In September, the Associated Press reported that Cuba had adopted a policy that would allow access to the Internet through computer facilities at post offices. Previously, Cubans could access e-mail through the island intranet at such hubs, but had little general web access. The announcement signaled a policy change (the resolution that changed the policy was published in Cuba’s Gaceta Oficial, reproduced here), but unfortunately, real progress has been slow. As the BBC’s Fernando Ravsberg stated this week, “The measure is being applied with typical slowness by the Cuban bureaucracy, such that two months after the resolution there is still not a single post office enabled.”

If it is simply bureaucratic delay, then the new policy, when eventually enacted, will have wide implications. It seems that Cubans now have the ability to access Google, BBC, and other websites and news sources, even those in Miami. Internet access in tourist hotels—limited temporarily to only tourists—has been reopened to Cubans.

The price for Internet access remains high (most between 6-10 US dollars an hour), and the Cuban state blames this on the US embargo, saying that its restrictions force them to connect to the Internet only by expensive satellite. But by next year, Venezuela’s fiber-optic cable will reach Cuba, changing this entirely. And President Obama has already authorized US telecommunications companies to negotiate with Havana. These options for potentially cheaper Internet, together with a policy that allows Cubans Internet access, open the future wide.

In the video below, Ann Louise Bardach (author of the new book Without Fidel and the previous Cuba Confidential) and Steve Clemons (of the Havana Note and New America) discuss current Cuba topics: the recent Juanes concert, Fidel, Raúl, the March cabinet shuffle, Cuba’s relations with Venezuela and China, and the case of Luis Posada Carriles.

The controversial Juanes concert in Havana yesterday blanketed Revolution Square in a sea of white, the color worn by both performers and concertgoers to symbolize peace. Different sources report various figures, but over 800,000 and possibly up to 1.15 million people attended the concert. Thousands showed up hours early to secure spots with a view, ignoring the government’s warning not to show up before noon.

The event was the largest by an outsider in Cuba since the Pope’s visit (John Paul II) in 1998. In that context, the criticism from Florida and elsewhere is misplaced: opportunities for the Cuban population to connect with the rest of the world in such ways are important because they are so rare, and do not undermine the current politics of US-Cuban relations (as many in the Miami community have claimed).

Nor does the concert mean that the performers condone the human rights abuses of the Castro regime—another claim made by those who opposed the performance. The concert’s message of “peace without borders” and Juanes’ final message from the stage—a cry of “Cuba libre!” and “One Cuban family!”—show a different sentiment altogether than that being thrust upon them.

Amnesty International released a report this week (in Spanish and English here) called “The US Embargo Against Cuba: Its Impact on Economic and Social Rights,” reiterating previous AI calls to lift the embargo but shifting focus to how the trade and financial sanctions affect human rights (not simply political rights) of Cuba.

This is a tack few have been taking since the new administration entered office this year. The debate of whether or not to lift the embargo has been more political: side 1 says the embargo hasn’t pushed the regime to change, therefore it has failed, so let’s do away with it; side 2 says the embargo must remain until the regime makes those changes regarding human rights and freedom of the press, etc., and removing the regulations would be a “unilateral concession.”

What about how the embargo affects Cubans themselves? AI argues that, among other things, it limits Cuba’s capacity to import medicines, medical equipment and the latest technologies (the recent case of Philips is one good example), which disproportionally affects the most vulnerable members of society.

But to many, this humanitarian or human rights-based argument, while important, has not been as convincing as the rational, US interests-based argument made by Steve Clemons in a piece this summer: “We need to move to a different position of interest-driven mutual respect… Increased commerce and people-to-people exchange will benefit both sides of the US-Cuba relationship… It is imperative that we stop deluding ourselves to think that the embargo is a leverage point or that the embargo can effect internal change in Cuba. This is a fallacy.”

Also key is his point that “today Cuba is not exporting guns and arms and revolution; it is exporting doctors.” This is true: whatever feeling the United States might have had at one point that Cuba was a threat, the very idea is now ridiculous. The only power it has internationally comes from its export of medical assistance and from its symbolic significance as a “survivor” after decades of strangulation by the U.S. vise.

Of course, considering only that it is not a threat internationally does not account for Cuba’s internal conditions and the problem the United States has with them. But, like other countries of the world, the United States must eventually realize that to push Cuba forward on certain issues (e.g. political prisoners and various restricted freedoms), having a dialogue based on trust and mutual respect will be more effective than the current non-relations based on mutual suspicion. It must be: this has gotten nowhere. Only the brief meetings (read: dialogue) over these many years between U.S. or other foreign officials with Cuban officials have ever resulted in the release of political prisoners. Bill Richardson’s direct negotiations with Fidel Castro led to the release of three individuals in 1996, and Spanish officials secured the release of four prisoners in 2008, for example.

