Carlos Alzugaray: "Obama's policy towards Cuba was smart"

Former Cuban diplomat Carlos Alzugaray poses for the camera after an interview with EL PAÍS, on October 23, at his home in Havana, Cuba.Yander Zamora

Carlos Alzugaray (Havana, 1943) was Cuba's ambassador to the EU and for more than 30 years he belonged to the diplomatic service of his country.

Dedicated today to teaching and writing, this expert on Cuba-United States relations has been visiting professor at Harvard, John Hopkins University and other prestigious North American institutions until, last year, the Trump administration withdrew his multiple entry visa granted by the Obama Administration.

He considers that these elections in the United States are very important for his country, as they come at a particularly delicate moment, when the island is going through a serious crisis due to the resurgence of the embargo and the Cuban government is preparing to implement a series of long-awaited liberalizing economic reforms .

He thinks that a victory for the Democratic Party would allow a return to the policy of rapprochement promoted by Obama, which he considers "intelligent", which would help create a climate for the reforms to prosper.

Better not even think what will happen if Trump wins.

Question.

To what extent are these elections in the US crucial for Cuba?

Answer.

These elections are crucial for the United States, for the world and, of course, for Cuba.

Given the hostile situation and the aggressiveness of the administration against Cuba, a shift towards the Democratic Party can be very important.

But the future of Cuba is at stake in Cuba, where the government has decided that it cannot wait any longer and that it has to undertake the economic reforms it approved ten years ago.

You have no choice but to carry them forward, whatever the outcome of the elections.

P.

Given the situation of extreme weakness of the Cuban economy, what is Cuba at stake in these elections?

R.

Obviously, a more normal economic relationship with the United States, in which the blockade is lifted and the North American market can be accessed, is ideal for the Cuban economy.

Cuba has suffered greatly from the economic, commercial and financial sanctions that the United States has imposed for 60 years.

With Donald Trump, those sanctions have increased to the unheard of.

It has sought to suffocate the Cuban economy and drive away other global economic players by instigating fear of reprisals.

Therefore, the mere fact that an administration comes that is more interested in the policy of compromise, that opens economic spaces, should facilitate the way to Cuba.

But, I insist, getting out of the economic crisis, as Obama himself said in Havana in 2016, depends on what the Cuban government does.

Both factors will influence the international community.

P.

There are those who think that in a second term Trump could loosen the sanctions and change his policy towards Cuba.

R.

From Trump nothing can be expected.

Probably more blocking and more penalties.

He is a person lacking any morality and will handle the policy towards Cuba with pressure.

It is your preferred modus operandi.

He surrounds himself with people who advocate the policy of "regime change" and falsely believe that they will achieve what they want through pressure and coercion.

There is another factor.

In recent months they have justified their actions with the Venezuelan "excuse", and will continue to do so.

Since his policy toward Venezuela is a resounding failure - which neither he nor those who support him want to acknowledge - the way to cover up that failure is to blame Cuba.

So it will continue to do the same.

Q.

What if Biden wins?

Answer

: Biden and his advisers on Latin America and the Caribbean have insisted that they will return to Obama's policy.

Biden has the tools to do it.

A Presidential Directive that Obama issued in October 2016 and that Trump reversed in 2017. All Biden would have to do is repeal Trump's and re-enforce Obama's.

That would allow him to reissue the licenses that Obama issued, and which, incidentally, were not so exceptional or magnanimous from an instrumental point of view.

And that without having to travel the hazardous path that Obama followed when he spent 12 or 13 months secretly negotiating with Raúl Castro.

That road has already been walked.

What Biden decides to do depends on many things, but, as I see it, in addition to returning immediately to the diplomatic moment that Obama left (embassies functioning, compliance with the 22 agreements signed between the two countries, start-up again of the working groups of cooperation, reestablish consular services) could take minimal economic measures that would have high impact, such as eliminating Trump's prohibitions on remittances and travel of Cuban-Americans, eliminating flight restrictions, reestablishing cruise ships, re-allowing travel on the 12 categories.

All these steps would give oxygen to the Cuban economy at a critical moment and facilitate the path of reforms.

It is a good moment because Cuba has relaxed and liberalized its economic policy.

Q.

Would Biden go where Obama did or would he go further?

R.

Biden was Vice President of the Obama Administration.

As far as I know, he participated in the entire decision-making process and was in favor of moving forward as much as possible.

So there is a personal commitment to that policy.

Of the accumulation of Obama's foreign policies that Trump has reversed, the one followed with Cuba is one of those with the least risks and most benefits.

The allies will welcome you.

Some US business circles, including governors of southern states who aspire to do business in Cuba, will welcome you.

There are really few groups that oppose it, outside of certain groups in the Cuban community in Florida.

And I repeat, Obama really did not do much compared to everything that needs to be done to get back to normal.

It is a policy that can give you immediate benefits without much cost.

Also, while Obama only had two years to move forward with normalization, spending 12-13 months of his second term negotiating the deal, Biden is four years old.

Q.

Many think that when Obama's approach, the most orthodox sectors in Cuba stopped for fear of the possibility of going further, and that a great opportunity was wasted, would it be different now?

R.

