Dr. Eduardo Torres Cuevas is a Cuban national treasure. A professor of history at the University of Havana and Director of the José Martí National Library, he has received the National Literature Prize and the National Prize in Social Sciences of Cuba. His work focuses on topics of Cuban independence, abolition, slavery, popular religion, freemasonry, and the formation of “cubanidad” (i.e. what defines the Cuban identity, and what it means to be Cuban).
Dr. Torres Cuevas is currently on an extended visit to the United States; he managed to secure a visa from the U.S. government in order to give a number of lectures—including at CUNY (the City University of New York), Hunter College, and Florida International University.
His talks and presentations will be on “Rethinking Cuban History”; “The National Library of Cuba: its structure and future plans”; and “The History of Freemasonry in Cuba.” Read about them here (CUNY), here (Hunter College), and here (FIU).
For those who can attend, the event at FIU is this Friday, November 13 at 10 AM. Here, Dr. Torres Cuevas will present on the first topic: “Repensando la Historia de Cuba: La cubanidad en el contexto de las Américas,” in the LACC Conference Room, DM 358, on Modesto A. Maidique Campus.
Havana held its 27th annual International Trade Fair last week (November 2-7), with 652 companies in attendance for a total of over 1,600 participants from 51 countries. Spain, Canada, China, Russia and Venezuela boasted the largest delegations at the Fair, and Italy, Germany, Mexico and Brazil also had considerable presence.
Meanwhile, CNN ran a piece on the U.S. representatives at the Fair. See below.
The 47-member Committee includes representatives that are strongly in favor of ending the ban—Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts), Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) and Barbara Lee (D-California)—as well as some that have been among the ban’s most outspoken proponents, e.g. ranking Republican member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Delahunt was the House member that introduced legislation to eliminate the travel ban back in February, and has recently made public statements asserting his confidence that the bill will garner enough votes to pass this year. Ros-Lehtinen, a fervent anti-Castro Cuban American, has led the movement in favor of maintaining current policy without change.
On this issue, Ros-Lehtinen has been recently joined by at least 53 Democrats in the House apparently on her side—a side that is traditionally associated with Republicans. These 53 representatives added their signatures to an open letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) that urged House leadership to maintain the current U.S. policy on Cuba. The letter argues, “Any legislation that would seek to ease or lift sanctions… would send a devastating message to Cuba’s opposition movement and legitimize an ailing dictatorship.”
Considering the number of Democratic signatures on this letter, opponents of the legislation to end the travel ban argue that they are the ones with the numbers in their favor. With 218 votes needed to pass the bill and 258 Democrats in the House, 53 Democrats on the side of Ros-Lehtinen mean that Democrats cannot pass the bill alone. Republicans will have to come out in higher numbers than they ever have before in favor of changing the policy.
Recent visits to Havana by EU aid minister Karel de Gucht and by Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos both addressed the issue of the European Union’s “common position” on Cuba, but from different sides. Moratinos wants to be entirely rid of the policy; de Gucht reinforced that it would only come down with concrete gestures from Cuba regarding improved human rights.
The EU common position, as adopted in 1996, is ”to encourage a process of transition to pluralist democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, via constructive engagement with the Cuban Government” (see here for further explanation). At the time it was passed, Spain’s Prime Minister (Jose Maria Aznar) was the one leading the push behind the measure. Now Spain has pledged to work to eliminate the common position, making a number of other EU countries uneasy. Moratinos affirmed Spain’s intentions while in Havana, and last Thursday, Spain’s Secretary of State for the EU did the same, noting that the EU maintains normal relations with other countries that are not “paragons of democracy.”
Spain may not have the full support of other EU countries—many have demanded explanation of what Spain plans as a replacement for the common position, and the EU aid minister asserted while in Havana this week that replacing the common position would happen only with a consensus that on Cuba’s part requires “gestures with respect to human rights”—but it does have certain power: Spain will hold the rotating presidency of the EU for the first half of 2010.
Yet always overshadowing its relations with other countries will be Cuba’s relationship with the United States, and indeed, the U.S.-Cuba impasse tends to put the EU in an awkward position on this. With a high level of mutual distrust and a history of U.S.-funded subversion and assassination attempts on the island, Cuba claims that it cannot trust the dissidents and regime opponents that exist in the nation. Therefore press is restricted, access to the Internet restricted, opponents are jailed, and so forth, in the name of protecting the nation. Without further progression in the level of trust between the United States and Cuba, it is unlikely that such conditions will change.
Ultimately, the gestures sought by the EU might only be as fast in coming as the changes in the US-Cuba relationship.
The newest bill in Congress to tear down the Cuba travel ban—the freedom to travel to Cuba act—has a greater chance of passing in this Congress than in previous years, as we’ve noted before. Several factors contribute: visiting Cuba is now being viewed as an issue of the inalienable rights of Americans to travel; the travel issue has been separated from the larger question of the embargo; and Cuban-Americans that have previously strongly opposed any measures of opening to Cuba have now softened their stance.
In fact, a recent poll by Miami-based Bendixen & Associates, the largest Hispanic polling firm, found that 59% of all Cuban Americans think the ban on all U.S. travel to Cuba should be removed. Even more surprising, 48% of older and more conservative Cuban exiles support lifting the prohibition, up from 32% in 2002.
In light of such changes, the bill is gaining more and more support. In the House, it has 180 co-sponsors. And the measure is supported by such diverse actors as the travel industry, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, human-rights groups like Human Rights Watch and policy think tanks like Freedom House, the D.C.-based Cuba Study Group and the Brookings Institution. TIME describes the current probability of ending the travel ban here.
