In the first days following the 7.0 earthquake in Haiti, American media failed the public by misreporting or omitting entirely Cuba’s involvement in the relief efforts. Only two mainstream media outlets reported on Cuba’s response. One was Fox News, which claimed (incorrectly) that among the neighboring Caribbean countries providing aid, Cuba was absent. The other was the Christian Science Monitor, which reported (correctly) that Cuba had almost immediately flown in 30 doctors to the stricken nation. All failed to mention that Cuban doctors were already in Haiti in large numbers (350+) and, having already established medical infrastructure before the quake, were some of the most effective responders to the crisis. The discussion got to the point of almost deliberate misdirection: the famous Babalu blog’s Val Prieto scoffed at the suggestion that any Cuban doctors were actually in Haiti at all.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in a press conference before departing for Haiti last week, did not mention the role of Cuban doctors as the crisis unfolded. She thanked Havana for allowing U.S. planes to use Cuban airspace, and said that Washington would welcome any more help Cuba cared to give. That was all.

Finally, on Friday, the U.S. government’s Voice of America (VOA)—the official radio and television broadcasting company of this country—turned around this poor streak (which by last week had admittedly improved, but there had yet to be a U.S. government admission of the omission). In an editorial entitled, “Cuba Aids Haiti Relief,” VOA finally gave much-deserved credit to the country and its doctors:

The massive international relief effort in Haiti has received a boost from Cuba, which has more than 400 health workers, many of them doctors, working throughout the devastated country. The government in Havana has also aided United States relief efforts by opening restricted Cuban airspace to American planes flying medical evacuation missions.

Surprise: the United States sees Cuba in Haiti.

Yesterday, NPR ran a story about the response of Cuban doctors in Haiti, called “Cuban Doctors Unsung Heroes of Haitian Earthquake” (it is excellent). Listen here.

(Photo from Prensa Latina)

Canada keeps a much lower profile in the hemisphere than the outspoken United States; perhaps it is the simple comparison to Washington which allows it to maintain largely friendly relations with every government in the West. Still, it is interesting that Cuba’s two large northern neighbors would have such very different relationships with Havana. One news item today brought the disparities to my attention: just a few weeks after the Obama administration tightened travel restrictions on flights to Cuba (and other nations it deemed “state sponsors of terrorism”), Canada’s Harper administration reached an agreement with Havana that would expand Canadian airline access to the island’s airports.

Under the arrangement, four Canadian charter airlines will be permitted to fly among multiple locations after landing in Cuba. Canadian vacationers will now be able to fly their nation’s airlines to several different cities on one trip to Cuba, which is a plus for the many tourists that so enjoy the island and visit Cuba several times a year. And that’s Havana’s motivation, as well; the Castro administration is hoping the arrangement will boost tourism in 2010. Last year, 900,000 Canadian tourists visited Cuba. The goal for the coming year is to break 1 million.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper continues to view the Cuban government as a regime with human rights problems, but his administration also has full diplomatic relations with Havana and stands against the U.S. embargo. His nation’s policy of engagement with Cuba stands in stark contrast to the policy of isolation preferred by the neighbor between them.

(Image from eaves.ca)

The White House announced today that Cuba has opened its airspace—an area from which U.S. aircraft are usually restricted—for medical evacuation flights from Haiti. “We have coordinated with the Cuban government for authorization to fly medical evacuation flights from the U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to Miami, Fla., through Cuban airspace,” a spokesman said. This cuts about 90 minutes from a one-way flight, minutes that are precious for the relief effort, which has been impressive in response time but as yet far from sufficient as victims of the Haitian earthquake continue to crowd the streets of Port-au-Prince waiting for food, water, and medical assistance.

Following my comments Wednesday, Steve Clemons expanded Thursday on the potential for US-Cuba cooperation in the relief effort in Haiti. The United States is devoting massive resources to the effort, and Cuba has a long history and wide experience with disaster relief and provision of emergency medical services worldwide. Their coordinated action, putting aside differences, makes perfect sense in pursuing the best outcome for Haiti from this awful event. Agreements on airspace are the first step in such a partnership. More from Clemons’ excellent Guardian piece:

“After Hurricane Katrina pounded New Orleans and southern Mississippi, Fidel Castro offered relief support from a 1,600 person medical team called the Henry Reeves Brigade, named after an American doctor who fought in Cuba’s war of independence. The US predictably turned down the offer in September 2005.

“Shortly afterwards, in October 2005, the Reeves Brigade was dispatched to help provide much-needed medical relief after the devastating Kashmir earthquake that tore through the Himalayan mountain region along Pakistan and Kashmir. The US and Europe each sent teams of doctors to Pakistan, each with one base camp deployed for a month. The Cubans deployed seven major base camps and 30 field hospitals in the fundamentalist Islamic region of Pakistan, a nation with which Cuba did not have diplomatic relations at the time. Today, the Cubans and Pakistanis have embassies in each other’s capitals.

