier Galeano/AP)

The Washington Post yesterday and a few other sources pointed out that, interestingly, Fidel Castro has not appeared publicly alongside his brother Raúl since he stepped down from the presidency four years ago.

And so the seed was planted, and everything begins to look like evidence. Raúl’s recent agreements to release Cuban prisoners and Fidel’s silence on the issue; Fidel’s spate of recent appearances after years out of the public eye but notable absence beside his brother at the Revolution Day celebration and at the National Assembly meeting this week; Raúl’s solo speech to the National Assembly while Fidel chose instead to meet with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi instead; Fidel’s solo release this week of his newest book, a historical account (with autobiographical content) called The Strategic Victory.

Where has the leadership’s unified front gone? Or is it a case of divide and conquer?

In any case the issue will not be a serious one, or at least does not appear that way. Fidel and Raúl have long been recognized to have differing views on a variety of topics, including economic reforms, international relationships and human rights accords. That they would continue to disagree behind the scenes would not be surprising. But as neither publicly contradicts the other, Fidel’s reappearance might have little to do with the state agenda and his opinions (contrary or not) on it, and more to do with rallying and giving hope to—or even distracting—a weary Cuban public as the economy continues to stagnate.

(AP Photo/Cubadebate, Roberto Chile)

… and we pretend to work.

The long-standing Cuban axiom has come to bear more truth than its users may have hoped or imagined. President Castro announced yesterday in his address before the National Assembly that the Cuban government will actually begin to lay off redundant workers, which he estimates are perhaps 1 in every 5 workers on the island (some would guess even more than that).

Of course, guaranteed employment was a key element of the 1959 revolution in Cuba and has remained so: some 95% of the official Cuban workforce is employed by the state, standing testament to the strength of the guarantee. Could Raúl’s announcement simply be a warning meant to spur productivity? Probably not, as laziness is not the only problem but lack of actual work and/or tools contribute (or perhaps better put, misallocation of workers); 5 construction workers at a site with one brush and one hammer means 3 people are not working, by no fault of their own.

No, this statement is real.

Cubans who are let go from their current posts will be retrained or reassigned so that they will not stay out of work. The government, as ever, is trying to push and pull and tweak until the Cuban system is healthily operating without bending to whispers of free market, and while simultaneously seeking to achieve greater recognition of the value of work. As Raúl put it in April, “Without people feeling the need to work to make a living, sheltered by state regulations that are excessively paternalistic and irrational, we will never stimulate a love for work.” That love of work is a part of the “ideal” socialism.

And so the goal of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” (or as Havana has more often used this Marxist refrain in the last half century: “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work“) remains. And the question of whether Cuba can create the right incentive system to accomplish this ever-elusive socialist ideal remains as well.

(AP Photo/Javier Galeano)

In spite of the decades of pressure coming from the United States, Canada has maintained consistently cordial relations with Cuba—in fact, Canada and Mexico were the only two countries in the hemisphere to maintain uninterrupted diplomatic relations with Cuba following the revolution in 1959. [Interesting Wikipedia fact of the week: Former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Fidel Castro were personal friends, and Castro was among Pierre Trudeau's pallbearers at his funeral in 2000].

The island remains one of the most popular travel destinations for Canadian citizens, and Canadian travelers are the chief source of tourism for Cuba. Considering tourism is Cuba’s top hard-currency earning industry, the relationship with Canada can naturally be considered an important one.

So when Peter Kent, Canada’s top diplomat for the Americas, spoke this week, Havana no doubt listened, at least more than it is inclined to do for other international actors. Kent said that Canadian officials spoke to representatives from Havana in Ottawa about Canadian citizens currently detained in Cuba, including a 19-year-old that has been held since April after a car accident. And Canada was still as inoffensive and accommodating as could possibly be expected in expressing concerns, as Kent reported:

“While aware that Cuban law allows for a lengthy period of investigation, Canadian officials expressed their concern that the investigation into this matter is taking so long.”

This very diplomatic approach from a longtime strategic partner might well elicit a positive response from Havana.

Cuba watchers and analysts pick apart every move, every statement in Washington or Havana that might be a political / economic / diplomatic bellwether and yet on a daily basis, particularly lately, we find ourselves stymied in the art of predicting the “what next.” Fidel emerges unexpectedly for a string of appearances after years out of the public eye. Havana agrees to release prisoners that it had long defended its right to hold, even as recently as a few weeks ago indicating that it would not “be pressured” by internal dissidents and external international actors to change its policies. And yesterday, la día de la revolución in Cuba, when many onlookers expected one or both of the Castros to seize the opportunity for a speech and an acknowledgement of one kind or another of recent developments, as we looked on intently, neither stood up.

