The Cuban government indicated yesterday—through Cuban Interests Section head Jorge Bolaños—that it was willing to open high level talks on migration, as proposed last week by the Obama administration. Bolaños formally accepted the U.S. offer and also expressed interest in (eventually) resuming direct U.S. mail service to the island and initiating additional bilateral dialogue on counter-narcotics efforts, anti-terrorism, and disaster response.

Unfortunately, the significance of these steps is being overshadowed and undermined by a false parallel drawn by at least four significant media sources—and probably scores more will follow in their prominent footsteps as reporting continues. The timing of this announcement is rather close to Secretary of State Clinton’s trip to Honduras for the Organization of American States (OAS) meeting, they point out. She did leave today, after all, and Cuba’s re-entry into the OAS will be reviewed at the meetings she will attend. And the United States is generally expected to face criticism from the rest of the countries present for its policies toward Cuba. Therefore, this is another attempt by Washington to placate the countries of the Americas by showing that it is making steps forward in relations with Havana—much like the lowering of family travel and remittance restrictions announced just before the Summit of the Americas.

The Washington Post, the New York Times and the BBC imply that this is the reasoning behind the Obama administration’s move; the Christian Science Monitor states it overtly.

Why bother drawing this connection? The Obama administration is dealing with the issue of Cuba early in its tenure; both the Summit of the Americas and this meeting of the OAS have also fallen on the administration’s schedule early on (within 150 days of Barack Obama’s inauguration). Even if the administration is making changes at certain times to coincide with these events, it does not mean the changes themselves are to placate hemispheric neighbors rather than to make adjustments to a policy that the administration recognizes has “failed.” The policy shift has been a continuous process: discussions began weeks ago between State Department and Cuban officials to see whether it might make sense to re-initiate substantive dialogue. Then the U.S. administration made a formal proposal to Cuban officials to open such talks. Yesterday, Cuban officials agreed. Yet because today is the day that Clinton left on her OAS trip, the media suggests that the step is a mere placation of the OAS. This cheapens the act itself, and detracts attention from the ways in which such dialogue benefits migrants and advances U.S. interests in controlled and coordinated migration, counter-terrorism, anti-drug trafficking efforts, and, of course, getting assistance directly to the Cuban people.

Walter Lippmann has provided me with the full Cuban perspective on the Sri Lanka report presented to the UN Human Rights Council. This is very useful; the text is in his comment here.

Perhaps the most important points highlighted in the speech are: (1) the new Human Rights Council must embrace operational transparency and cooperative methods if it is to be successful where the old organization was not; and (2) the international community must not only seek to chide Sri Lanka for its human rights record in extremely difficult and devastating times, but should work to provide support in the fight against poverty and underdevelopment in the country.

These are points I neglected in my previous post, and which must be noted.

As expected, Cuba’s seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council has already become an obstacle to the process of investigation and recognition of gross human rights offenses. Yesterday Cuba succeeded in blocking debate on abuses in Sri Lanka, which many countries have pushed for after the extreme violence that rocked the country earlier this month. As the Sri Lankan government declared an end to the 25-year civil war against the Tamil Tiger rebels, the military closed off a conflict zone, driving hundreds of thousands of civilians from their homes and killing thousands of people cornered at the coast. It is not clear how many unarmed civilians may have been killed in the conflict, and human rights monitors from the United Nations have never been allowed to deploy in the country.

Several EU countries (e.g. France, Britain, Germany) called for an investigation into possible war crimes during the conflict, and indeed, the UN Human Rights Chief wondered whether the area might have become a “killing field.” Sri Lanka put forth a written statement of the situation in the country at the request of the UN Human Rights Council, and included mentions of human rights abuses committed by Tamil Tigers but none by the military. This seemed too convenient to many EU countries, including Germany and Switzerland, but Cuba retorted, calling the European countries “arrogant” for trying to completely rewrite the Sri Lankan text.

EU countries (and the United States) might not have their hands clean in terms of human rights, as some have pointed out in this case, but that is no reason to allow abuses in yet another country—or to avoid investigating whether they are occuring. And Cuba, meanwhile, is revealing yet again its unwillingness to make a high priority of human rights.