The above video shows Juan Carlos González Marcos, now better known as “Pánfilo,” interrupting an interview on the streets of Havana. His loud comments regarding the tremendous need in Cuba for “jama”—the slang Cuban word for food—stuck with many viewers when the video reached YouTube a few months ago, and the clip spread quickly on that site as well as in Miami newscasts, magazine covers, and several websites that ran his words as a lead story.

González was arrested in August by the Cuban police. He has now been sentenced to two years in prison for “precriminal social endangerment,” an ambiguous charge that has been in use since the 1960s in Cuba.

Social activists are rallying around the issue. Already one organization advocating González’s release has sprung up; Jama y Libertad has collected over 1,000 signatures (as of 12:30 AM Eastern Time on 09/09/09) for the cause.

The man himself is no activist. Pánfilo is one of many who liked to have drinks in the park where the video was shot, and he was drunk in this instance and presumably speaking his mind. In that context it is particularly odd that he has been put in jail for his comments, as one publicist for the Jama y Libertad organization pointed out: “This incident… came as a surprise because the protagonist was not a political dissident nor a person trying to defend a position or gain popularity.”

The arrest and two-year sentence are certainly difficult to defend.

The Obama administration’s appointee for the post of Assistant Secretary of Western Hemisphere Affairs is Dr. Arturo Valenzuela, professor of government and Director of the Center for Latin American Studies at Georgetown University. Valenzuela’s focus in the region has previously been on Mexico and the Southern Cone, and perhaps in light of that, it is not immediately obvious where he stands on Cuba.

There are only a few comments he has made on the topic in the past year, indicating a cautious and thus far undeveloped approach to the island that is simply in line with the administration’s announced position:

“This is the time where you say look—there is change taking place in Cuba. We don’t know where that is going, and it’s a work in progress, but we should find ways to make sure that this change goes where you want it to go. A smart policy is one that tries to find opportunities to move Cuba in a different direction.” From Jake Colvin’s “The Case for a New Cuba Policy” (December 2008)

“The United States invited Cuba to resume semi-annual talks to review implementation of the U.S.-Cuba Migration Accords. Cuba agreed to resume discussions and the talks were scheduled to take place in the United States in July. We are prepared to engage the Cuban government on other issues of mutual concern, such as law enforcement cases and the establishment of mail service directly between our two countries. We have informed the Cuban government that they must improve their human rights practices and provide greater respect for fundamental freedoms before there can be more significant improvements in U.S.-Cuban relations.” Valenzuela’s answer to a question from “Senator Richard Lugar’s Questions for the Record Submitted to Valenzuela” (July 2009)

Valenzuela has not yet been confirmed by Congress.

______________________________________________

I recently had the privilege of reading a 40-year-old piece on Cuba by Ronald Steel, a US scholar, historian and recognized expert on US foreign policy. His “Letter from Havana,” from the New York Review of Books of April 11, 1968, provides a glimpse into the still-young Cuban communist state under Fidel Castro. I was struck by how many of his observations are highly relevant today.

Much of the argument of his “Letter” can be summed up in his final sentence:

[Cuba] is a country, an experiment, a state of mind, quite unlike any other; a seductive place that is perhaps dangerous to take at face value, but impossible not to admire for the courage of its people and the daring of its vision.

Cuba in 1968 was “the Cuban experiment,” a revolution in progress where trial-and-error was the order of the day and the great ambitions of the country were (1) to eliminate social inequities that had polarized the country for years and left many in poverty, (2) to survive the hostility of the island’s closest neighbors, and (3) to mobilize the entire society in the task of economic development. First-hand witnesses understandably found it hard not to be seduced by the spirit of hard work and moral obligation to one’s neighbor that permeated the island and that, when coupled with a truly Caribbean passion and intensity, made it truly unique from the Eastern European communist states of the day.

One could hardly ignore the benefits to Cubans of the elimination of illiteracy on the island, the doubling of students enrolled in school, and the free services provided by the state, which already at that time included local telephone calls, medical care, meals on the job, education, day nurseries, wedding banquets, funerals and sports contests. Free rent and provision of basic foods followed soon afterward.

And it was difficult not to admire the ability of Cubans to survive the US economic embargo, Steel said, and to brave the hostility of neighboring countries that had cut all cords connecting Cuba to the rest of the Western Hemisphere—with the exception of one propeller-driven plane that flew roundtrip between Havana and Mexico City twice a week.

And even then (in 1968), he argued:

[T]he blockade, although it has caused considerable hardship and inconvenience, has not threatened the stability of the regime, and has proved to be an economic failure… The fears of some Americans about the dangers emanating from this communist state “only 90 miles from our shores,” seem rather ludicrous from Havana, where the American colossus—which sends its reconnaissance planes over Cuban skies, its warships outside Havana harbor, and has its own troops on Cuban soil at Guantánamo—sits only 90 miles off their shores.

