The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is a collection of nations whose mission is to protect members’ sovereignty “against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.” Associated countries account for 2/3 of the members of the United Nations and around 55% of the world’s population. In fact, over 120 countries’ representatives participated in the NAM meetings in Havana this week—the last conference with Cuba holding the temporary presidency of the organization (the presidency now passes on to Egypt).

Raúl Castro used the occasion and the opportunity of a giant audience to speak his mind on the still-recent developments in relations between his country and the United States. His message: Cuba will not make “gestures” to the United States, because Cuba is not the aggressor.

His key comments, for non-Spanish speakers, were:

It is not Cuba that has pursued the [irresponsible] financial transactions carried out by North American banks; it is not Cuba that has a military presence in the United States against the will of the citizens of the country; etcetera, etcetera (in order not to make this an endless list); and therefore, it is not Cuba that has to make goodwill gestures.

Raúl further stated that Cuba was indeed ready to speak on all subjects, but on equal footing, without any questioning of the nation’s sovereignty or of its social and political systems.

This is his first direct response to President Obama’s comments at the Summit of the Americas, which expressed hope for reciprocal gestures from the island nation. Obama had suggested one such move; that Cuba free its political prisoners.

Castro’s argument is tempting (indeed, Cuba is a small nation that has been harmed by U.S. policies), but it is also misleading. The United States has not been a static entity over time: presidents, congresses and administrations have come in and out, and policies have been built up over time in opposition to the political and social realities on the island. The Obama administration is seeking to rectify past errors and has said so. In that spirit, asking for positive and reciprocal gestures on both sides in order to increase trust is not unreasonable. Listing the errors that have been made by past actors over the course of many years does nothing to advance meaningful shifts in the U.S.-Cuba relationship.

The State Department is not giving ground: it has again emphasized that the onus is on Cuba to show that they are serious about negotiations.

A local Cuban newspaper in Ciego de Ávila reported this week that Cuba’s population has been declining for several years: between the end of 2005 and the end of 2008 the population shrank by about 7,100. The article ascribes the change to declining fertility coupled with the natural aging of the Cuban people.

Indeed, average age in Cuba has increased, with some 2 million inhabitants over 60 years old. The phenomenon is true across many of the countries of Latin America, as the effects of youthful emigration and declining fertility rates over the course of several decades become more noticeable. In fact, just today Mexico’s newspaper Reforma reported that the Mexican state did not have the capacity to provide services to the current elder population, which is nearing 10% of the total population, and asked a key question: if this is true and if the state is not working to expand capacity, how will the state provide for seniors in 2050, when they will be one out of every three Mexicans?

The Cuban state should be asking itself similar questions. As the price of nickel remains too low for profitable production, investment and financing constrict, and the revenues of the state consequently decline, how can Cuba expect to fund state-provided necessary services for an increasing number of senior citizens? And with its resources and revenues ever more restricted, will it continue to be able to provide for the current population?

Even without a particularly welcoming response from the highest Cuban authorities (and without any reciprocal policy moves), the State Department is quietly moving forward with the administration’s plans to gradually change policy toward Cuba, by opening channels of dialogue with Cuban diplomats in the United States and testing the waters to see what other steps might come next. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon met today with Cuban Interests Section Mission Chief Jorge Bolaños to discuss prospects for further steps to complement the changes made by the Obama administration in the lead-up to the Summit of the Americas.

The issues on the table include whether (or really, when) the two governments could open talks on migration, drug trafficking, energy, and regional security matters, and whether there are ways to open channels for more cultural and academic exchanges between the United States and Cuba. Many argue that these latter kinds of exchanges must occur if Cuban civil society is to flourish, as the United States has long hoped would happen.

The recent outbreak of swine flu—so far most serious in Mexico but also in the United States and several other countries—is causing global concern, and Cuba is taking its own precautions to try to make sure the illness does not reach the island. The state is limiting flights to Mexico (there are usually 4 flights daily), questioning passengers that do arrive from Mexico and checking them for signs of illness during their visit to Cuba, and monitoring pigs themselves for symptoms. Cuba has ordered disease specialists and civil defense authorities to be vigilant in preventing an outbreak on the island.

Granma, Cuba’s national newspaper, held details on the front page of precautions being taken.