“Bruno Rodriguez, now foreign minister of Cuba, headed the mission and lived in Pakistan’s rugged mountains for that full year. The Cuban medical teams reportedly worked constructively and positively with personnel from the US and Europe – and this kind of collaboration, even if informal, could be the kind of confidence-building narrative to move US-Cuba relations out of the gridlock they have been in for decades.

“Haiti is in trouble today – with the earthquake devastating the capital city of Port-au-Prince and highlighting what was already a human development disaster even before the 7.0 quake hit… Notwithstanding any casualties among its own citizens living in Haiti, Cuba currently has 408 doctors providing services there.

“This is time for the US, for Cuba, and other major Latin American nations to throw their weight into stopping a worse human tragedy in Haiti than already exists – and to potentially tie the US and Cuba together in a way that creates greater positives for Haiti and for longer-term, 21st century US-Cuba relations.”

(AP Photo/Medecins Sans Frontieres, Stefano Zannini)

David Sussman of FPA’s Venezuela blog reports on Cuban (and other) doctors fleeing Venezuela over the past year. Cuban doctors in Venezuela, he says, are overworked and underpaid under the government-established health project Misión Barrio Adentro. Recently, seven such doctors paid bribes to Venezuelan and Cuban officials in order to secure a safe departure from Caracas, on a direct flight to Miami.

More analysis on this and other issues is available from Sussman in the FPA Venezuela blog, here.

Yesterday evening, as Haiti was rocked by a devastating 7.0 earthquake and a number of further damaging aftershocks, a tsunami warning was issued to Jamaica and Cuba. Cuban authorities evacuated some residents as a precaution. In the end, no tsunami resulted and these islands remain safe, but the destruction and loss of life in Haiti have been staggering, and have floored the international community. (Donate to the relief effort here, here and here).

Cuba has joined the international community in committing resources to the disaster, an effort currently spearheaded by the United States.

The United States has mentioned the possibility that it might use the Guantanamo Bay site in assisting with relief efforts—an initiative to which Cuba could certainly contribute. General Douglas Fraser, head of the U.S. Southern Command, told a press conference today that Guantanamo is “a resource that’s available if we need to take advantage of it for various reasons,” responding to questions about whether the base could be used to house refugees or perhaps prisoners from jails in Haiti that have collapsed in the earthquake.

This would really be a key time for cooperation between Washington and Havana.

In the meantime, continue to make contributions to the relief effort as you are able: here, here and here.

(Photo from Getty Images)

Above, see the full Great Decisions Television episode on Cuba from this fall.

Overview

Cuba has had a difficult year as its economy suffered from (1) the lingering effects of three hurricanes in 2008 and (2) the strain that continuing global economic downturn has had on state coffers as exports and foreign investment declined. The U.S. embargo certainly continued to take its own toll on the Cuban economy and on human capital development on the island, and was renewed for another year even as the United Nations General Assembly condemned it in a decisive 187-3 vote. Havana’s ties with many foreign powers have grown stronger, in particular with Venezuela, through ALBA and PetroCaribe; with the EU, as Spain moves to eliminate the EU Common Position and entirely normalize EU-Cuba relations come January 2010; and with a number of Asian countries, including Vietnam, Japan, and also China, whose president (Hu Jintao) has visited Cuba twice since gaining office—more times than he has visited any other Latin American country. Cuban relations with the United States, however, continue in limbo. President Obama relaxed Cuban-American travel regulations and rules regarding telecommunications access to Cuba, and expressed his willingness to move past antiquated policy; President Castro similarly claimed Havana will talk to the United States about “anything.” But each side demands further concessions from the other—Havana wants the embargo repealed and Washington wants proof of greater respect for human rights and political participation—and neither has yet budged. Even lower-level discussions on migration, an issue which both sides agree must not be political, have been postponed until 2010.

Person of the Year

Raúl Castro, whose profile is so much lower than that of his older brother Fidel, is the decision-maker that has made the most impact on the the island this year. Despite Human Rights Watch’s recent report, “New Castro, Same Cuba,” and the implications of such a title, Cuba under Raúl is a bit different and Raúl’s ideas differ in several important ways from Fidel’s. Holding of political prisoners and arbitrary detentions of dissidents remain a problem, indeed. But Raúl’s project to decentralize agriculture, long an inefficient state-run enterprise, has proceeded during 2009. His decrees have made access to the internet, cell phones and laptops more common, though practical ability to purchase these luxuries remains dismally low. Even as Fidel in his writing has insistently expressed anti-American views and negativity about improving relations with the United States, Raúl has not echoed this sentiment, and instead has claimed openness to discussions. Raúl also, while refusing to bend from the title of “socialism,” has been open to market-friendly changes, implementing wage reforms and slowly changing the age-old system of rations this year.

