"Travel:
Symbol of and Vehicle for Change"
XVI edición de la Serie de Conversaciones Cuba en la Política Exterior de los Estados Unidos de América, Centro de Investigación de Política Internacional (CIPI) y Instituto Superior de Relaciones Internacionales (ISRI) 13 - 15 de Diciembre 2017
When I
proposed this topic, I expected to be able to describe an uneven progression
towards near normalcy for travel between our countries. However, events of the past six months have
muddied the waters and the future is harder to chart—unless you are a cruise
line, the least people to people but a completely authorized mode of travel.
Before the
revolution in 1959, Cuba was the primary Caribbean destination for Americans
and we provided 80% of its visitors.
Being able
to drink legally during prohibition was certainly an early attraction, but
Mafia investments in hotels, gambling, drugs and prostitution transformed the
destination in the 1950s. At least as
important were the same attractions that bring millions of visitors today:
history, culture, baseball, beaches and the engaging people of Cuba—plus the
ease of arrival whether by air, cruise line or by ferry.
Symbolically
the ninth convention of ASTA, the American Society of Travel Agents, took place
at the former Havana Hilton from October 17 to 24, 1959. According to a post by FIT Cuba
“More than two thousand
travel agents from 82 countries, accompanied by their families, visited the
Cuban capital. These were unprecedented figures when compared to the previous
eight conventions.” http://www.fitcuba.com/en/fit-cuba/historia/
Fidel Castro
was a special guest, warmly received when he declared,
“we in Cuba are very happy and grateful to you for honoring us all
with your presence … please put all your
political ideas aside. You and your friends are professionals, not politicians,
and your mission is to help your friends find the happiness our world may
provide.
We don’t have many things; we are not an industrialized country
and lack a number of things, but in the field of tourism we have many advantages,
like our sea, bays, beaches, all kinds of medicinal waters, mountains, game and
fishing preserves, and the best temperature in the world. ”
He
went on to say,
“we are determined to develop tourism as much as possible,
with a good service and, especially, fair prices, because rather than having
100,000 people paying for expensive hotel rooms and items we would like many
hundreds of thousands to come, not only the wealthy but also those who are not
rich and those who have no other fortune than their job… our ambition, which is
a well-intended ambition, is to turn our Island into the best vacation resort
and the most important destination worldwide.”
Presciently
he noted
“We’re aware of the fact that many U.S. citizens come here
with wrong ideas and then they find exactly the opposite of what they believed.
That’s why we think that regardless of all the propaganda against Cuba we will
make headway and have more tourists every year. Who is telling the truth, those
who lie or those who open the doors of the nation for everyone to come and see
for themselves what is truly going on in Cuba”
For just
that reason, the threat of reality overcoming propaganda, the end of US tourism
was a major and, for many years, a successful goal of the embargo.
It
dovetailed with Cuba’s disinterest in tourism in the initial decades of the
revolution. As the country’s turn toward
socialism faced growing threats from the US, Fidel’s early enthusiasm
apparently cooled. Tourism flourished domestically, but until the
mid-1970s foreign visitors were largely welcomed from politically aligned
countries or movements, either as vacation rewards or as demonstrations of solidarity. Conventional tourism was seen as carrying the
subversive seeds of social inequality. Cruises
received special denigration.
Entry to
Cuba was also discouraged by obstacles created by neighbors who followed the US
goal of isolating and undermining the revolution. I remember that on my first trip to Cuba in
1971 even Mexico only allowed us to transit by air to Cuba but not to return. As a result we went home via a freighter to
Canada in the dead of winter.
From the
beginning, there were people who ignored the travel embargo, either acting in
solidarity with the revolution or simply because they resented US government infringement
on their personal freedom. The Office of
Foreign Assets Control chased after violators, penalizing them with fines and
intimidation, notably through constant repetition of overstated legal risks in
newspaper articles. Individual
travelers were most vulnerable, often settling for payment of reduced fines
rather than risk criminal prosecution.
Probably the first US NGO to send visitors was Sandy Levinson’s Center
for Cuban Studies in 1973. Its
delegation of lawyers used the loophole of being fully hosted by Cuba. The Venceremos Brigade and later Pastors for
Peace famously defied the travel embargo with little consequence.
