As printed in
the Sun-Sentinel
July 22, 2007

Bush's action plan not working

By Wayne S. Smith

The Bush administration's policy statements regarding Cuba sound like a broken record — a sound track leading nowhere. The latest sample was given by Secretary of State Condolezza Rice at a press conference on July 9. Washington, she said, "will not tolerate the transition from one dictator to another in Havana."

Not tolerate? Hmmm. Didn't that transition, from Fidel to Raul, take place almost a year ago? What is Washington doing about it? Nothing, except to say that it can't be so. Hardly an effective policy!

Just after 9-11, the way seemed open to constructive engagement with Cuba. Cuba condemned the terrorist attacks on the U.S., expressed solidarity with the American people and offered to sign bilateral agreements providing for joint efforts against terrorism. But the Bush administration was not interested in dialogue. It not only ignored Cuba's overtures, but by 2003 had formed the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba and was calling for Castro's ouster.

In May of 2004, the Commission produced an action plan that made it sound as though the Castro regime was near collapse, that just a little more pressure would do it. The plan called for: 1.) increased radio and TV broadcasting, 2.) tight limits on the travel of Americans to Cuba, and 3.) increased assistance to dissidents inside Cuba.

The plan did not work. Radio and TV Marti broadcasts had had virtually no impact on Cuban public opinion prior to 2004, and have had little if any more since. U.S. restrictions on travel reduced tourism revenues but tourism continued to thrive.

Rather than collapsing, as the commission seemed to expect, the Cuban economy began a strong recovery. Cuba has vital new economic ties to Venezuela and China. The price of nickel, Cuba's leading export , has reached all-time highs. And there are strong indications of a major new oilfield off Cuba's north coast.

The Bush administration continued to predict collapse, and even to claim its plan had reached a "new stage." On July 10, 2006, it issued a new "Compact With the Cuban People," whose principal purpose seemed to be to suggest Washington would not tolerate the so-called "succession strategy," i.e. that Fidel Castro be succeeded by his brother Raul.

Bad timing. Only a few days after the Bush administration said it was unacceptable, it happened. Citing reasons of health, Fidel announced that Raul would now be acting President. The State Department immediately rejected the appointment and President Bush and Secretary of State Rice called on the Cuban people "to work for democratic change on the island," stressing that the U.S. stood ready to help "Cuba's transition to democracy."

There had been dancing in the streets of Miami on July 31 and elation in Washington. The expectation in both was that the Castro regime would quickly collapse.

Bush and Rice's call on the Cuban people, in effect, to work against the successor government reflected that expectation. But instead, the Cuban people accepted the succession calmly. Almost a year later, there has been not even a glimmer of unrest and no one expressing an interest in following Washington's lead in calling for a new government.

What we are left with is an utterly sterile policy. The administration will not deal with any Cuban government that includes either Fidel or Raul. Its goal, rather, is to bring it down. And yet, the measures it puts forward to achieve that goal cannot possibly do so. It would take military measures to bring down the Cuban government, and given the debacle it has created for itself in Iraq, not even the Bush administration is likely to be that irrational.

Meanwhile, during my visits to Cuba this year, I have detected what seems to be a growing sense of confidence. The economy and standard of living are improving and there is a strong sense that they have taken the worst the U.S. could throw at them and still come through.

As a ranking official put it to me last month: "We would prefer to have a constructive dialogue with the U.S. and a friendlier relationship across the board. Would prefer to have open trade with you. Would prefer to have broad educational exchanges. We are open to all that. Your government is not. OK. Our preferences notwithstanding, we can get along without you. We used to see the U.S. as the center of the world beyond our island. Perhaps you've done us a favor by bringing about a situation in which the U.S. is becoming almost irrelevant."

Wayne S. Smith is a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington. D.C. and an Adjunct Professor at the Johns Hopkins University.

Link to article