Ten Keys to Donald Trump’s Policy Toward Cuba – By Sergio Alejandro Gómez

Ten Keys to Donald Trump’s Policy Toward Cuba

President Donald Trump

The change in policy toward Cuba, announced June 16 by U.S.A. President Donald Trump, implies a setback in bilateral relations

  • Granma shares opinions and analysis from both sides of the Florida Straits

Author: Sergio Alejandro Gómez | Granma – Official Voice of the Communist Party of Cuba Central Committee

The change in policy toward Cuba, announced June 16 in Miami by U.S.A. President Donald Trump, implies a setback in several aspects of bilateral relations, while remaining in place are a portion of the modest advances made under the Obama administration, since December 17, 2014.   

Granma shares the opinions and analysis of important academics, politicians, and media on both sides of the Florida Straits, with the goal of providing context to Trump’s statements and clarifying their possible impact on the future of relations between the two countries.


The content of his statement, the place chosen to make it, and the audience joining the President in a Miami theater that bears the name of a Playa Girón mercenary, Manuel Artime, confirm the suppositions of many analysts that the head of state took the advice of a handful of individuals who do not represent majority public opinion in the U.S.A., or the Cuban émigré community there.

U.S.A. attorney Robert Muse, who has much experience studying relations between Washington and Havana, told Granma, “I believe the President is repaying political debts to Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Mario Díaz-Balart.”

Thanks to their proximity to Trump, their regular political maneuvering and use of their positions on important Congressional bodies as bargaining chips, the two Republican legislators have become key White House advisors.

“Trump’s new policy toward Cuba is dictated by domestic political considerations, not foreign policy interests,” noted William Leogrande, professor of Government at American University, adding, “The President himself said he was repaying a political debt he owes conservative Cuban-Americans for their support during the election campaign.”


In his eagerness to please the far right in Florida and undo the legacy of his Democratic predecessor, Trump chose to ignore the interests of broad sectors in the United States of America and reinforce the blockade policy that causes great harm to the Cuban people. His slogan, “America First” does not appear to apply in the case of Cuba.

“The changes are serious: no transactions with Cuban enterprises affiliated with the armed forces, and a return to travel rules that require people-to-people educational travel to be in groups under the auspices of licensed organizations,” commented Phil Peters, president of the Cuba Research Center.

“This is a hollow retreat from normalization that takes a swipe at Americans’ freedom to travel, at our national interest, and at the people of Cuba who yearn to reconnect with us – all just to score a political favour with a small and dwindling faction here at home,” said Senator Patrick Leahy, who has long favoured better relations with Cuba.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recalled the importance of its exchanges with the Cuban Academy of Sciences over the last two years, noting that the countries share weather, waters, and diseases.

“Science has no borders,” the organization insisted after indicating that efforts will continue to foster ties with its Cuban counterpart.

Agricultural groups criticized Trump’s position, noting that the policy change could slow the increase in exports to Cuba, which, according to Reuters, were valued at 221 million dollars in 2016.

This figure was reached despite the fact that prohibitions remain in place on the granting of credit to Cuba to buy food, obliging the country to pay in cash, up front.

Another contradiction cited by experts is the new policy’s alleged focus on defending national security.

Close to a dozen former high-ranking U.S.A. officials sent a letter to Trump’s National Security Advisor, General H. R. McMaster, in April, stating that cutting ties with Cuba would have negative repercussions on the country’s security, and that the island could be an important ally in combating drug trafficking and responding to emergencies.


The aspiration to deliver a blow to this sector dates back years among Cuban-American politicians, who despite their success in reinforcing the blockade have not been able to sink the Cuban economy.

In June of 2015, Marco Rubio presented a bill in the Senate to prohibit any transactions with companies affiliated with the Cuban military.

Likewise, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for 2017, considered by the House of Representatives, contained a clause toward the same end, proposed by Díaz-Balart.

Both initiatives failed to win approval in Congress, so the two politicians took advantage of the opportunity to include their pet projects in Trump’s policy change directive.

Many companies administered by the FAR are among the most efficient and productive in the country, creating goods and services of added value and employing hundreds of thousands of people. Their earnings, unlike those of businesses in other countries around the world, are re-invested to improve the people’s quality of life.


