Review laws on travel, remittances

By Marifeli Pérez-Stable
The Miami Herald, March 13, 2008

Despite all the changes of titles and position-shuffling within the ruling circle, Cuba remains a dictatorship. Neither Fidel nor Raúl Castro brooks political opposition or respects civil liberties. Both are threatened by citizens gathering signatures as Oswaldo Payá did, promoting civil society as Martha Beatriz Roque has, defending a democratic Left as the Progressive Arc does or joining Yo No Coopero, a movement of noncooperation with official Cuba.

Raúl, nonetheless, represents potential change, albeit not toward democracy. Lacking charisma, he must rule through institutions and improve living standards. After Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone's visit, the Cuban Catholic Church is anticipating broadened opportunities for social action. In late February, Cuba signed two human rights accords, which it had long decried and the elder Castro still does. Releasing more political prisoners may be in the works as Havana and the European Union seek to improve ties.

At a minimum, the next U.S. administration should summon a hard-nosed evaluation of current policy. In the early 1990s, the Cuban Democracy Act -- which tightened the embargo -- made some sense. Without Soviet trade and subsidies, the embargo might have finally worked. In 1996, Helms-Burton -- enacted into law after Cuba downed two civilian planes that snuffed out the lives of four people -- tightened the embargo further.

The regime sailed on.

Cuba's oil reserves

Today, Cuba meets its energy needs thanks to Venezuela and its own, thus-far modest oil reserves. Cuban waters, however, are thought to hold some five billion barrels of oil. If these are confirmed, Cuba could be earning $5 billion annually from oil and ethanol in five to seven years. Havana, moreover, now counts on a more auspicious international setting than at any time since the Cold War.

Isn't it time that the United States consider policy alternatives? Confronting the United States has always been easy for the Cuban government. A diplomatic give-and-take amid a partial embargo relaxation is a much tougher challenge for Havana. Limited engagement may just be the real hard line.

The 2004 regulations, which imposed stringent limitations on Cuban-American travel and remittances, should be reversed. Under them, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews aren't considered family and, thus, we cannot travel to see them nor send them remittances. Travel to visit immediate family is allowed only once every three years. Whatever monetary gains Havana makes on travel and remittances, humanitarian concerns and people-to-people contacts are -- as the MasterCard commercials say -- priceless. For nearly 50 years, Castro has divided Cuban families. Isn't it unbecoming, indeed, un-American, for the United States to be following in his path?

In January, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva visited Havana. Though his meeting with the Comandante grabbed the headlines, Raúl and Lula spent four hours together about which almost nothing has leaked. Brazil and Cuba agreed to increase their economic cooperation, including the sugar industry. Ethanol wasn't mentioned, but it needn't have been; refined sugar is not where the profits are. Lula and Raúl may also share a common antipathy to Hugo Chávez. Lessening Cuban dependence on Venezuela is in the national interests of Cuba, Brazil and the United States.

Mexico, Spain, Canada and other U.S. allies are also sure to open more lines of communication with Havana. A 50-year dictatorship isn't erased overnight, a reality that current U.S. policy doesn't contemplate. Washington, in fact, is best prepared for the least likely scenario: a quick regime implosion. Should it take modest steps away from current policy, i.e., loosening restrictions on remittances and family travel, the next administration could make a much stronger case for a concerted policy with U.S. allies.

Use common sense

If it stays the course, Washington's call for a common policy will continue to go unanswered. On several occasions since the Cold War, the United States tightened the embargo in the belief that the end of the Cuban regime was near. At every turn, Havana has survived. Common sense dictates a new policy that would, undoubtedly, carry risks as well as benefits. Current policy, however, does as well, but the U.S. government never tallies the costs incurred. Two decades after the end of the Cold War, another Castro presides over Cuba.