From Phil Peters’ The Havana Note, this might be the most concise and apt summary I’ve seen of the inconsistencies in U.S. policy toward Cuban immigrants. It is a strong argument for revision of those policies, as it directly responds to the opposition’s claims, as well:

“If you believe in the embargo as an instrument of pressure, it takes away that pressure by giving discontented Cubans a way out. The ‘dry-foot’ policy, which is not required by law, allows Cubans who arrive here without a visa to come right in even if they have no basis for asylum or refugee status. The quick, nearly automatic admission of nearly all Cubans makes a mockery of the ’state sponsor of terrorism’ designation. The policy extends immigration privileges to people who were born and lived their lives outside Cuba, but have Cuban parents. It gives Cuban doctors serving on missions abroad a pass to come to the United States, even if they could remain without trouble in a country of first asylum. It allows Cubans who apply to immigrate on the basis of family unification to come on an expedited basis, an option not available to other nationalities. And… it gives Cuban immigrants the package of government benefits that go to refugees, even though the vast majority of Cuban immigrants do not have refugee status.”

Cuban exile Armando Ruiz is awaiting a response from the Obama administration on his application for a license to run a ferry from Miami to Havana. He proposes to charter a 600-cabin cruise-ferry from a dealer in Lithuania for $23 million for the project.

Now that Cuban-Americans are allowed to travel freely to visit family on the island, the expense of air travel to Havana (which as of now is only provided by charter flight operators at around $500 round-trip from Miami) is the final hindrance. Ruiz’s option for travel back and forth by less-expensive ferry ride would benefit Cuban-Americans with less money, he believes, as well as those who want to bring more gifts to family than flying allows, and people who are unable to fly because of illness or fear.

The current U.S. law governing travel to Cuba allows licenses for aircraft and vessels, so theoretically, his request is within all legal bounds.

The problem is: Ruiz’s request outpaces the current stage of diplomatic deliberations. A ferry such as this may have potential for the future, but it may be too early in the process of rapprochement to receive the “OK” on this from the State Department.

Last Thursday, the U.S. Treasury Department officially lifted nearly all restrictions on Cuban-American remittances and travel to Cuba—measures promised by the Obama administration nearly five months ago. The department also relaxed regulations prohibiting U.S. telecommunications and satellite linkages between the United States and Cuba, and eased licensing requirements for visitors engaged in agricultural and medical sales.

This latter item was the only new addition to the announcement of new policy in April. It will allow U.S. producers to more easily sell agricultural goods to Cuba, which several members of Congress argued makes “good economic sense” in these times.

Why did the Treasury Department take so long to enact the changes the President encouraged them to push through quickly?… Perhaps to let the opposition’s yelling die down. Republicans in Congress and some Cuban-American groups were vocal about their hostility to the changes when they were announced in April. And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had actually promised several Congressmembers concerned about impending changes that he would personally make sure travel was kept tightly restricted. The changes implemented now are of course more than opponents wanted, but still less than many supporters of the administration have hoped.

A closing thought from Alfredo Prieto, managing editor of the Havana-based Temas Magazine: “the embargo is like a piñata hanging from the ceiling… which doesn’t have to be pulled down in a single jerk, but just taken apart piece by piece—today an arm, tomorrow a leg, later the head—until it finally falls from its own weight.”

A few graphic novels in progress have crossed my e-mail recently because of their focus on Cuba. The first is called Happy at 90 Miles and is based on the real experiences of one Cuban citizen that attempted the raft-trip from Cuba to the United States, only to be caught and imprisoned. The story will be a terrible one—one that includes perilous journeys on the sea and the amputation of both the protagonist’s arms.

The second, Cuba: One Story, tells the tale of another Cuban exile. The writer will relate her experiences as a surgeon in Castro’s army.

Finally, Cuba is a personal story set in Miami and Havana that the author/artist says will highlight the connections between family and state, and ideals and reality in post-revolutionary Cuba.

All of these have the potential to relay a point of view that will reinforce those on the “right” (in a basic sense, the strongly anti-Castro and pro-embargo constituencies) and probably annoy those on the “left” (those that sympathize with the revolution’s goals and oppose the embargo). But note that this is not necessarily the intention of the authors or the artists: their stated objective is to shed light on individual experiences that are sometimes lost in the churning of historical and political drama.

The one other graphic novel centered upon Cuba that I’ve seen is Che: A graphic biography, which more likely lends itself to the leftist, pro-revolutionary side.

Cuba, US to resume immigration talks at UN

(From AFP): Talks between Cuba and the United States on the thorny issue of immigration, suspended since 2003, will resume on Tuesday at United Nations headquarters in New York, the US State Department said.

“Today, US and Cuban representatives will meet in New York to discuss implementation of the US-Cuba Migration Accords,” the State Department said in a statement.

“The discussions will focus on how best to promote safe, legal and orderly migration between Cuba and the United States.”

The US delegation, it added, will be led by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Craig Kelly, and include representatives from agencies that deal with migration issues.

A US official has told AFP the talks will take place at the United Nations building in Manhattan.

From the blogger: Finally!