Despite the bit of hemispheric hubbub surrounding Cuba at the moment, Havana is dealing first with the immediate internal challenges facing the country—namely, financial problems and the slowdown of important sectors of its economy. Ariel Terrero, the country’s top economic commentator, announced on national television yesterday that depressed nickel prices and reduced tourism revenue could slash Cuba’s foreign income by $1 billion for 2009. For perspective, that’s a 25% cut: total exports from the island are valued at about $4 billion annually. Terrero told Cubans that the government was already reducing imports and limiting production in some industries in response to the cash crunch.

The Minister of the Economy has also officially signed a new austerity program to begin in June, intended to cut state expenditures. His plan involves shutting off air conditioners at work, imposing large-scale “vacations” for government workers (with no indication of whether they will be paid during time off or not), and beginning the dreaded blackouts that he warned might return. Fortunately, the blackouts will be on Saturday mornings this time; not during “regular cooking hours,” as they were during the “Special Period” of severe economic measures that followed the Soviet Union’s collapse.

The new measures are likely to increase citizen discontent on the island, especially as these measures set in when temperatures during the summer months rise to 90 degrees Fahrenheit and above, and humidity begins to hover around the typical 88 percent.

Cuba is currently the only Western Hemisphere nation excluded from the Organization of American States (OAS), and while Latin American leaders push for its re-inclusion, Venezuela, the United States and Cuba are each adding complications to the plot.

• Venezuela—Hugo Chávez announced yesterday that Venezuela might withdraw from the OAS and seek Cuba’s help in creating an alternative regional group that would not simply “serve the interests of the United States,” as he believes the OAS does.
• Cuba—Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez added his two cents, calling upon Latin American nations to create an organization that serves their people “rather than the empire.”
• USA—Secretary of State Clinton testified last week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ”If Cuba is not willing to abide by (the charter’s) terms then I cannot foresee how Cuba can be a part of the OAS and I certainly would not be supporting in any way such an effort to admit it,” referring to whether she would support Cuba’s readmission when it is reviewed at the OAS General Assembly annual meeting she will be attending in Honduras on June 2. It was after these comments that Venezuela and Cuba suggested creation of an alternative organization. Subsequently, the State Department released a letter presenting a proposal that would allow Cuba to eventually rejoin the OAS, as long as Havana abides by the democratic principles of the body.

Meanwhile, of course, certain members of Congress (Bob Menendez) are up in arms about another U.S. “concession,” and are moving to suspend funding to the OAS in response. They have little reason to worry, however, since the most recent signs from Havana show little willingness to enact changes requested by the United States (e.g. releasing political prisoners) and no interest in joining the Organization of American States; both Fidel Castro and Bruno Rodríguez have released statements indicating that Cuba is proud to be a nonmember of the OAS. Without pressure from Cuban allies, Havana is unlikely to change its stance on the issue. And thus far, Venezuela is encouraging Cuba to reject the OAS, and Brazil and Mexico have shown themselves unwilling to press the island on human rights and democratic issues.

The U.S. trade embargo has not been lifted and does not look like it will be soon, but investors are apparently already taking a greater interest in the thawing relationship between the United States and Cuba. Mutual funds like the Caribbean Basin Fund fluctuate in direct response to news concerning Cuba and developments in bilateral relations in the last several months. The companies whose stocks compose the fund include Western Union, which operates on the island and facilitates the sending of remittances; Lennar, a home-builder that apparently has a pending business plan for Cuba; and Carnival and Royal Caribbean Cruises, both of which already operate extensively in the region (the Caribbean) and would likely experience an increase in passengers with Havana reopened as a port of call.

Meanwhile, European traders are returning to the Cuban securities market due to the low price of Cuban assets and the prospects presented by Obama administration overtures toward the island.

Both Reuters and Barron’s ran articles in the last few days suggesting the investment possibilities opened by the thaw in U.S.-Cuban relations—ever contingent upon the eventual lifting of the trade embargo.

Yesterday the Obama administration proposed reinstating high level meetings between Cuban and U.S. officials to discuss migration between the countries—a channel of communication that was closed in 2004 by George W. Bush. The last such talks were in mid-2003 and had happened fairly regularly before then. Bush called off further talks when the Cuban government began denying exit visas to individuals that had been granted permission to enter the United States.

Of course, the announcement was quickly followed by a denouncement by the three Republican members of Florida’s congressional delegation (Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart) who also opposed the easing of restrictions on family travel, remittance and communications announced two months ago by the Obama administration. Their view is, again, that these kinds of steps are simply unilateral concessions to a regime without any intent to make equal or reciprocal changes in its own policy.

