By José Ramón Cabañas Rodríguez on December 17, 2024
On that December 17, Cubans, Americans and citizens from all over the world began the day with news and rumors that foretold that it would be a singular day. It was reported that at midday both Army General Raul Castro Ruz and President Barack Obama would make public announcements. But it was already known that Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Ramón Labañino Salazar and Antonio Guerrero Rodríguez were back in their homeland. and prisoners had been handed over to the U.S. authorities for having carried out actions against the security of the Cuban state.
Gerardo, Ramón and Antonio together with René González Sehwerert and Fernando González LLort as a whole were and are known as The Five Cuban Heroes who had served long sentences in the United States for alleged espionage crimes, which were never proven. Their cause, as happened before with the case of the child Elián González, had moved the whole of Cuba and a good part of the U.S. society, which mobilized uninterruptedly in the face of a criminal process that was fabricated only to satisfy the interests of a political ghetto in South Florida.
In the eyes of any observer, an impossible had happened, preceded by a process of secret negotiations between Cuban and U.S. delegations, in which each side understood that it was necessary to resolve a dispute that would allow progress (or not) in matters that were strategic between the two nations.
But knowing that the Five were with their families and their people, with their principles intact, was only part of the joy of the day. A few hours later, it was learned of the willingness of both governments to initiate a process of negotiations that would eventually allow the reestablishment of bilateral diplomatic relations and to bring positions closer on a series of issues of respective national interests. Both in Havana and in Washington there were popular reactions that we should remember every time we talk about these events.
Students from several higher education institutions in Havana took to the streets and entered the University of Havana in celebration. An elderly Cuban woman of African descent was interviewed by local television to which she responded: “they have finally recognized that we exist”. Perhaps this lady was unknowingly synthesizing the history of her ancestors who were divided by the slavers between Havana and the Carolinas. Neighbors on 16th Street in the heart of Washington DC approached the perimeter of the then Cuban Interests Section to simply say “congratulations”.
It must be said that almost as important as the decision taken from the highest U.S. executive office was the criterion sustained for many years by the majority of public opinion in that country, in the sense of seeking a different type of relationship with a smaller country that was not appreciated as an enemy.
In particular, high percentages of Cubans living in the United States felt a certain relief at that time and less frustration in terms of the so-called family agenda issues. It was expected that in the near future it would be easier to visit and receive their relatives, communicate with them, support them financially, or seek direct knowledge of their ancestors by their descendants. They would no longer have to qualify their decision to emigrate from their country of origin to seek employment with political considerations.
The facts in themselves, that December 17, 2014, meant at least that there was a willingness from the U.S. side to manage its relations with Cuba in a different way, while on the Cuban side the willingness and readiness to talk and reach agreements on a variety of issues of the bilateral relationship was ratified.
In Washington, this new development had been preceded by multiple speculations and contradictory leaks. In Havana, several academics had just met at an annual meeting on the state of bilateral relations, who had concluded that no dramatic changes were to be expected in the final years of the Obama administration. In reality, very few officials on either side were aware of the nature of the process underway and its possible immediate consequences.
Those announcements opened the doors for the start of rounds of negotiations that began a few days later with the new year. Much time was saved then when, on their first trip to Havana, the U.S. negotiating team acknowledged that they understood that the exercise with Cuba could only be successful if it was carried out from positions of common respect and with total respect for reciprocity.
Those negotiations, which lasted a little over two years, were criticized from various points of view: some say that little was achieved, that time was wasted and others consider that Cuba should not have entered into such a process without ensuring the lifting of the blockade or the return of the territory occupied by the Guantanamo Naval Base.
What there is ample evidence of is that Cuba was consistent with its historical position regarding its willingness to engage in a conversation with Washington, without preconditions, whether to analyze a specific aspect of the relationship or the entire spectrum as a whole.
In fact, several secret and public contacts served as a precedent, which were convened to discuss migration and security issues, even with the broader perspective of having other channels of communication, as when the so-called interest sections were opened in 1977. What would change as of 2014 would be the diversity of topics to be addressed and the real possibility of reaching agreements, as was the case of the 22 memorandums of understanding signed. All of the above in the framework of people-to-people exchanges that were increased and of a dimension that in many cases was difficult to calculate in its fair dimension, not only because of the number of participants on each side, but also because of the impact of the contribution.