President
John Kennedy imposed travel restrictions in 1963 and President Jimmy Carter let
them lapse in 1977, the same year that Interest Sections were opened in both
capitals. However, the opportunity for a
breakthrough was missed. On the Cuban
side there was not the political interest or capacity to open the door to
commercial tourism from the US, nor did US companies take advantage of the
opportunity. President Ronald Reagan
reimposed restrictions in 1982.
The change of
perspective on the Cuban side began in the mid 1970s, but dramatic change is
linked to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the need to obtain new sources
of national income during the Special Period.
Henry Louis
Taylor Jr. and Linda McGlynn of the Center for Urban Studies at SUNY Buffalo
wrote in 1909:
“International tourist arrivals in Cuba fell from a peak of
272,000 in 1958 to less than 4000 annually from 1959 until 1973. By 1975, Cuba
had begun to promote tourism reaching over 300,000 visitors annually by 1990.
As the Special Period began, the industry exploded during the nineties and by
2000, the number of tourist arrivals to Cuba had doubled.” [“International tourism in Cuba: Can
capitalism be used to save socialism?” https://ubwp.buffalo.edu/aps-cus/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2015/07/using-capitalism-to-save-socialism.pdf]
A growing
stream of Americans illegally joined the stream, flying from Mexico, Canada or
Jamaica and usually escaping sanction.
However, legal travel for a diverse clientele only began in the Clinton
Administration. Clinton did not believe
he had the authority to unilaterally end the embargo with Cuba as he had with
Vietnam, but he could provide categories of licensing to provide
exceptions. Thus began the process of
applying to OFAC for approval of a specific license on a trip by trip
basis. Initially that was not so
complicated and my organization was one of many to do so, even without using a
lawyer. Cuban Americans were allowed to
visit once a year, plus for humanitarian reasons, but no effort was made to
enforce that limit.
It was not
lost on the hard line ultras among Cuban Americans that the negative propaganda
about their homeland was losing effect as more and more mainstream Americans personally
witnessed and even enjoyed a more complicated reality. Regardless of whether visitors admired or
despaired of Cuba’s political and economic system, they came home convinced
that the Cuban people did not hate Americans and the embargo was dumb.
The tactic
adopted by the ultras to challenge Clinton’s opening was Brothers to the Rescue. It used a humanitarian mission of saving
refugees at sea to mask deliberately provocative flights dropping political
leaflets over Havana in blatant violation of national airspace. One can argue that Cuba had no alternative in
defense of its sovereignty, or that it swallowed the bait of Miami. In any case the political reaction in the US
to the shoot down of the Brothers to the Rescue planes led to Clinton’s support
of the infamous Helms-Burton legislation and no greater opening of travel based
on executive authority. In 2000 the legal authorization of agricultural
sales was paired with the codification of categories of permitted purposeful
travel.
Although President
George Bush took power with the help of Cuban American interference in the vote
count in Florida, he initially made little change in Clinton’s travel
regulations. There was considerable
bipartisan momentum in Congress to find ways of ending travel
restrictions. The Miami ultras response
this time came via allies in the Administration. James Cason, the head of the US Interests
Section, had been directed by superiors in the State Department to create
enough provocations to push the Cubans to close it. His notoriously direct and public engagement
with US government supported dissidents led to a large number of arrests and
controversial trials that were labeled as the Black Spring and widely denounced
in the US and Europe. Again Cuba could be seen as defending its
sovereignty, but the political consequence in the US was the total collapse of
Congressional efforts for freedom of travel and agricultural sales, much to the
satisfaction of the ultras.
As President
Bush approached his reelection campaign,
he paid his political debt to Miami, drastically restricted travel
licenses and limited Cuban Americans to one trip in three years with no
humanitarian exceptions. However by
2007, enforcement was virtually stopped because the appeals process had ground
to a halt. Violations by Cuban Americans
were completely ignored except when a company tried to profit from them.
When
President Obama took office, he brought an anti-embargo disposition but also political
caution of how fast he could proceed.
As promised during his campaign, and despite pressure from some Cuban
American supporters, he fundamentally transformed the relationship between the
Cuban diaspora and their country of origin in April 2009, an approach welcomed
by the government in Havana. He ended
all restrictions on their travel and on remittances, permitting a process of
grass roots family investment that fit well into the new Cuban reality outlined
by the Lineamientos and the initiatives of President Raul Castro.
There were
news stories at the time that Obama also was considering opening travel for the
rest of us but the White House acceded to pressure from Senator Menendez. He did restore the definition of categories
from the Clinton era in January 2011.
There was a boom in licensed group tours, but OFAC created arbitrary and
politicized obstacles in both the application and renewal processes that
limited most access to those with expensive legal support. During this time, my organization was denied
a license five times until Senator Leahy’s office intervened, at the same time
it also successfully challenged unduly bureaucratic renewal requirements.
The ultras weapon
this time was USAID democracy programs that their allies had rushed to create
in the closing months of the Bush Administration but that were implemented
during the ignorant or uncaring tenure of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of
State. Among them was the contract
received by Alan Gross to set up a network of satellite linked internet
communications. Instead of apologizing for
and terminating such programs, Clinton played into the hands of the ultras
making Gross’s imprisonment a human rights cause celebre and an obstacle to any
further opening. Her position that the
US had the right to unilaterally sponsor projects in Cuba naturally inflamed
Havana’s sensitivity to infringement of sovereignty. The issue became more complicated when Cuba chose
to link the release of Gross to freedom for the Cuban Five. One can only speculate what the consequences
might have been if the Gross issue had been quickly resolved through mutual
compromise and Obama had opened the door to wide scale travel in his first term
rather than waiting until January 2015.
The decisive
transformation made by Obama at that time was to turn the Clinton categories of
specifically licensed travel into self-governed general licenses, removing all
bureaucratic impediments of an application process. That enabled virtually any group or travel
business to organize its own trip under the people to people general license. The description of purpose and internal administration
of group trips was not changed, but absent a requirement for applications and
renewals was virtually unenforceable.
The separate licensing of travel providers as OFAC police was also
ended.
|
A moment of silence for victims of terrorism in Europe before the US-Cuba baseball game. |
The final
step of Obama on March 15, 2016, was to permit individuals, families and
friends to organize travel independently under the individual general license
for people to people travel. This
dramatically opened travel to Americans who could not afford or disliked group
travel—or who wanted to share Cuba with their children. A natural consequence was the increase of
business for Cuba’s emerging private sector of casas particulares and paladars
and their support enterprises, thanks to dramatically reduced costs and the
convenience of direct credit card payment on line in the US to AirBnB and for commercial
flights.
At this
stage one could say travel had become nearly normal, excepting only all
inclusive beach holidays.
(following not included in oral
presentation)
The
character and goals of the Trump Administration are a dominant theme of this
conference, but their confused character is well illustrated by travel. Some of us had been optimistic that Trump
would leave alone or even expand Obama’s initiatives. His professional involvement in the leisure
industry had led him to fund an illegal sounding in Cuba and a legal delegation
to discuss golf courses and hotel. A
participant in the second trip, the Trump Organization’s counsel, Jason
Greenblatt, whose father or father in law emigrated from Cuba seemed will
disposed toward normalization and had been given a special portfolio on Cuba in
the new Administration.
Even when
Trump gave an anti-Obama red meat political speech in June in Miami, the
changes he proposed in travel were substantively minor. Untouched were virtually all forms of travel,
including group tours, cultural exchanges (such as the Irish traditional music
and dance performances we undertook last month in Holguin and Santiago) and the
most touristic kind of interaction, cruise ships. His attack on hotels under GAESA could be
easily countered by restoring Habaguanex to the Historian’s office, reopening
most of the banned facilities used by Americans in Habana Vieja. His destruction of the individual general
license was already being minimized by hints of an opening of a new path for
independent travelers under a different license category, Support for the Cuban
People.
|
Irish, Irish American and Cuban musicians perform traditional music for dance practice in Holguin, November 2017 |
Despite the
unjustified 60 % draw down of US diplomats in September, the June model was
largely implemented when the new OFAC regulations were announced last month. Support for the Cuban People was modified so
it no longer was limited to people who embodied a subversive agenda. (see text below)
Despite this
reality, the number of US visitors has plummeted. In part that is due to the political
climate. Hostile words, even from an
unpopular and morally discredited President, change the atmosphere for uncertain
travelers impacted by half a century of hostility and mistrust.
The drawdown
of US diplomats procedurally required a completely unjustified travel warning
because of the limited capacity to provide services to US citizens. In addition to the psychological impact
flowing from half a century of negativity about Cuba, a travel warning triggers
insurance and legal prohibitions on university, business and other
institutional travelers.
The New York
Times, for example has already canceled three months of group tours to Cuba
because of diminished interest and canceled reservations. Why would its affluent and relatively well
informed clients have been so easily scared off?
We still
don’t know whether the new tactic by Cuban American ultras to block travel and
reverse normalization was the mysterious illness said to have afflicted US government
personnel in Havana. If Cuba’s apparent
position that nothing actually happened is correct, the fact that the original
targets were reportedly US intelligence operatives could mean they were conspirators
in a planned disruption of relations. Or
their covert identity could mean they were a deliberate target of some non-Cuban
force opposed to normalization, for example North Korea which shows little
regard for international or diplomatic norms.
In any case,
it is certain that the ultras quickly moved to exploit the situation. Senator Rubio and four colleagues had called
for the US to close both embassies a few days before Secretary Tillerson withdrew
60% of staff, perhaps to prevent worse.
Rubio and Rep. Diaz-Ballart also criticized the revised travel
restrictions as having been subverted by the bureaucracy so their game has not
ended.
Despite the
State Department’s apparent intention to make Support for the Cuban People a
replacement for the individual general license, the published language, although
modified favorably, was open to misunderstanding or deliberate
misinterpretation for reasons of economic self-interest or politics. In my view
if the goal of travelers is to promote independent activity to strengthen civil
society and their activities enhance contact with the Cuban people, with the
result of meaningful interaction, their presence in Cuba will be seen positively
as legitimate support for the emerging private sector, they qualify for this
general license and they will be welcome visitors.
If they are
motivated by the other listed goals and act on them, their presence could be
regarded as intrusive and not respectful of Cuba's sovereignty by authorities.
The same can be said for still legal group people to people tours which are encumbered
by the same presumptuous language.
The ultras no
doubt welcomed the effective termination of US visa granting authority as the
result of withdrawal of diplomats. They
are spared the permanent addition of at least 20,000 Cuban immigrants annually,
most of whom will eventually become anti-embargo voters, and of tens of
thousands of non-immigrant visitors who deepen personal links across the
straights.
No doubt the
ultras are hoping that the drastically diminished utility of the embassy,
combined with the possibly provocative choice of a new charge d’affairs who was
expelled as US ambassador to Bolivia, could lead Cuba to righteous actions that
will be used to justify termination of diplomatic relations. If in fact the Trump Administration strategy
is to make the embassy a facade as was charged this morning, the effective
Cuban response would be to make it more real by constantly inviting
participation by US diplomats in broader aspects of Cuban society than has been
the case.
We have two
reasons to hope: First, Cuban Americans
and US academic organizations could start complaining vociferously about the
end of visas and hold Rubio and Diaz-Ballart personally responsible. Second, if the Democrats take back the House
of Representatives in 2018, they can join a majority of Senators to end
legislatively all travel restrictions.
Then we will see whether President Pence or Ryan will veto their action.
--John McAuliff, Fund for Reconciliation and
Development, 12/14/17
Full text of Support for
the Cuban People section
CUBAN ASSETS CONTROL
REGULATIONS
§515.574
Support for the Cuban People.
(a) General license. The travel-related
transactions set forth in §515.560(c) and other transactions that are intended
to provide support for the Cuban people are authorized, provided that:
(1) The activities are of:
(i) Recognized human rights organizations;
(ii) Independent organizations designed to
promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy; or
(iii) Individuals and
non-governmental organizations that promote
independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba; and
(2) Each traveler engages in a full-time
schedule of activities that:
(i) Enhance contact
with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote
the Cuban people's independence from Cuban authorities; and
(ii) Result in
meaningful interaction with individuals in Cuba.
(3) The traveler's schedule of activities does
not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a
full-time schedule.
Note
that virtually identical language describes authorized people to people
educational travel for groups:
§515.565 Educational
activities.
(b) General license for
people-to-people travel.
(2) Travel-related transactions pursuant to this
authorization are for the purpose of engaging, while in Cuba, in a full-time
schedule of activities that enhance contact with the Cuban
people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people's
independence from Cuban authorities;
(3) Each traveler has a full-time schedule of educational
exchange activities that result in meaningful interaction between the traveler
and individuals in Cuba;
My layman's interpretation: if a travelers’ view of their
goal is to promote independent activity to strengthen civil society and their activities
enhance contact with the result of meaningful interaction, their presence in
Cuba will be positive in support of the emerging private sector and they
qualify for this general license. If they are motivated by the other
listed goals and act on them, their presence could be regarded as intrusive and
not respectful of Cuba's sovereignty.
-- John McAuliff