The Environmental Defense Fund is sending U.S. scientists to Cuba today to discuss ways to eliminate overfishing, protect coral reefs, conserve coastal areas, and tap potential ocean energy. Last month, EDF secured Treasury licenses for Cuban scientists to come to Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, and this is a similar exchange—in the opposite direction.

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.

The two nations may be estranged, but environmental resources and threats know no borders. Organizations in both countries are acting accordingly.

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.)

Statistics on the telecommunications and information technology sectors in Cuba are now available on the website of the government’s Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas (ONE). ONE’s data reports (particularly on the economy) are widely regarded as suspect: the claims of improvements and growth often appear impossibly inflated. But this particular report shows such poor results that it is difficult to doubt its accuracy. The June report shows Cuba at or near the worst rank in the Hemisphere in terms of per capita fixed telephone lines, personal computers and access to the Internet.

The number of cellular lines did increase significantly in 2008, likely because of Raúl Castro’s decision to allow all Cubans to contract for cell service. The number of cell contracts grew accordingly from 330,000 to 466,000 between 2007 and 2008—an increase of 136,000 lines.

Still, the cost of cell phone service renders it a luxury that is unattainable for most. And with a total of 1.42 million fixed, cell and other telephone lines in a country of 11.2 million people, the island’s telephone density per 100 inhabitants at the end of 2008 stood at 12.6, the lowest in Latin America and even lower than Haiti’s, the poorest country in the hemisphere.

In fact, Cuba reported higher results in this sector in 1958 (15 phone lines per 100 inhabitants) than it did this year. At that time, Cuba boasted the second highest rate in Latin America.

Raúl Castro has given no indication yet whether Cuba will take advantage of Barack Obama’s April decision to loosen telecommunications embargo restrictions. According to the new policy, US companies can now provide cellular service and roaming in Cuba, satellite TV and fiber optic cable facilities, and accept payments for those services from US residents. This last part is key: a Cuban living abroad could pay a US company directly for satellite TV or a cell phone for relatives in Cuba whose meager salary would otherwise not allow it. But the Cuban state will have to allow US companies in first.

Robert Buddan of the University of the West Indies at Mona had a thought-provoking piece in the Jamaica Gleaner today, entitled “Managing crisis in Jamaica and Cuba.” Buddan highlights the difference in options available to the two countries in facing similar debt difficulties. Cuba, for example, cannot seek or receive loans from the International Monetary Fund or from other multilateral institutions. It is restricted from much trade by the U.S. embargo. And its tax system is limited to foreign companies and currencies. Jamaica, meanwhile, is also faced with a grave debt problem, but it can freely trade, tax and borrow.

Not only their abilities, but their fundamental approaches to crisis differ. In Jamaica there is no plan for conservation of energy and imports, mobilization for production, or sacrifice of conveniences and luxuries. Jamaica, of course, is similar in this way to many capitalist countries.

So who ends up in better shape? Hard to say, but it is tempting to side with the more self-reliant country—the country that visibly tightens its belt in response to problems—Cuba. As Buddan points out: while both countries have energy problems, most Jamaicans would laugh at the suggestion of using oxen instead of diesel-guzzling farm equipment. Yet this is exactly what Cuban farms have started doing more and more recently in order to effectively lower energy use.

Over the years of the embargo, relationships between states/cities in the United States and counterparts in Cuba have sprung up. Now, as legislation to dismantle travel restrictions and embargo regulations makes its way through the halls of Congress, a number of state and local leaders are asserting themselves in favor of a more open relationship with the island. They gain strength and credibility from newly vocal supporters and the potential of the connections already forged with Cuba.

A number of Florida port authorities have voiced their enthusiasm for the potential boom in trade traffic they would see from an opening to Cuba. Tampa Bay Council member Mary Mulhern penned one such op-ed today in the St. Petersburg Times, here. It’s irresponsible, she points out, for authorities to prevent the kinds of economic activity that could help U.S. citizens in a downturn.

Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe is optimistic that Arkansas could also benefit from the U.S. administration opening options for trade with Cuba. Arkansas exports agricultural products to the island in significant enough quantities that Beebe headed south on a trade mission to Havana a couple weeks ago and came back pleased about the prospects. 

These and more examples have made headlines in recent months, still without a dependable signal from the White House of its intent.

Alabama in particular is an interesting case. The Economist studied Mobile, Alabama at the end of July, and seemed incredulous at the city’s (and indeed, the state’s) optimism on several points. First, unemployment reached 10.1% in Mobile in June but analysts believe infrastructure and business opportunities will help speed a recovery. Second, Mobile claims an unlikely sister city—Havana—and is looking forward to the benefits closer ties could bring.

Mobile and Havana became sister cities in 1993 and, so far as they can, have kept up their ties ever since. There is a long relationship between southern Alabama and Cuba which, several hundred years ago, were trawled by the same cast of French and Spanish explorers. In the 19th century Mobilian doctors helped their Cuban peers fight yellow fever by destroying mosquitoes and a Cuban student who studied in Mobile returned home with a baseball and bat. City leaders are looking to benefit should there now at last be a change in America’s policy towards Cuba.

Indeed, according to historical record, Cuban student Nemisio Guillo brought home the first baseball and bat to the island in 1864 after studying in Mobile. Perhaps the fruits of renewed relations will be as nurturing and long-lasting as the Cuban baseball legacy that evolved from this; local leaders certainly believe they will be.