They are missing the point. Opening talks is not to benefit or bolster the Cuban regime, and would not have that effect. It helps the people who migrate from Cuba to the United States by attempting to coordinate safe, legal and orderly migration. Cooperation on this issue is incredibly important. Under the current system, with no cooperation or coordination between the two countries, scores of Cubans are killed while crossing the Caribbean in attempts to reach the United States. Earlier this month, one such case was highly publicized, as at least 4 and more likely 8 independent journalists and librarians from the island were killed in a storm on the water.

With greater agreement on issuing of visas, treatment of Cubans repatriated to the island, and perhaps even review of the Wet Foot-Dry Foot policy (as it stands, Cubans who reach Florida beaches/land are allowed to stay in the country, and those who are intercepted at sea are returned to Cuba), these Cuban lives will be better protected.

A few U.S. readers have requested a note on travel, beyond stories of the recent policy developments that essentially affect only Cuban Americans. I’ve been asked: can I go? Will I get in trouble? In response: I’m not here to give advice on circumventing U.S. laws, but I can give you the facts.

As the law stands, U.S. citizens and others under U.S. jurisdiction (green card holders) are not prevented from traveling to Cuba. But with few exceptions—journalists, diplomats, those on government business, a few others in narrow categories, and now individuals with family on the island—they are barred by law (by the U.S. trade embargo, in fact) from spending money in Cuba, which effectively makes traveling there illegal. After all, it would be difficult to show upon returning to the United States that no money was spent while on the island, and it is inadvisable to misrepresent that fact and perjure oneself.

One can (and indeed, many do) actually get to Cuba quite easily, by traveling through another country, say, Mexico or Canada. Meanwhile, Cuban law states that when requested by a U.S. traveler, customs officers should oblige and not stamp the traveler’s passport. But upon returning to the United States by air after traveling abroad, each traveler must complete a card listing the countries visited. Prior to the Bush administration, travelers typically indicated “Cuba,” stated that they had no Cuban goods, and went comfortably through customs. During the Bush years it was more likely to cause problems with customs officers, and the penalties for breaking the law, detailed by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, are intimidating: “Criminal penalties for violating the sanctions range up to 10 years in prison, $1,000,000 in corporate fines, and $250,000 in individual fines.”

Of course, it is extremely cost-ineffective for the United States to enforce this law and so it is not, in fact, enforced much at all. Very few fines have been imposed upon individual travelers in the long history of the embargo.

Expectant travelers to Cuba, see here for tips on how to remain within the bounds of U.S. citizens’ legal rights. See also John McAuliff’s very helpful comment on this post.

The Center for the Study of the Cuban Economy predicted this week that Cuba’s economy would grow only slightly or shrink in 2009. Center economists predict 1% growth, but accept a possible range of -0.5 to 2.5%—much more realistic expectations, given current circumstances, than the 6% growth projected by the government. In fact, in the past few years the Center’s growth predictions have been much closer to the mark than those of the state.

The think tank is connected to Havana University and therefore not directly dependent upon government ministries (unlike other think tanks in Cuba). Independently then, in a piece for the International Press Service, Center economist Pavel Vidal wrote on the reasons why after four years of strong growth in Cuba, the economy would now decline. He highlighted the effects of the global financial crisis and the economically damaging hurricanes of 2008, but also pointed to low productivity, poor diversification of exports, and the dramatic increase last year in the nation’s trade deficit, which rose 70% due to high prices for food (imported) and low prices for nickel (exported).

Cubans are worried this week about the prospect of extended power outages (again) on the island. Granma ran a special piece on Monday calling on the populace to stop “wasteful” use of energy, which between January and April apparently cost the federal government $12-15 million dollars over what it had predicted to spend during that period. The article, written by a member of the National Assembly, warned that further overuse would lead Cuba to resort to power outages, because the island at this point does not have the energy imports for high use, nor the money to pay for it.

Most Cubans shudder at the reference to power outages, remembering the “special period” in 2004 when the country experienced an electricity crisis and the population was frequently left without power for long periods of time. In 2006, the electricity sector underwent a modernization phase such that in 2007, the state announced that Cuba would not have power outages moving forward. But in the current difficult period, Cubans fear that yesterday’s Granma article is meant to prepare them for the state to renege on its promise.