Other criticisms made more recently have to do with the alleged inability of the parties to make the changes and agreements irreversible. One response to this may be that you can’t build a residential building and occupy it at the same time.
Obama governed his last years with a minority in both houses of Congress, so it apparently did not make sense to try to ensure that the changes that occurred in policy from the executive branch had the support of the legislative branch. In fact, during that time it was evident that several of his advisors had misinterpreted the capacity of the President to decide on foreign policy issues and, in particular, on the recommendations contained in the so-called Helms Burton Act, which has in its conception several contraventions of U.S. constitutional law.
It should also be recalled on this date that the “road was made by walking”, because from the height of January 2015 it was totally impossible to foresee on how many issues would be discussed and on how many would be agreed, despite the fact that the list of issues on which the bilateral positions were very distant was very clear. In fact, in April of that year, when the Obama administration announced the so-called first package of measures that would facilitate practical progress on several of its proposals, the initial statement of the officials in charge was that it was not to be assumed that other such decisions would be repeated. In the end, there were five packages and a presidential directive on Cuba was drafted that contained several novel aspects.
Due to the often unconnected way in which certain events take place, the greatest impacts of that announcement and the subsequent processes in the bilateral relationship did not take place under the Obama administration itself, but during the term of his successor. There are several examples:
1.- The million-dollar figures of bilateral human exchange occurred in 2018 and 2019.
2.- The implementation of the immigration agreement signed in January 2017 allowed declaring that Cuban undocumented emigration to the U.S. in 2018 was technically zero.
In May 2018, the largest cultural festival ever held between Cuba and the U.S. took place: Arts of Cuba at the Kennedy Center.
4.- In 2017, the only agreement in force between two institutions in the area of biotechnology to address lung cancer was signed, and its license was subsequently ratified.
It was between 2017 and 2020 the period in which more U.S. city councils approved resolutions calling for a new type of relationship with Cuba and in particular cooperation in the area of health.
6.- The agricultural sector (eminently Republican) achieved the approval of an amendment in the federal budget that would allow the use of official funds for the promotion of exports to Cuba.
In the celebrations for the 500th anniversary of the founding of Havana in November 2019, the largest foreign delegation traveled from the United States. In that context, only one U.S. city signed a cooperation agreement with the Cuban capital.
It is true that at the same time, and especially between 2019 and 2020, the main measures were taken to strengthen the blockade against Cuba. Little has been said about the immense effort and several decisions that were implemented within the U.S. society seeking to diminish or eliminate any tendency or point of view that would support a rapprochement with Cuba.
Many experts, businessmen, musicians, civil servants, intellectuals saw their professional and labor horizons reduced after receiving a visit from a representative of a federal agency inviting them to dedicate themselves to another subject. Several NGOs perceived how the private contributions they received and therefore their budgets were reduced, unless they did not remove Cuba from their menu of interests and priorities.
Much can and should be debated about the announcements of that December 17, but it is possible to define at least two certainties:
(a) For the first time the White House was making decisions regarding Cuba that were supported by the opinion of the majority of its population.
We must admit that the nature of events changes when a country of the magnitude of the United States, with such a complex political system, decides to make its major foreign policy decisions based on personal emotions, local agendas, with the support of corrupt politicians, fear of blackmail, or without the substratum of the most consensual academic thinking, ignoring the content of archives and history books. That trend changed momentarily between 2015 and 2016, but returned to its origins in the last eight years.
Ten years have passed, which means that there is a new generation of young people who did not have those experiences, or the maturity due to their young age to understand them in their proper measure. We have the obligation to explain what happened repeatedly.
José Ramón Cabañas Rodríguez is an official with 37 years of experience in the Cuban diplomatic service. In the internal service he has been Deputy Director of the US and Canada, Director of Consular Affairs and of Cubans living abroad, Director of Documentary Management and Deputy Minister. In the foreign service he served in Canada, was ambassador to Austria, Slovenia and Croatia, permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, head of the Cuban interests section in Washington and later Ambassador. He has been a member of numerous Cuban delegations to the UNGA, bilateral and multilateral events. Doctor of Science (UH) and Full Professor (ISRI).CIPI
Source: CIPI translation Resumen Latinoamericano – English