The high level of interconnection between and among countries today is fascinating in its dangerousness here: it means that even Cuba, an island that is relatively isolated both due to geography and due to the U.S. embargo, has need to take immediate steps to protect itself from a health security concern that at this point lies at least 117 miles away.

The Houston Chronicle highlighted some striking figures this week that are worth repeating: Cuba has a population of 11.4 million and an average monthly income of $17; the island lost 10% of its GDP last year in the damage caused by Hurricane Ike; but there were only 7 fatalities on the island caused by the disaster. This is far fewer than the fatalities reported in Texas from Ike, a state with more resources and greater ability to provide for citizens.

In light of that, Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas of Galveston, Texas, traveled to Havana to learn about the evacuation procedures, injury treatment and hurricane drills that have led to high relative success in protecting residents from the giant storms in the region. For instance, Cuba uses military and police presence in evacuation areas to assure residents that their belongings are safe and that their homes will be secure as they evacuate. Police and soldiers even help move furniture when residents are unable to do so. State-run media broadcasts hurricane reports and weather continuously. And every May, the country undergoes a mandatory two-day hurricane drill. These tacks allowed Cuba to safely evacuate 900,000 people to safe zones and shelters as Ike approached last year, something that Galveston had great problems doing and convincing residents to do.

This dialogue between U.S. and Cuban officials is the kind of exchange that benefits both nations.

Foreign investors and businesses in Cuba are getting worried as the state-run banks on the island explain that they have little foreign currency for withdrawals and international transfers. Could the country be near insolvency? On top of low nickel prices, the hurricanes at the end of 2008, and the current global economic downturn, declaring insolvency could be disastrous for the Cuban economy. If Cuba reveals that it is unable to pay its debts on time, it will only drive away foreign businesses and potential future investments—a negative feedback loop.

Cuban authorities have not made any public statement as to the severity of the situation, and indeed rarely comment on economic developments in the country. Now would be a good time to speak up, if businesses should not be worried.

Read the Reuters report here.

In a Wall Street Journal piece this week, Jorge Castañeda suggested an intriguing solution to the U.S.-Cuban relationship problems. The obstacle halting further progress in changes to current policy, as many see it, is one of principles: if Obama were to lift the embargo unilaterally, he would be sending a message about democracy and human rights—namely, that they no longer matter to the United States. The Obama administration believes that the embargo has been a failure, Latin American leaders are clamoring for it to be lifted, and yet the Castros show no indication that they are on the way toward releasing political prisoners or embracing democratic principles. What to do?

But on the other hand, why have Latin American leaders like Brazil’s Lula and Mexico’s Calderón been silent on Havana’s human rights record? That’s where Castañeda’s prescription comes in. Washington should unilaterally lift the embargo, he says, and in return, Brazil, Chile and Mexico (at least) should facilitate the normalization of relations between the island and the United States, while pressing Cuba to establish representative democracy and respect for human rights. If these countries were to agree to such a process (which is probably unlikely), it might just satisfy all parties.

This policy would give the Cubans what they say they want: an unconditional end to the embargo, the beginning of a negotiation process, and perhaps even access to international financial institutions’ funds. The Latin American leaders would get a major concession from the new administration on a highly symbolic issue. And human-rights defenders in Latin America and elsewhere would see their concerns regarding free elections, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and the liberation of political prisoners addressed as a demand from Cuba’s friends — not as an imposition from Washington.

In fact, this just might be the best possible way of breaching the current impasse, in which each side is waiting for a concession from the other. And although Raúl expressed his willingness last week to discuss “everything” with the United States, Fidel quickly followed up with a note warning Obama not to misinterpret those words: Cuba will discuss, but will not back down on any issue.

I attended a highly informative talk last week given by Lou Pérez, a University of North Carolina Professor of History and specialist on 20th century Cuba. In a week with so much activity revolving around Cuba, the United States and the hemisphere, he managed to skirt current events and instead delve into the historic relationship between these two countries, drawing extensively from his book published in August of 2008, Cuba in the American Imagination: Metaphor and Imperial Ethos.