His leadership leaves more to be desired, but even with the specter of Fidel continuing to loom large in the press and abroad, Raúl has been the key actor in Cuba this year, determining its trajectory.

Most unexpected event

In March, Raúl surprised many in Cuba and abroad by reshuffling a long stagnant presidential cabinet. The shake-up was not necessarily a progressive move, however: the average age of Cabinet members remained quite high afterward; Raúl’s military cronies were given high ranks; and indeed, many onlookers believed that the reshuffle was to get rid of leaders who had strayed too far from the pack. In fact, soon afterward, Fidel called Carlos Lage and Felipe Perez Roque—two of those removed from their posts—”unworthy” individuals who had been “seduced by the honey of power.”

What to watch for in 2010

Keep an eye on bloggers in Cuba, and on development of technology and Internet and its increasingly important role in people’s lives on the island. Expect, perhaps, a more visible reaction by the state to these trends. Pay attention to Havana’s foreign ties, in particular those with its two most important partners, Venezuela and China, with the EU, and with the United States as all of these relationships continue to change. Watch the Cuban-American community in Miami and the effect of its demographic shifts: will the U.S. Congress finally have the support to eliminate the travel ban, or even the embargo? Much depends on the prevailing winds in this group.

The Cuba Blog will continue to follow all of these issues in the year ahead. Thank you for your readership and participation in 2009.

U.S. President Barack Obama has been the inspiration for a number of Fidel Castro’s “Reflections,” which run in Cuba’s state-run press regularly. Castro has praised Obama for his efforts to reform healthcare, questioned his commitment to improving relations with Cuba, and recently, called his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize “a cynical act.” For decades, Fidel has shown a knack for inserting himself into the global discussions of the moment with his commentary, and his monitoring of President Obama has been no exception.

His most recent critique of Obama and of the United States—”the empire”—came today. Through a written message read aloud by Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, Fidel told the summit of ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) leaders gathered in Havana this week that “the empire’s real intentions are obvious, this time beneath the kindly smile and African American face of Barack Obama.” He said that the United States is in fact backing rightist movements in Latin America in a bid to weaken Chávez and other regional socialist leaders.

His comments are in large part a reaction to the U.S. agreement with Colombia to station U.S. military personnel at seven Colombian bases, which some South American nations have considered a sign of aggression by the United States.

Besides confusing the portion of the U.S. domestic opposition that calls President Obama “socialist,” Fidel’s comments might stump the Obama administration itself, whose general approach to Latin America so far has been to lay low, eschew the historic interventionist style of the United States in the region, and attempt to support regional institutions and leaders in addressing issues as they arise. This was the approach to the crisis in Honduras this year, in fact, and yet Washington ended up receiving criticism even from Hugo Chávez for failing to do more to restore Manuel Zelaya to the Honduran presidency. Obama’s frustrated response in August was: “The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we’re always intervening and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America.”

A dilemma, to be sure.

The first problem with that statement, however, is an assumption that the United States even has the ability to “lay low” in Latin America. Historic legacy and complex interdependencies, particularly with the closest neighbors in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, make the very concept of pure spectatorship impossible.

The second problem is the black and white dichotomy presented, as if there were no middle ground. It is true that the United States cannot sit still and do nothing during a crisis in Latin America, and that at the same time, Washington cannot impose its will through intervention as it did only a generation ago in the region (which is what leaders like Chávez and Castro are quick to point out). But inaction or intervention is a false choice: these are not the only two options, despite Obama’s lament. Leadership, in concert with regional groups and heads of state, is the middle ground that many Latin American leaders seem to be demanding from Washington, and that they are not yet seeing demonstrated in policy. And although not all Latin American heads of state will be satisfied with any given U.S. policy applied through such means (the region is incredibly polarized between leftist leaders and more conservative ones, after all), perhaps the title of “empire” will begin to wear off that way.

Castro’s critique this week arises from this very issue, as Washington did not consult with South American leadership while the details of the Colombian agreement were settled. The bilateral agreement took many by surprise and offended Brazil, Venezuela and others who believed that foreign military in a neighboring country should certainly be their concern, particularly if they were to be convinced that the presence would be benign to their sovereignty.

… And without transparency and consultation in the region, Washington makes it difficult to offer evidence to counter Fidel, even when, as in this case, his accusations are far-fetched and based in another era.

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.)