Until now, the US political push toward normalization has concentrated on timid cracks in the embargo: credit extension and freedom to travel for US citizens. It’s a classic example of “thinking small,” and confining the argument to a Miami sandbox occupied for the last 58 years by a shrinking handful of normalization opponents. The Obama administration’s green light for airline service to Cuba and OFAC licenses for companies like Marriott and GE were important steps forward, but in the larger context Obama still worshipped at Miami’s altar, albeit the one run by Miami 2.0, rather than the previous generation.
Obama’s team viewed the emerging small businesses in Cuba – largely funded by Miami 2.0 – as a useful wedge. The State Department worked with a small circle of Washington travel agents to construct itineraries that focused on Miami 2.0’s favorite private Cuban entrepreneurs – over and over and over again. They also facilitated five year visas and travel expenses for these same entrepreneurs to visit the US and appear on panels about the burgeoning growth of private enterprise in Cuba. The story was misleading and incomplete, but it was enthusiastically received. The point was to use these entrepreneurs first as a sales force to convince visiting policy makers that the embargo had failed to achieve its objectives, and second as a beachhead to achieve those objectives, one Cuban B&B at a time. Progress might be glacial but at least Obama could take credit for cracking the wall.
The Trump administration’s approach was less subtle – it adopted Obama’s approach to a certain extent but froze the junkets and directly targeted anyone competing with old Miami, whether it was Miami 2.0 or important US corporations. Fear and intimidation were the preferred weapons, because the regulatory changes were insubstantial.
The fear was wielded through allegations of “sonic attacks” for which the administration has offered no proof but which served as a pretext to unilaterally destroy diplomatic relations essential to any US business activity. A new Ice Age imposed at the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sealed the deal. Cuba will remain off limits during Trump’s term(s) for anyone outside Miami.
A good demonstration of this is found in the airline sector. Until 2015, poorly managed charters in Miami that sold overpriced flights and operated essentially without regulatory oversight, held a monopoly on direct US-Cuba flights. One look at the enormous and minimally controlled sums of cash being handled at the charters’ airport counters was sufficient to raise natural questions about tax evasion and money laundering.
Obama’s opening to the major airlines destroyed this dirty monopoly overnight but now it is seeing a revival as the airlines retreat. It’s a bit counterproductive for the Cuban small business beachhead cherished by Obama, but not by much. In fact, as independent US travelers will all be funneled now through the openly subversive “Support for the Cuban People” category rather than the feel-good “People to People” category, there is an argument to be made that Trump’s policy is simply more coherent than Obama’s. The main point is to reserve most-favored-nation trading status for Miami, old or new; now the priority is simply on the former.
Most US businesses are not interested in trading with Miami however, and neither is Cuba, on the industrial scale. The embargo was always the elephant in the room, as much under Obama as Trump. Much of the interest from US executives visiting Cuba over the past three years was mainly about satisfying pent-up curiosity. These visits also revealed a deep – though understandable – ignorance of how a socialist business system functions and how little US businesses can actually do in Cuba thanks to restrictions from their own government.
Moving forward, we believe that US companies and legislators should not capitulate to defeatist attitudes. They should insist on viewing Cuba as an opportunity, not a problem, and continue their legal travel to Cuba to learn where they fit in, or don’t – even if the US Embassy is unable to meet with them due to short staffing. We’re quite sure that when push comes to shove, staff will be found, but if not, Cuban managers are not in short supply. A business visa can still be obtained from this side of the water (Havana), and foreign business visits are important to demonstrate that fear and intimidation will not force the horse back into the barn.
But in a larger context, we recommend that businesses and policy makers get out of the sandbox. Havana is the gateway to Cuba, not Miami. The sooner this fact is assimilated and efforts are directed toward dealing with the Cuban government as it is, not some fantasy version, the better the chances of leaving the impasse behind. This requires a sincere interest in seeing both sides prosper, but it must be undertaken without impositions or preconditions.
The recent setbacks in relations are real, but they are temporary. They ought not to be granted more importance than they deserve.