His investigation illuminates an important aspect of U.S.-Cuba relations, namely the role of U.S. imperialism wrapped in the guise of moral responsibility. For instance, the language that prevailed in the halls of Congress and in U.S. daily newspapers leading up to 1898 (the year when the United States entered into the Spanish-American War in “defense” of Cuba) included words like “neighbor” and “on our doorstep.” The close proximity of the island inspired neighborhood metaphors, which later gave way to damsel in distress metaphors. What could Uncle Sam do but intervene on behalf of the woman pleading for help outside his door? Soon the gallant United States was rushing in to ward off brutish Spain.

From there, the imagery of Cuba and, by extension, the conception of the island in the American imagination, only spiraled deeper into fantasy. Once the United States had power over Cuba post-war, political cartoons began to portray Uncle Sam as father to an unruly child Cuba, bathing him of the dirt that caked his dark body, teaching him to ride a bike (but not yet allowing him to ride on his own), and otherwise implanting in American minds the idea that Cuba had to be taken care of and that it was a U.S. duty, as a moral and responsible neighbor and keeper, to give that care.

Although Pérez focuses on the end of the 19th century and then on the 20th, his reflections on metaphor are not inapplicable today. For years the United States has considered itself responsible for quarantining the “disease” that is the Cuban revolution. And today, Fidel and Raúl both loudly refuse to accept any “carrot-and-stick” approach to relations that the Obama administration might take.

These metaphors obscure the reality of the situation, just as they did at the turn of the 20th century. The conception of “disease” misses the point that the Cuban revolution has been a permanent fixture for 50 years, and that a “quarantine” has done nothing to eliminate it. The “carrot-and-stick” imagery ignores the reasonableness of reciprocity in improving a relationship that has been only hostile for years.

Policymakers and the attentive public beware.

One of the perceived obstacles in the way of changing current U.S. policy toward Cuba is the Cuban-American community in the United States, largely localized (and certainly most vocal) in Miami-Dade County in Florida. It was only two years ago that the Miami-Dade County school board voted to ban the book Vamos a Cuba, a children’s book that was part of a series discussing travel around the world and the acceptance of different cultures, from elementary school libraries. They argued that it was “rife with omissions,” including the existence of a “48-year-old dictatorship” on the island, and furthermore, the page asserting that Cuban people “eat, work, and go to school like you do” was misleading, and “simply not true.”

Yet many media outlets are highlighting the generational shifts in the Cuban-American community and a shift in attitudes—away from “hard-line” rejection of any form of engagement, toward more openness: indeed, a poll released today shows that 67% of the Cuban-American community supports the removal of all restrictions on travel to Cuba.

But that leaves one third of this community on the opposite side of the issue, and more still stand on the side of the embargo. While they will probably not end up being an obstacle to policy changes—their numbers are relatively small and, as previously discussed, President Obama never garnered their support in the first place—their concerns are real and are founded in the deep pain of having left their home country to rebuild and protect for themselves and their children the freedoms that they saw disappearing in Cuba.

The community itself is fascinating. As Jackie Sousa points out in this Miami Herald post, even the term “community” is largely misleading. There are huge differences among the various waves of Cuban migrants, and split opinions over recent policy changes are merely revealing social fractures that have existed for years. Sociologist Silvia Pedraza classifies the waves as:

• “Those who wait,” the exiles that arrived in Miami between 1959 and 1962, and who believe that one day they will return to a free Cuba;
• “Those who escape,” the professionals who were pushed out in the early 1960s;
• “Those who search,” small merchants and farmers who fled the island between 1965 and 1973 after their businesses were taken over;
• “Those who hope,” the poorer and more racially diverse groups that came in the 1980s searching for a better future; and
• “Those who despair,” the discontented who arrived in the 1990s when the Castro regime encouraged them to leave the island.

The fact that the name given to each wave is a word based in emotion is apt, I think, and hints at what the embargo means for each group and what engagement with Cuba might mean for each. So when policymakers talk about gaining the support of the “Cuban-American community,” they’re missing a lot of nuance.

At the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad today, President Obama dealt with the issue of Cuba tactfully and, I think, in a way that will please leaders of many Latin American countries. He said that the United States is on a path toward changing the nature of its relationship with Cuba. The implication was that further thawing of the relationship is possible, and he said that dialogue should be opened on a whole range of issues, from drugs and migration to human rights and democracy.

Raúl Castro, for his part, has issued a statement that he is willing to speak on any of these issues, which opens the door for one or the other to actually propose a sit-down talk. When will the next steps be taken?