The cartoon above, from Cuba’s Foreign Ministry, shows a Cuban citizen hoping to get a visa and leave for Miami, only to be told by a U.S. diplomat, “There are no visas, but we do have rafts.”

The cartoon and a great article from Tuesday by Nick Miroff reminded me that we should take a look at why exactly it is so important that migration talks resume between the United States and Cuba. And why they should resume soon. And why the talks are more than a simple show of the “steps” toward rapprochement being cautiously taken by the Obama administration.

We’ve gone over some of this before, but let’s review:

The United States says Cuban migrants are refugees from the island’s communist system and failed state-run economy. Cuba says that the U.S. squeezes the island economically with trade sanctions and simultaneously bestows special treatment on migrants, and that this combination pulls Cubans northward.

Indeed, the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, which still stands, allows most Cuban migrants who reach American soil to become permanent residents and receive government assistance—a privilege that migrants from no other country receive. The law as it stands certainly encourages migrants unhappy with their economic lot in Cuba to make the trek to the United States. As such, Cuba calls the Cuban Adjustment Act the “killer law,” for the number of rafters attempting to reach U.S. shores that drown every year.

It is for this reason that the migration discussions poised to begin soon between the two countries are so important: there are lives in the balance, as there always have been. Talks will almost certainly go slowly, as both nations tend to blame one another for the problems of rafters and human trafficking. Cuba’s foreign ministry, for example, says:

The migratory policy of the United States has constituted one of the most important instruments of American hostility toward the island, designed to destabilize Cuban society, discredit its political system, drain Cuba of human capital and lay the groundwork for counter-revolutionary movements tasked with carrying out terrorist attacks and aggressive acts against the Cuban people as they strive to build a new nation.

Meanwhile, the United States largely maintains that its migration policy is a product of humanitarianism, a burden it has to bear as neighbor to an oppressive regime. The claim for years has been that this great nation would dare not turn away (nor send back to Cuba, of course) the poor, politically- and socially-stifled Cuban refugees that escape the island in search of a better life.

The hope with these renewed talks is that past grudges can be put aside, and a productive and sensible bilateral migration policy can be formulated.

Heads-up: non-stop flights from Los Angeles Airport (LAX) to Havana opened today. Tickets are available through Cuba Travel Services Inc. for a healthy $889 per adult, plus tax. These flights were available briefly between 2000 and 2004, but were suspended indefinitely when the Bush administration tightened regulations on travel to Cuba that year. “You’ve waited long enough,” reads the banner on the Cuba Travel Services website.

More than 40,000 Cuban Americans are estimated to live in the greater Los Angeles area, including yours truly. This flight will draw more than just those, however, since it is the only one of its kind departing from the West.

The first flight leaves in about one hour (there’s still time!).

More details here.

From the Los Angeles Times:

The Supreme Court will not review the ‘Cuban Five’ case

The case of the Cuban Five (or the “Five Heros,” as Cuban officials call them) is one of the main stumbling blocks for the continued warming of U.S.-Cuba relations. If the Supreme Court had agreed to take the case, those in the administration sounding out Cuban officials about boosting trade and easing travel restrictions could have staved off Havana’s insistent demands for the men’s release by pointing to the pending high-court review, claiming reluctance to interfere with the judicial workings. More here.

From Cuba’s Radio Nuevitas:

UN Praises Cuba Drug Policy

The Regional Seminar of Latin American and Caribbean Mutual Legal Assistance on Treaties for International Control of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (or, “Regional Seminar on Drug Fighting”) began in Havana today. The city was chosen for the meeting, according to one United Nations legal advisor, because its policy to fight international drug trafficking is effective. More here.

Also from the LA Times, earlier this week:

Colombia rocker Juanes gives back

In Washington last week, Juanes, one of Colombia’s best known rock stars, met with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, White House officials and members of Congress partly to seek help in arranging a concert in Havana for September 21— the U.N. International Day of Peace. The Obama administration, which wants to improve relations with Cuba, likes the idea, said his manager, Fernan Martinez. More here.

A comment at the end of this article (about emigration from Cuba) struck me today as wonderfully insightful. The editorial, called “La emigración: un fenómeno alarmante,” was published in an online magazine called Vitral: La Libertad de la Luz, compiled by the diocese in Pinar del Río (Cuba). The author recognizes that external actors, e.g. the international community and the United States, have done much over the years that has hurt Cuba and its economy, thus driving migration. But he/she urges Cubans to take what action they can to improve Cuba’s prospects from the inside, which would encourage doctors, scholars, artists, etc. as well as common citizens to stay. This is a call that would resonate with many, I think.

A rough English translation of the final paragraph of the editorial:

It is time in Cuba to create new opportunities and take hold of the reins in our own lives, so that we—Cubans and others in the world—might be able to find in Cuba the pathway to our own personal fulfillment and national achievement, in order to come to see the world as an extension of our own country instead of a place where, by abandoning our home, we can achieve our dreams. The solution is in our hands, from the State to the common citizen, and does not depend on any foreign power. Cuba is and should remain a home to all.

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.