Indeed, for the first time in 50 years neither Fidel nor Raúl gave the Revolution Day address to the nation. Instead, Vice President José Ramón Machado Ventura was given the podium. Cubans were as surprised as the rest of us, as they expected a statement on plans for economic reform from the head of state. Machado presented little in that regard, and nothing like the outlines of a new initiative.

Next week is the National Assembly meeting: perhaps that will be the occasion for a comprehensive statement on any one or a number of these topics? Or is the Revolution Day speech an indication of a new system of sharing power and authority as the old guard in Havana continues to plan for its transition to a new generation of leadership? I hesitate to predict anything in these recent weeks, where surprise after surprise is showing that in so many cases the United States and Cuba do not know each other as well as they believe. And that, actually, should really not be surprising at all.

(Photo: Associated Press)

Spending a week in Tuscany has its benefits, certainly, but without dependable Internet access and Western Hemisphere-centered news items, it seems I’ve missed a number of notable (and indeed, unusual/surprising/jaw-dropping) events in Cuba…

Here are a few of the ones I’m picking up in the airport now. What else have I missed?

Cuba indicates that it will free all its political prisoners

This is an extension of earlier promises and agreements over the last several week following discussions with Spanish officials and high-ranking members of the Catholic Church in Havana, which we discussed in an earlier post. EU countries will almost certainly respond with revision of the common position.

Fidel Castro Makes His First Visit Outside Cuba

Another follow-up, but also at a level unpredicted. Fidel had made a couple appearances recently, exponentially increasing his public presence since 2006, and we discussed them here and here.

Cuba watchers look for signals today

This is, in fact, today, and we’ll have an eye out as Raúl Castro gives his Revolution Day speech. Will Fidel be there, solidifying his renewed public presence and influence? Will Raúl publicly acknowledge the agreement Havana has made to release 52 (and possibly all 75) prisoners that have been detained since the 2003 “black spring” crackdown? [Last week the head of Cuba's parliament, Ricardo Alarcón, went further then has yet been confirmed and said it was the government's wish "to free all the people" on condition they had not been accused of murder.]

It would be nearly impossible for Washington not to respond to all this. The prospects are thrilling, though a recent Foreign Affairs piece that I have in hand (and is available for easy purchase online) by Laurie Garrett cautions about the unintended consequences of a quick and dirty lifting of the embargo in terms I had not before considered.

What else have I missed in this week?

(Photo: Sergio Barrenechea/EPA)

Already there has been lots of speculation on why Fidel Castro chose this moment specifically to give himself a bigger presence in Cuban life than he has had for the last several years, during which he had taken on the role of a nearly invisible but omnipresent source of critical opinion through his written commentaries. Having appeared almost solely in very occasional photos since 2006, former president Castro’s participation in Mesa Redonda earlier this week and his follow-up appearances before (1) the Cuban Foreign Ministry, (2) the National Center of Scientific Investigations, and (3) Havana’s Center for Research on the World Economy have surprised many.

And perhaps without even realizing it, media has all of a sudden allowed Castro’s appearances to draw attention away from Cuba’s largest release of prisoners since 1998, and the implications and consequences of such a move. Whether this was the intended or unintended consequence will be difficult to know—but it’s certainly one response to the “why now?” question.

(Photo: Reuters)

Fidel Castro returns to Cuban TV

(NPR) After so very few public appearances since intestinal surgery in 2006, this was news indeed. Fidel Castro appeared on Mesa Redonda, a prominent talk show on Cuban television, to discuss world events. His comments included an accusation that the United States was the culprit in the sinking of the South Korean ship (the Cheonan), and a warning US-North Korean and US-Iranian tension could ultimately trigger a global nuclear war.

His appearance, unquestionably current with comments on global events and direct reference to articles published in the previous week, will no doubt quiet (at least temporarily) the persistent rumors of his health among Cubans abroad. And the timing, following the state’s release of prisoners as arranged with representatives from Spain and the Catholic Church, is almost certainly a way to say, “I am here and I am on top of everything … I am a part of every decision that is being made,” even without directly commenting on the arrangement/concession.

2 get prison for Cuba spying

Kendall Myers and Gwendolyn Myers, the couple in their 70s that was arrested in an FBI sting operation at the beginning of June and accused of spying for years for the Cuban regime, were today sentenced in the United States. Kendall received a life sentence; Gwendolyn in the end will serve around 6 years.

Most interesting from the testimony in the trial was Kendall’s comment that he and his wife spied for Cuba for nearly 30 years because of their “solidarity with the Cuban people,” not “out of anger for the United States or from a feeling of anti-Americanism.”