According to U.S. media, including The Hill, the first drafts of Trump’s Cuba policy directive included much more severe measures, from completely breaking-off diplomatic relations to again including Cuba on the government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Nevertheless, the more radical ideas of Rubio and Díaz-Balart ran up against extensive support for the rapprochement policy within U.S. government agencies themselves, and broad sectors of society.

Over the last few months, more than 40 companies linked to the travel industry, led by giants like Google and Marriot; Congress people from both parties; Cuban émigré organizations; and the principal U.S.A. media outlets; as well as a wide spectrum of political and social leaders of civil entities on the island, sent Trump messages expressing the opinion that ties between Washington and Havana should be maintained.

Collin Laverty, president of the Cuba Educational Travel agency, told Granma, referring to the Trump administration, “They are stuck between public opinion, which favours travel and trade, and their concessions to Rubio and Diaz-Balart. For that reason, they are still figuring it out. The President said he “cancelled Obama’s deal.” In reality, he only tinkered at the edges because he knows Obama’s opening to Cuba was popular.”


One of the ideas asserted by the President in his speech was the need to put an end to supposed “unilateral concessions” to Cuba on the part of Barack Obama, after the December 17, 2014, announcements.

However, in not one of the 22 agreements signed over the last two years can a single measure be found which exclusively benefits Cuba.

To work jointly in the face of an oil spill in the Florida Straits; to combat cyber-crime, terrorism, and drug trafficking; reinforce the security of maritime navigation; or share experiences in the fight against cancer, benefit both the United States and Cuba equally.

Likewise, the limited changes Obama made in the implementation of the blockade are clearly in the interest of the United States of America and were intentionally meant to favour specific sectors of Cuban society.


If many of the measures announced by Trump were expected by analysts, the big surprise was the crude, offensive rhetoric used in reference to Cuba, recalling the Cold War era the two countries had begun to overcome.

“It should not surprise us,” said Luis René Fernández, professor and researcher at the University of Havana’s Center for Hemispheric Studies and on the United States (CEHSEU), who recalled the President’s past as a reality show host, and said, “The real motive behind Trump’s rhetoric were the internal political difficulties he faces, and the setting in Miami, where he was surrounded by ignorant, reactionary groups.”

History has shown that even in the worse situations – like the special period in the 1990s after the collapse of the socialist camp and the tightening of the blockade – Cuba survived and begin a successful recovery, the Cuban academic noted, adding, “Obviously, today, we are in a better condition to confront this antiquated, failed policy.”


Cuba and the United States have a long history of negotiations, both secret and public, that have taken place as early as the Kennedy administration, and through that of Barack Obama. One constant has been Havana’s position refusing to submit to pressure or coercion, or negotiate any aspect of the country’s sovereignty.

“Anyone who understands Cuba knows that finger pointing, name calling and threats will not produce results,” Laverty said.

The Revolutionary Government Statement released after Trump’s speech reaffirms this principle citing its declaration of July 1, 2015, released after the exchange of letters reestablishing diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States of America, which reads, “These relations must be founded on absolute respect for our independence and sovereignty; the inalienable right of every state to choose its own political, economic, social, and cultural system, without interference of any kind; and on equality and reciprocity, which constitute irrevocable principles of international law, as stated in the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, signed by heads of state and government of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), during its 2nd Summit, in Havana.” and concludes, “Cuba has not renounced these principles, and never will.”


Specialists consulted by Granma agree that the change in Trump’s policy constitutes a setback to relations, but that there is still room for the two countries to find ways to cooperate.

“Despite the political rhetoric, the Trump administration wants to work with the Cuban government on areas of mutual interest such as law enforcement and counter-narcotics cooperation,” said James Williams, president of Engage Cuba, an organization lobbying in Washington for the lifting of the blockade.

To date, none of the 22 agreements signed between the countries in various areas has been vacated, Professor Leogrande noted, as a hopeful sign.

The Cuban academic, Luis René Fernández, points out that, despite the fact that Trump has chosen to return to a failed policy, Cuba will continue its successful process of updating its economic model, which is opening up many possibilities.


Although the President has broad executive powers to direct foreign policy, and to modify implementation of the blockade, the country’s aggressive policy toward Cuba is largely established by Congress.

There are, at this time, several Congressional proposals both in favor and against ties with Cuba. One of these has been introduced in the Senate by Republican Jeff Flake and Democrat Patrick Leahy, to end the travel ban.

This is not the first time such initiatives have been attempted, but on this occasion, bipartisan support is evident, with more than 50 Senators signing on as co-sponsors of the bill.

