President Trump’s decision to roll back our opening with Cuba was disastrous. As he takes office again, he should reconsider.
Photo illustration: Brigitte Werner/Pixabay
by Lissa Weinmann
Ten years ago, the U.S. and Cuba announced the start of normalization between our two countries. Americans and Cubans alike could see a bit of light through a crack in the wall of U.S. restrictions that, for six decades, have blocked normal interaction between close neighbors.
The brief opening was largely ceremonial — President Trump rolled much of it back in his first term. And only Congress can truly end the world’s longest running embargo.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio, President-elect Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, embraces the same old Cold War playbook on the issue: punish Cuba, stoke chaos and civil unrest, and hope the government collapses. As far back as JFK, U.S. officials have been trapped in this irrational family feud that empowers hardliners in both governments while holding citizens here and there hostage to a bureaucratic status quo.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Two years of limited opening had a positive impact and was supported by a majority of Cuban Americans. Buoyed by Cuban government reforms and cash from families in the U.S., the island’s private sector boomed. Internet access increased and social media exploded with honest voices. American tourists flocked to the country.
Then Trump emphatically rolled this progress back — he even added Cuba to the list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” despite a complete lack of evidence.
Today, after a brief glimmer of hope, Cubans are suffering. Hardliners have stopped the economic reform process. Confusion plagues new leaders transitioning from the Castros’ dominance. The pandemic gutted tourism, while storms and flooding ravaged crops.
The results have been predictable: An exodus from Cuba has surpassed all migration since the imposition of the embargo in 1962. At least half a million have migrated since the end of Trump’s first term — and more are on the way. The island has lost around 10 percent of its population in recent years, a staggering total.
We need to break our addiction to this big government policy that displaces people and blocks the rest of us from engaging with our neighbors. Ending the embargo would also open doors for Cuban reformers, dissidents, human rights activists, and religious leaders alike by removing the Cuban government’s excuse for its failures.
A bipartisan majority in Congress could potentially back a full lifting of the embargo. Gulf Coast states who took the big hit in the 60s when they lost a top trading partner in Cuba could be especially delighted to renew those relations.
”In a scenario of unrestricted trade, the aggregate of food and medical exports alone could amount to $1.6 billion with 20,000 associated U.S. jobs,” former International Trade Commission Chair Paula Stern PhD found in a 2000 study presented to Congress. Those numbers could be much higher today.
There would be other benefits as well.
Companies like Roswell Park in Buffalo, who had to jump through hoops to bring a groundbreaking Cuban-developed lung cancer vaccine to people in the United States, and other health care companies would finally be able to economically partner with world-class Cuban scientists on new medical advances.
For Trump, the next steps should be obvious: Avoid bloodshed. Ease the pain. Light the way to a new era in U.S.-Cuba relations.
OtherWords
About the author:
Lissa Weinmann is a board member of Windham World Affairs Council. She helped found and direct Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba, a coalition that helped ease the embargo’s restrictions on food sales to Cuba, and directed the National Summit on Cuba. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
Lissa Weinmann is a board member of Windham World Affairs Council. She helped found and direct Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba, a coalition that helped ease the embargo’s restrictions on food sales to Cuba, and directed the National Summit on Cuba. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
More Viewpoints:
- American farmers are being robbed blind by corporation profiteers
- Nearly half of older Americans can’t even afford basic needs
- Teaching about race is good, actually; states need to quit banning it
- Tipped wage system isn't working, removing taxes won't save it
As lawmakers in Illinois and across the nation consider reforms to the nation's juvenile-justice system, one country across the Atlantic could serve as a model.
Northern Ireland's Youth Justice Agency places an emphasis on early diversion, community involvement and restorative justice.
Kelvin Doherty, assistant director of the Agency, said the goal is to keep kids out of police custody and prevent them from building a criminal record.
"Let's address these concerns and these issues before the police are called, and before they get into a court setting," Doherty urged.
Doherty pointed out the restorative-justice process can take one of several paths: including a simple apology, community service or mental-health treatment. According to data from the Youth Justice Agency, more than 97% of victims said they are satisfied with the restorative-justice process.
The Youth Justice Agency was established in 2002, and was born out of the Good Friday Agreement. Doherty explained the program was part of a multipronged effort to modernize Northern Ireland's justice system.
"And the modernization process said, well, for a new justice system in Northern Ireland, it has to be not just about children and reducing reoffending," Doherty explained. "But it also has to be for victims and for communities as well."
From April 2020 to April 2021, Northern Ireland's Justice Department saw a nearly 17% decline in cases where kids came into contact with the criminal-justice system.
Doherty noted early diversion and support programs, typically used when the child is between 10 and 12 years old, can help prevent kids from coming into contact with the criminal-justice system down the line.
"Problems can be resolved in the child's life before they get worse," Doherty asserted. "And it has a better outcome for agencies and service providers, because it often involves less effort and more success, the earlier you are intervening or diverting children within the justice system."
According to the Children's Defense Fund, nearly 2,000 children are arrested in America every day. While the organization noted the overall number of kids in the juvenile-justice system was halved from 2007 to 2020, severe racial disparities persist, as children of color are nearly two times more likely to be arrested than white children.
For the Biden Administration, the outcome of the dialogue in Doha will be the first major foreign policy challenge, one that will either culminate in a historic agreement or continued entrenchment for what has already been America’s longest war. Public opinion polls conducted amongst a diverse group of American voters suggest that while most have experienced fatigue with the conflict, very few support a complete withdrawal of US troops, even when accounting for partisan differences.
Nevertheless, a full drawdown would likely strengthen the Taliban’s position, and encourage a repeat of the chaos that ensued in the aftermath of the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, and the cessation of Soviet foreign aid in 1991, which quickly brought down the government of Mohammad Najibullah a year later.
The Taliban’s current fighting force (estimated between 40,000-60,000 fighters) would take complete control of Afghan territory, highly unlikely. However, a potential breakdown of the current unity government, buttressed by the Taliban’s enduring connection to both Al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-Khorasan Province (ISIL-Khorasan), would whet the Taliban’s risk appetite for sustained engagement with the Afghan armed forces as seen in the past months.
Given the fragility of the Ghani government, and waning enthusiasm from the American side, the Biden Administration’s best option is to pursue a compromise that would postpone their scheduled withdrawal in May and buy more time for the negotiators. The US exit from Afghanistan should be condition-based on peace in Afghanistan. The Americans should make it clear to the Taliban that if they don’t want peace, they will stay in Afghanistan.