The sectors that opposed the reform and torpedoed it had already begun to demonstrate long before the rapprochement with Obama, which also happened at a time of generational transition in Cuba.

Raúl Castro's constant calls to overcome the “old mentality” cannot be interpreted in any other way.

In my opinion, Obama made a tactical error in his approach to Cuba that made it possible for these sectors to cling to the argument of the "imperialist danger", stopping internal reforms that were already approved and that are the same ones that are being promoted today.

Obama's mistake was his own visit to Cuba and his speech in Havana.

I have always wondered about the timing of that visit and the speech could have been more careful and respectful of Cuban sensibilities.

But the idea that opportunities were wasted in Cuba seems exaggerated to me.

There really weren't that many.

Obama faced the complexity of the blockade.

I give you an example: among the first licenses that were issued was to allow the use of North American credit cards in Cuba, but it was not calculated that banks are risk averse and the blockade is a complex framework that, if not fully lifted , there may be prohibitions that if violated open the possibility of very costly sanctions against economic actors.

So the reluctance of the banks, based on the recommendations of their lawyers, prevented this measure from materializing.

I believe that the great lesson of this stage is that action against the blockade has to be more intentional and comprehensive.

If what Biden or any future administration is after is to gain influence through openings, which seems inevitable to me, he has no alternative but to lift the blockade.

As for the Cuban part and the current moment, it would be necessary to see.

It is very difficult to scrutinize what the correlation of forces is, but I would bet because the economic situation is so difficult that the decision-makers will go forward as much as they can.

In fact, it seems that they are preparing for it.

There is no other way to explain the high rate of hotel construction when there is no tourism.

Obviously they are betting on the increase in tourism and the great source of this increase cannot be other than the United States.

P.

The ongoing reform process, which will give greater margins to private initiative, is precisely one of the things that the US was demanding.

Can this open a new scenario between the two countries?

A.

Of course it is.

But the US authorities have to adjust the target.

Washington's liberalization measures should not make exclusions.

In the renewal of Cuban economic policy, the private and the state sectors will become increasingly intertwined.

For this reason, if the possibilities of economic relations are to be liberalized, the only target cannot be the private sector that is being born and developing.

It has to be the entire fabric of the Cuban economy.

Tourism falls into this category.

Companies of all kinds operate in the Cuban tourism sector, but state-owned companies and joint ventures are essential.

If Meliá, Iberostar or Barceló, to give just three examples of Spanish companies that promote this liberalization with companies like Gaviota (owned by the GAESA military corporation), why can't Marriott, Hyatt or Radisson do it?

This is nothing exceptional.

Of course, if the Cuban reform proceeds on the path set out, North American companies will have many possibilities both in the private sector and in the state and cooperative sector.

But provided that the US regulatory framework is substantially modified.

P

.

What are the keys to Obama's Cuban policy that would be resumed with Biden?

R.

Obama's policy is the policy of "engagement", or commitment.

What the United States is looking for is to be present in Cuba as one more actor, like this, for example, Spain and the European Union.

That allows the United States two things: to establish cooperation actions with Cuba on issues that are of interest to it, especially in the area of ​​security or the fight against drug trafficking;

and on the other hand, to gain a space of influence over the Cuban government and society, which it has not been able to have over the years.

I want to underline that a very well kept secret by both governments is that when cooperation actions have been initiated on security issues, things have worked very well.

The military and other US security institutions have made it clear that they are not interested in a conflict with Cuba and that they are concerned about a conflict with Cuba or a nightmare scenario.

That is unacceptable for their interests and what they want to do is expand the security relationship with Cuba, to prevent worst-case scenarios.

The Cuban government has made it clear that it accepts such cooperation on the basis of respect for its sovereignty.

So the US is in no risk of going even further than with Obama.

Q.

But even within the Democratic Party are there different positions on what should be the objectives to be achieved with a rapprochement with Cuba?

R.

In terms of the influence of the United States in Cuba, there are two currents of opinion.

Those who are in favor of seeking influence to produce the longed-for "regime change" in another way as soon as possible.

It is argued that it would be something similar to the policy that was followed with the socialist countries of Europe.

I call it the "Roberta Flack doctrine" after that song called

.

And those who argue that it is not necessary to rush or pressure to seek concessions or immediate spectacular changes, but simply to be present and exert influence through scientific, cultural, educational exchanges and that it is the Cuban internal forces themselves (inside and outside the Government) that they will produce a change, which will be what the Cubans themselves want.

But in any case, they think, it will be better than now for the United States.

I call that policy "stimulating the gradual evolution of the regime from within."

That is the policy that Obama started, which was not a short-term policy.

It was a long light policy and I would rate it as smart.

Probably the only viable one, because even if it did not produce the desired "regime change", at least other objectives of some significance would be achieved.

I would also say that it is a policy to which different factors within the US state arrived after deeply thinking about the issue and analyzing the errors.

The tactical emphasis of this policy is to carry it out and not make it depend on Cuban responses, since that would reduce their capacity for initiative and would subordinate their advance to the actions of Havana, where there may be resistance.

As far as is known, Biden agreed with this approach and even defended it in power circles.

Subscribe here to the

about the elections in the United States