All these factors nearly distracted the onlooker from recalling the grievous economic mistakes the regime had made; the consumer shortages that plagued Cubans; the thousands of political prisoners that were incarcerated in Cuban jails; and the troublesome lack of a parliament, a free press, and a constitution guaranteeing civil liberties. The government was ruthless with those it considered to be dangerous enemies, dispensing “revolutionary justice” that meant secret trials and indefinite prison terms. Homosexuals and other undesirables were confined to forced labor camps for years after the 1959 revolution.

Today, the years of trial and error have not come to an end. Raúl and his economic advisors continue to experiment with new initiatives to spur production and efficiency. And the socialist Cuban state survives, despite decades of embargo and a difficult period following the fall of the country’s main source of support, the Soviet Union. One naturally feels a certain respect for the small state’s stubborn insistence on survival in such a hostile context. Slowly, Cuba has increased its friend base, so that now the United States is the only country without official diplomatic relations with Havana.

Ultimately, the cautionary note implicit in Steel’s “Letter” still applies. The abuses of the regime continue, the state still holds political prisoners, and civil liberties remain severely constrained. Cuba’s strength in the face of adversity may be admirable, but neighboring countries and international partners must not let this overshadow the persistent problems that plague Cuban society.

(A travel and economic embargo is not the answer, but nor is a relationship that ignores questions of human rights and civil liberties.)

The above clip is a debate between Phil Peters, Vice President of the Lexington Institute, and Mauricio Claver-Carone, lobbyist for the anti-Castro U.S.-Cuba Political Action Committee, on the merits of maintaining or relaxing the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

The debate itself follows a typically unproductive “talk past each other” sort of progression, but it lays out the traditional arguments on each side of the issue.

On the pro-embargo side, Mauricio argues that the embargo has three essential conditions that must be met before it is lifted—unconditional release of political prisoners, recognition of certain human and political rights, and legalization of opposition political parties, labor unions, etc.—and that therefore, if the United States were to unconditionally remove the embargo regulations, it would show that the country does not care about these three outcomes in Cuba.

On the opposite side, Phil points out that the Cuban people are no better off, and the regime is no weaker and no more democratic after half a century of embargo: it is only older. Furthermore, for years the Castros have been able to send Cubans the message that the United States is imperialist and trying to starve the Cuban people. If the Obama administration lifts the embargo, then, it puts all the responsibility, blame and expectations for the country’s economy squarely on the shoulders of the Cuban state. That could be the best formula for bringing about change.

Listen to their further thoughts above.

PBS WIDE ANGLE correspondent Aaron Brown will host a live debate on Blog Talk Radio this Thursday at 11:00 a.m. EST. The topic: should the U.S. lift the trade embargo on Cuba?

The standard positions in favor of lifting the embargo are (1) it has failed to achieve its objective of regime change, (2) the U.S. is missing out on major trading opportunities as countries from around the world sign up to do business with the island nation, and (3) the Cuban people suffer from the embargo.

The opposite camp argues that allowing trade and tourism to Cuba won’t make it more democratic. They point to Cuba’s poor labor practices and human rights record as a reason for keeping the embargo in place.

Brown will moderate a discussion between Phil Peters, author of the blog The Cuban Triangle, who advocates lifting the embargo, and Mauricio Claver-Carone, author of the blog Capitol Hill Cubans, who believes the embargo should be maintained.

For complete info and details on how to participate in the live debate, check out the PBS WIDE ANGLE site description here.

Several years ago, the U.S. Interests Section in Havana—which functions as the American diplomatic mission in Cuba in the absence of formal relations—installed a “billboard” along the fifth floor of the building: an electronic news ticker running pro-democracy and anti-Castro regime messages in bright crimson letters.

Fidel Castro at that time called it “a gross provocation aimed at rupturing fragile relations“. U.S. officials, on the other hand, said that they were simply trying to break through the Cuban government’s censorship. Billboards around the U.S. mission began to go up as an equal and opposite reaction.

This one, in 2004, showed a swastika, the word “Fascists” in bold red letters, and some of the infamous photographs of American troops abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison, Baghdad:

The U.S. billboard facing it has shown a variety of messages, sometimes referring to the imprisoned dissidents on the island, and at other times displaying jokes jabbing the regime—for example, an old George Burns joke saying “the people best suited to running the country are those currently driving taxis and cutting hair.”

But the Obama administration has quietly pulled the plug on the billboard on the U.S. Interests Section fifth floor, which had become a symbol of bad blood between the two countries (and an embarrassing example of their petty relationship). U.S. officials say that it has not been an effective tool for delivering information to the Cuban people, so it will not be used anymore.

Apparently, the Cuban government also removed some of their billboards around the U.S. Interests Section earlier this year, a move which administration officials viewed as a positive gesture.

Perhaps both sides can now act a little bit more like mature adults.