“Any policy change that diminishes the ability of Americans to travel freely to Cuba is not in the best interests of the United States or the Cuban people. It is time for the Senate leadership to finally allow a vote on my bipartisan bill to fully lift these archaic restrictions which do not exist for travel by Americans to any other country in the world,” Flake wrote in a statement released after Trump’s speech.

According to Reuters, Flake believes that if the bill were put to a vote, it would be supported by 70 of the body’s 100 members. For it to become law, however, a similar bill would need to be approved in the House of Representatives, where the balance of support is not so favourable, although the environment is better than last year.

“We are already seeing an outpouring of criticism of this new policy from Republicans in Congress. We expect this announcement will serve as a catalyst for Congress to step up and remove restrictions on travel and trade once and for all,” Williams said.


The policy directive signed by Trump vacates the previous one issued by Obama and provides general guidelines on the implementation of new restrictions on travel and trade.

It nevertheless projects a time period of 30 to 90 days to allow for the preparation of specific regulations by the different agencies involved.

It is difficult to predict the exact scope and possible impact of Trump’s new policies before these regulations go into effect and the fine print that will guide their implementation is known.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Clyde Duncan  On June 24, 2017 at 6:34 pm

    A Cynical Reversal on Cuba – The New York Times Editorial Board

    Fans of Cuban rum and cigars can rest easy. So can the Starwood chain, which has a deal to manage a historic hotel in Havana. But Americans who want to vacation in Cuba or start doing business there will find it harder as a result of President Trump’s misguided decision to slam the brakes on a two-year-old diplomatic opening with the island.

    Mr. Trump told a cheering crowd in Miami on Friday that his goal is to achieve a “free Cuba.”

    In truth, his new policy is just the latest chapter in a spiteful political crusade to overturn crucial elements of his predecessor’s legacy while genuflecting to Cuban-Americans in Miami’s exile community who helped put him in office.

    By now, Mr. Trump has perfected the art – not of the deal, but of dismantling what went before.

    “I am canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba,” he declared, an exaggeration in that he reversed only parts of it.

    But they were important parts, including relaxations on travel and commerce negotiated by President Barack Obama.

    The net result is that Cuban-American relations are likely to revert to a more adversarial Cold War footing, and undermining Washington’s standing in Latin America.

    Under the new policy, Americans may no longer plan their own private trips to Cuba, and those who travel with authorized education tours will be subject to new rules to ensure that they are NOT tourists.

    American companies and citizens will be barred from doing business with firms controlled by the Cuban military or its intelligence services, thus denying Americans access to critical parts of the Cuban economy, including much of the tourism sector.

    Mr. Trump’s policy rests on a cynical and historically bogus foundation. The aim, he says, is to force Cuban leaders to end repression, embrace democracy and open their economy.

    “We will not be silent in the face of Communist oppression any longer,” he said, adding that Mr. Obama’s brief détente has only empowered the Communist government and enriched the military.

    But 50 years of isolationist, hard-line sanctions never produced the ouster of Cuba’s Communist regime that anti-Castro activists had hoped for.

    [So President Trump is pledging more of the same and expecting a different outcome – even a stopped clock is right, twice a day.]

    Mr. Trump’s sudden concern for human rights is particularly hard to swallow. No recent president has been so disdainful of these rights or embraced so lovingly authoritarians who abuse their people, like Vladimir Putin of Russia and the Saudi Royal family.

    And while Mr. Trump says he wants to deprive the Cuban state of income from American dollars, many Cubans say the real victims will be the entrepreneurs who have benefited from the thousands of American tourists who visited Cuba over the last two years.

    If Mr. Trump would open his mind to facts like these, instead of succumbing to the blandishments of cheering crowds and political sycophants, he would learn that three-quarters of all American adults favor Mr. Obama’s decision to re-establish ties with Cuba.

    About the best that can be said is that his reversal is not as bad as it might have been.

    Embassies in Washington and Havana will stay open, direct flights between the two countries will continue, and Cuban-Americans will still be able to travel freely to Cuba and send money to relatives there.

    That’s little comfort, given Mr. Trump’s harsh tone. The president leaves real questions about the future of bilateral agreements on health care cooperation, joint planning to mitigate oil spills, coordination on counter-narcotics efforts and intelligence-sharing — and real questions about a truly productive relationship with an old adversary that Mr. Trump seems determined to turn into a new one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: