Marco Rubio:
‘Trump will treat Cuba like the dictatorship it is’
BY NORA GÁMEZ TORRES
·
·
·
Two months after the Trump administration announced a total
review of U.S. policy toward Cuba, several controversial proposals are being
circulated at the White House with no clear front-runner on the issue.
But Sen. Marco Rubio says he has spoken with Trump three
times about Cuba.
“We’ve been walking through all these issues with the president
and his team, figuring out the right steps to take and when,” Rubio told el
Nuevo Herald.
“I am confident that
President Trump will treat Cuba like the dictatorship it is and that our policy
going forward will reflect the fact that it is not in the national interest of
the United States for us to be doing business with the Cuban military,” he
added.
The Miami Republican of Cuban descent declined to say
whether the president had made any commitments to him on Cuba policies. But a
Rubio spokesman told el Nuevo Herald that the senator and his staff “have been
working behind the scenes” on Cuba policy.
The Cuban government has taken notice of Rubio's rising
voice in U.S. policy toward Latin America, and the state-run Granma newspaper
recently criticized his efforts to have the Organization of American States
condemn Venezuela's human rights record.
But the Granma article carefully avoided
insulting Trump. And the Raúl Castro government, in a rare show of restraint,
has said little about the Trump administration as it waits for the ongoing
review of overall U.S. policies toward the island.
Spokespersons for the White House and the State Department
have said that the National Security Council (NSC) has the lead in the
multi-agency review. Several knowledgeable sources have said that Jill St.
John, a low-level NSC staffer, is coordinating the work. The White House did
not immediately reply to el Nuevo Herald questions about St. John.
The review requires an initial examination of current policy
and regulations. But whoever is gathering that information “has no directions
on what to do about that,” said one source who favors improved relations with
Havana.
Several key jobs in the State Department and other agencies
also remain unfilled by officials “who usually would be the ones you could
approach to talk about Cuba,” said one pro-embargo source frustrated by the
so-called “vacuum.”
But “treating Cuba as a dictatorship” does not necessarily
entail reversing all of President Barack Obama's measure to improve bilateral
relations. Rubio said he favored tougher policies toward Cuba, a strategy
favored by some dissidents on the island. But he did not reply directly to a
question on whether he favors a total rollback of the new regulations, as
proposed in a memorandum making the rounds on Capitol Hill and the White House
that is believed to have been crafted by staff members for Florida Republican
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart.
The memo proposes imposing new sanctions within 90 days
unless Cuba meets a string of requirements contained in the Helms-Burton law
and takes action toward the return of U.S. fugitives and compensation for
confiscated U.S. properties.
Several proposals circulating
However, the memo is just one of many proposing different
policies, according to several sources.
A White House official said in a statement of the
Diaz-Balart memo: “This appears to be an unofficial DRAFT memo which is not
consistent with current formatting and may be a Transition document.
“Some of the language is consistent with what the President
said during the campaign, which is guiding the review of U.S. policy toward
Cuba,” the official said. “The review is not complete and therefore there is no
further comment at this time.”
Trump promised during the presidential campaign to “reverse”
all the pro-engagement measures approved by Obama unless the Cuban government
bows to his demands. These days, the phrase making the rounds within political
circles in Washington and Miami is “treat Cuba like a dictatorship.”
“Cuba must be treated
for what it is and not, as the Obama administration did, what it wished Cuba
were. Cuba remains a Communist, totalitarian police state that allies itself
with American adversaries and enemies, including state sponsors of terror and
terrorist organizations,” said attorney Jason Poblete of the Washington-based
PobleteTamargo LLP. His wife Yleem Poblete was appointed to the Trump
transition team.
Other proposals floating around Washington would reverse
only parts of the Obama changes, because doing more would disrupt the market
and risk lawsuits from U.S. companies that have already signed deals with Cuba.
The recommendations in the presumed Diaz-Balart memo would cost U.S. tourism
and service companies about $2 billion during the remaining years of the Trump
administration, said John Kavulich, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and
Economic Council.
Turning back the clock even further, to the tight
restrictions on travel and remittances imposed by former President George W.
Bush — a possibility that had frightened many people — seems even less likely
now.
Several sources who requested anonymity in order to speak
frankly on the issue said that among the proposals submitted to the Trump
administration is one that would eliminate the self-guided trips to Cuba under
the so-called “people to people” travel category, described as “tourism on
steroids” or a thinly-veiled way to sidestep the U.S. ban on Cuba tourism.
Another would impose targeted sanctions on Cuban military or
Interior Ministry officials. And a third would deny further licenses to U.S.
companies that do business with enterprises run by the Cuban military, which
controls at least an estimated 60 percent of the island's economy.
“They are 100 percent looking into this,” said one source
close to the business sector with ties to Cuba. One pro-engagement source said
that the proposal to deny licenses — perhaps the most detrimental for Cuba —
would be difficult to implement.
“How's OFAC going to determine which companies are connected
to the Cuban military?,” said the source.
He also cautioned that such harsh measures could strengthen
the most conservative sectors within Cuba, at a time when the Venezuelan crisis
is growing worse and Castro's deadline for retiring from power in 2018 is
approaching.
Rubio's statements, nevertheless, hint that Trump policies
may target the Cuban military. House Speaker Paul Ryan last year also proposed
banning U.S. companies from doing business with Cuba military enterprises.
Lobbyists scrambling
At the same time, groups that support improving relations
with Cuba have not stopped their lobbying efforts, and continue “strategizing
about how to influence the Trump administration, although the window of
opportunity is closing,” said Ted Piccone, a senior fellow at Brookings
Institution who specializes in U.S.-Cuba relations.
Piccone said that maintaining the current policy toward Cuba
would be in the best interest of the United States, not just because of the
economic benefits but also because of national security concerns. He said Trump
administration officials such as Jason Greenblatt at the NSC, Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly are “open
to this argument.”
U.S. companies doing business with Cuba also have been
sending messages to the Trump administration in support of a pro-business
agenda.
“With the new administration’s desire to grow our economy,
we are hopeful that both governments will continue the momentum to work to open
the door for commerce to flourish between our two countries,” said Vanessa
Picariello, Norwegian Cruise senior director of public relations.
“Business and civic leaders from the American Farm Bureau,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Republican members of Congress also have been
encouraging President Trump to shake up our failed embargo policy with Cuba,”
said James Williams, director of Engage Cuba, a coalition of businesses and
organizations lobbying to eliminate economic sanctions to Cuba. “President
Trump can create billions of dollars in trade and tens of thousands of American
jobs by expanding trade with Cuba.”
Letters in support of the current pro-engagement policy have
been sent to the Trump administration by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Catholic
Church leaders, the American Farm Bureau, Cuban-American organizations like the
Cuba Study Group and members of Congress like Minnesota Republican Rep. Tom
Emmer, who has submitted a bill to lift the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba.
Piccone said that on balance the pro-engagement camp feels
“positive, although realistic that certain promises were made to senators like
Rubio.
“It is up for grabs, what is happening at the end.”
Miami Herald reporter Patricia Mazzei contributed to this
report.
My comment #1
Sen Rubio and others in Washington who want
President Trump to “treat Cuba like a dictatorship” don't seem to have noticed
how acceptable dictatorships are to this Administration.
Cuba's treatment of dissidents and centralized
one party control are minor league compared to Egypt and China.
John McAuliff
Fund
for Reconciliation and Development
My comment #2
This story in the Miami Herald on Administration discussions about Cuba includes this paragraph:
Several sources who requested anonymity in order to speak frankly on the issue said that among the proposals submitted to the Trump administration is one that would eliminate the self-guided trips to Cuba under the so-called “people to people” travel category, described as “tourism on steroids” or a thinly-veiled way to sidestep the U.S. ban on Cuba tourism.
The number and variety of US visitors to Cuba is steadily
increasing. The commercial airlines
brought 3 times the number of seats previously provided by charters in order to
position themselves for the long term market.
No surprise that they are adjusting their service to the actual current
market.
The Trump Administration is most likely to leave travel
largely untouched while laying the groundwork for a broader mutual opening.
Ending self-guided travel would be completely counterproductive.
The individual general license for people to people travel
has existed for slightly more than a year but already plays a very significant
role:
1) Independent travelers are the fastest growing sector of
Americans visiting Cuba. They are vitally important for US airlines to fill
their capacity.
2) This is because independent travel can be undertaken at a
far more reasonable cost than group tours, making it available for a greater
diversity of Americans. Most group tours charge more than $3,000 for a week.
Individuals can spend as little as $1,000.
3) Two or three generation families can now travel to Cuba.
In addition to cost factors, bringing children is not very welcome in group
tours. Children have a multiplier effect
on creating trust and friendships.
4) Cuba is now accessible to American students and other
back-packers, just as it has been for years to their Canadian and European
counterparts. They naturally are
inclined to interact informally and socially with their Cuban peers.
5) Group tours are carefully programmed and monitored by
Cuban State companies. Like any officially sponsored program in any country
(including ours), itineraries are designed to convey a desired picture of the
country. They do offer a valuable and convenient window for their participants
to a little known society but it is largely pre-determined.
6) Self-directed individuals follow a personalized and
spontaneous program inherently more integrated with the grass roots of Cuban
society.
7) Expenditures by independent travelers disproportionately
benefit individual Cubans and support the emerging private sector of bed and
breakfasts, private restaurants, drivers and gray market guides.
I have worked with tour groups to Cuba for twenty years,
most of that time under cumbersome, bureaucratic, politicized and arbitrary
OFAC licensing. Our priority now is to promote independent travel for its
benefit to both countries. The situation today is far superior for group and
independent travelers and it would be very sad and counter-intuitive if the
Trump Administration moved our country backwards, infringing again on the
rights of our own people to satisfy the vengeful illusions of a small
self-interested minority.
John McAuliff
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