On the subject of potential and actual increased travel between Cuba and the United States: Fidel Castro wrote last week that increased U.S. travelers to the island have caused the spread of the H1N1 virus. This is the first time in years that a Cuban official has made a complaint against travel restriction loosening, although Castro did also acknowledge that the effect was not the intention of the U.S. administration.
A timely event: this Friday at Boston University (from 1 to 5 PM), leading political players and academics will debate Cuba policy, including the travel ban. Senator John Kerry, Congressman Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, Harvard professor Jorge Dominguez and BU professors Susan Eckstein and Paul Hare will all participate. The event is open to the public, but with limited seating: see here.
Spain’s Prime Minister, Jose Luis Zapatero, visited the White House on October 13, soon before the Spanish Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, paid a visit to Raúl Castro in Havana on October 19. According to Spain’s El País, President Obama used this opportunity to ask Spain to deliver a message to the Cuban regime.
“Have (Moratinos) tell the Cuban authorities we understand that change can’t happen overnight, but down the road, when we look back at this time, it should be clear that now is when those changes began,” Obama told Zapatero, according to diplomatic sources quoted by El Pais.
“We’re taking steps, but if they don’t take steps too, it’s going to be very hard for us to continue,” Obama said.
There is a lot of history among the three countries (think colonialism, fight for independence, Spanish-American War in 1898), but Obama is right to see Spain’s good current relationship with Cuba as another avenue by which to court Havana.
“The U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday overwhelmingly condemned the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba, an annual ritual that highlights global opposition to the policy.
“This year’s vote was 187-3 in opposition to the embargo, up from 185-3 last year, with only Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of Palau supporting the United States. Micronesia and the Marshall Islands abstained both years.
“It was the 18th year in a row that the General Assembly has taken up the symbolic measure, with Washington steadily losing what little support it once had.”
Cuba’s official statement on the embargo, available on the “Cuba vs. Bloqueo 2009″ website (here), details what it considers the direct effects of the embargo on the Cuban population. The report argues:
The economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba for the last 50 years is the most serious kind of cruel and inhumane policy, lacking legality and legitimacy, and deliberately designed to cause hunger, illnesses and desperation in the Cuban populace. (Note: this is my own translation from Spanish)
The report goes on to call the embargo an “act of genocide” and an “act of economic war,” according to generally accepted international conventions.
The United Nations General Assembly will vote tomorrow on whether to condemn the U.S. embargo of Cuba, and the question is not whether the resolution will pass (it will), but by how much this year (last year was 185 countries for the resolution, 3 against), and whether the Obama administration will react to what will inevitably be an expression of overwhelming international opposition to the policy.
Ocean waters and marine resources are shared by both countries to some extent. So the discussions that will take place this week on how to protect and harness the benefits of these resources while mitigating and/or eliminating the costs associated with human interaction with the environment only make sense. And as Daniel Whittle of EDF points out, “Fishing, coastal development, and offshore oil and gas exploration in Cuba can have impacts in the United States, and vice-versa. The sooner we work together to manage shared resources and find solutions common problems, the sooner we’ll see benefits for the people, the environment and the economy in both countries.”
In fact, EDF holds that the healthy maintenance of Cuba’s coastal waters are vital to the well being of fisheries and fishing communities along the southeastern coast of the United States. With 4,200 islets and keys, Cuba supports reef fish like snapper and grouper, as well as other marine life (manatees, turtles and dolphins, for example). And Cuba and the United States share a deep water coral system, recently discovered, that stretches from the island to North Carolina.
Today, a look back at the still early U.S. relationship with post-revolutionary, Soviet-aligned Cuba. The piece from Politico below details the beginning of the Cuban missile crisis, whose anniversary is today. The main enemy in this story is the Soviet Union, but the intertwining of that country so closely with the regime in Cuba made geographical proximity a terrifying new consideration, multiplying the potential threat posed by Cold War sentiments.
I also include footage of JFK’s address to the nation on October 22, 1962, officially announcing new policy.
“On this day in 1962, President John F. Kennedy imposed a U.S. naval blockade of Cuba after U.S. spy planes found Soviet missile sites on the Communist-ruled island. In a televised speech, the president said the medium-range nuclear weapons arrayed at nearly completed bases were capable of striking major American cities, including Washington.
“The president said the United States would not exclude using military force to end what he called a ‘clandestine, reckless and provocative threat to world peace.’ Thus opened the public phase of the Cuban missile crisis. For the next six days, it threatened to precipitate a nuclear war between the world’s two superpowers. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had advised Kennedy to order a ’surgical’ strike to take out the missiles, put U.S. military forces around the world on DEFCON 2, the highest military alert ever reached in the postwar era.
“On Oct. 26, as White House advisers weighed whether to attack Cuba, the Soviets proposed removing the missiles in exchange for a U.S. pledge not to invade the island nation. The next day, however, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, under pressure from his military brass, upped the ante by calling for the dismantling of U.S. missile bases in Turkey.
“The crisis ended peacefully on Oct. 28 when the Soviets began to dismantle their missile sites. In November, Kennedy called off the blockade. By year’s end, the missiles had left Cuba. Soon afterward, the United States quietly removed its missiles from Turkey.
“Although the crisis was initially portrayed as a clear-cut U.S. victory, it also caused the Kremlin to order a massive nuclear buildup. By the 1970s, the Soviet Union, newly armed with large numbers of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking any American city, had achieved nuclear parity with the U.S. Successive administrations have honored Kennedy’s no-invasion pledge.”
Dr. Eduardo Torres Cuevas is a Cuban national treasure. A professor of history at the University of Havana and Director of the José Martí National Library, he has received the National Literature Prize and the National Prize in Social Sciences of Cuba. His work focuses on topics of Cuban independence, abolition, slavery, popular religion, freemasonry, and the formation of “cubanidad” (i.e. what defines the Cuban identity, and what it means to be Cuban).