Archibald Ritter of the Canadian Foundation for the Americas speaks about Cuba-Canada relations in this video. He says that Canada’s policy toward the island has long been “correct” (presumably as opposed to U.S. policy and the policy of exclusion followed by most of the hemisphere for years). Ritter also pointed out that Canadian agricultural trade with Cuba declined after the United States relaxed the related embargo provisions and Cuba began importing U.S. agricultural goods, and warned that if (and when) the embargo is further weakened, the island will likely turn to the United States over Canada for other goods as well.

Cuban Vice President Esteban Lazo, speaking in Nicaragua today, demanded that the United States “stop providing military support” to the interim Honduran government, “cease its intervention” in Honduran affairs, and “remove its staff from Honduras.”

Fidel Castro similarly accused the United States of backing peace talks in Costa Rica as a stalling tactic to exhaust Zelaya supporters into eventually accepting the Micheletti government.

Of course, Washington has repeatedly condemned Zelaya’s overthrow and announced the suspension of military aid to Honduras. And despite the long U.S. history of intervention and of supporting coups and military governments in Latin America (a history of which many Latin American leaders, including the Castros, are quick to remind the world), the Obama administration has refused to impose a solution in the Honduran case. Even when Zelaya himself flew to Washington to seek leadership from the United States, the administration deferred to Central American leaders.

As we previously predicted, it was unlikely that Cuba and the United States would find themselves on the same side of this issue for long. Both opposed the ouster, but now Cuba is in direct opposition to the U.S. role in the still-unfolding events. From the peanut gallery, it seems like an unfortunate lose-lose(-lose) situation for the United States: be more involved on Zelaya’s side and endure criticism for typical U.S. interventionism; be more involved on the opposite side and come under fire for supporting what was for all intents and purposes a military overthrow; try stepping out altogether and be told by hemispheric leaders like Chavez, Morales, and Castro to take a hard and serious stand…

Fidel has also warned that if Zelaya is not returned to power, the hemisphere risks a wave of subsequent coups for which the United States would bear partial blame. Right-wing military leaders trained by the United States could be encouraged to take up arms against their governments, he wrote on Friday, depending on how the Honduras crisis turned out.

It is not likely that the United States has any such objective in mind, nor that any other countries would follow in Honduras’ footsteps. The other nations of the hemisphere are not experiencing the kind of unrest and constitutional conflicts that characterized the scene in Honduras leading up to the ouster (although Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua just announced a referendum to write re-election into his own country’s constitution—an ominous move while the Honduran crisis over the same issue remains unsettled). More likely: the Obama administration is using the Honduran case as a test of how its policy of multilateral cooperation in Latin America will work out and be received in practice. And judging by reactions from most of the hemisphere, it seems to be going rather well.

Picture of the week

A man holding a skeleton on fire performs during the annual Caribbean festival in Santiago de Cuba. (AP Photo / July 9, 2009)

Brazil to help finance Cuba port project

From Reuters: While visiting Havana this week, the Brazilian Industry and Trade Minister announced that his government had already approved $110 million (and foresees approval of another $190 million) to go toward helping the Cuban state rebuild Mariel harbor—the well-known site of a 1980 Cuban exodus to the United States.

Cuba wants Mariel to be equipped to handle shipments from around the world, including the United States, and to serve as logistics center for its still-nascent offshore oil industry. It estimates that the project will cost up to $2 billion: Brazil’s dedicated $300 million could go a long way toward that end.

New York Philharmonic may perform in Cuba

From the New York Times: The headline says it all. The visit would take place in late October following concerts in Vietnam.

The Philharmonic traveled to North Korea in February 2008, drawing wide publicity and some criticism. However, the Cuba trip has already been run by Vice President Biden’s office, which expressed its approval.

The United States is a mere 90 miles north of Cuba—a distance considered so short that it has been cited for over a century as the reason for the two nations’ intertwined destinies.

Jamaica, as fate would have it, lies just 90 miles south of Cuba. And surprisingly enough, Jamaica’s trade relationship with Cuba is also far below what one would predict from such proximate neighbors. The Jamaican Observer took a closer look yesterday at why that might be, and none of the reasons suggested, it should be noted, overlaps with the those the United States tends to give—namely, the communist regime running the island and the treatment of dissidents.

The Jamaican government’s promotional agency, Jamaica Trade and Invest (JTI), suggests that the cause is the language barrier (Spanish-English); local companies blame the difficulty in negotiating trade contracts (without a private sector, the difficult Cuban state bureaucracy is the only mode for negotiating trade and payments); and many others point to the U.S. trade embargo for pressuring Jamaica into limiting its trade relationship with Cuba. So Jamaica imports $16.7 million from Cuba but exports a mere $5.8 million every year. For comparison: Jamaica imports $225 million annually from the small Trinidad and Tobago; and U.S.-Jamaican annual bilateral trade is $2 billion.

The Caribbean nation’s entrepreneurs have the ability to supply what Cuba needs: the Jamaican Chamber of Commerce names telecommunications, tourism and agriprocessing as the sectors with the greatest potential for Jamaican businesses. Each of these sectors has huge, perhaps unprecedented, room for growth in the Cuban market—growth that could benefit Jamaican companies, with the right arrangements.

For reasons like this, Jamaica tends to support the lifting of the embargo.

Still, the Cuban market will only be opened to foreign companies if and when the Communist government chooses to do so, and it’s not clear when that might be.