On June 20, 2015, the United States and Cuba officially established diplomatic relations, severed more than fifty years ago.  The Cuban flag hoisted at the ceremony re-opening the Cuban embassy in Washington is the same flag that flew at the Cuban embassy in Washington when it was formally closed in 1961.  The flag was guarded by Cuban patriots in Florida, and later conserved at a museum in the Cuban city of Las Tunas, in anticipation of the day when diplomatic relations would be restored.  But Cuban desires for the restoration of diplomatic relations always have been linked to an insistence that its sovereignty be respected.  And it is occurring in this form, as a result of the persistence of the Cuban Revolution and the sacrifices of the Cuban people. Diplomatic relations have been restored, and Cuba has not compromised a single one of its principles.  On June 21, the front page of the Cuban daily newspaper Granma displayed a picture of the old flag proudly flying, stained by age, but intact, like the Cuban Revolution itself. The headline proclaimed the sentiments of the nation: “Free and sovereign.”

    The re-opening ceremony was extensively covered on Cuban television.  The Cuban journalist Rosa Miriam Elizalde, present on the scene in Washington, described it as a beautiful and emotional ceremony, in which many present could be observed with tears with their eyes.  She proclaimed it a historic moment of pride for the Cuban people. 

     Cuban television journalist Renaldo Taladríz described it as an event without precedent, in which a small country with limited natural resources has resisted all strategies of attack by a global power and has persevered in its quest for self-determination.  He maintained that it would not have been possible without the leadership of Fidel Castro and his profound understanding of revolution.

     The importance of the leadership of Fidel also was expressed by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, in his speech during the ceremony at the new Cuban embassy on June 20, as well as in his joint press conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry. He proclaimed: “We have arrived here thanks to the firm and wise leadership of Fidel Castro Ruz, the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution, whose ideas we always will conserve with utmost loyalty. We now recall his presence in this city, in April of 1959, with the purpose of promoting fair bilateral relations, as well as the sincere tribute he paid to Lincoln and Washington.”  Rodríguez further observed that only the end of the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba; the return of the territory of the Guantanamo Naval Base; and full respect for the sovereignty of Cuba would give meaning to the historic day.  (See Statement by Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba, at the ceremony to re-open the Cuban Embassy in the United States, June 20, 2015).

      Both Cuban and US diplomats refer to “profound differences” between the United States and Cuba.  However, Rosa López, researcher at the Center for US and Hemispheric Studies of the University of Havana, maintains that what exists between the United States and Cuba is not difference but conflict.  Differences can be resolved by negotiation, give and take, and compromise.  But conflicts are deeper.  They can only be resolved when one of the parties changes in essence.  Thus, a resolution of the conflict would require either the fall of the Cuban revolutionary project or the coming to power in the United States of an alternative political party with an anti-imperialist foreign policy.  In the long term, the prospects for the latter are more favorable, because Cuba is emerging as a dignified example of a sovereign nation standing in opposition to the structures of the unsustainable neocolonial world system, a symbol for a more just and democratic world; and because the global powers must abandon imperialism, if humanity is to survive and a degree of global political stability is to be achieved.

      In the short term, the USA-Cuba conflict will continue.  The Cuban government insists on full respect for its sovereignty as integral to the normalization of relations.  Its strategy is to call upon the United States to renounce the imperialist intentions that have guided US policy with respect to Cuba since 1898.  The Cuban government maintains that a new US policy with respect to Cuba is consistent with the desires of the peoples of the United States, Cuba and Latin America; and that a new policy would have benefits for both the United States and Cuba in regard to commerce, migration, the environment, science, and health. The Cuban strategy is part of a larger vision and long-range goal of transforming the neocolonial world-system and constructing from the South a more just, democratic and sustainable world-system, in which the sovereignty and equality of all nations are respected.

      The United States government is divided with respect to its short-term strategy for Cuba.  The moderates, led by President Obama, want to end the embargo and to undermine the Cuban Revolution through “soft power,” by means of an ideological and cultural invasion, utilizing its control of the international media of communication and the seductive power of the consumer society and the “American way of life.”  They call for the normalization of relations with Cuba, in which interference in the internal affairs of Cuba would occur in a manner consistent with internationally accepted norms.  The Right, led by Congressional Republicans, are opposed to normalization.  They want to conserve the “embargo,” maintaining that the United States, as a dominant military power, does not have to comply with international laws and norms.  (See “Cuba is and will be sovereign” 7/3/2015).

     All the diplomats and journalists, Cuban and US, are in agreement that the process of normalization will be complex and long.  Indeed so, given that the USA-Cuba conflict continues, and the two parties have different concepts of normalization.

    If we can discern the signs of the time, we can see that the march of history in the long run is on the side of Cuba, for Cuba represents those contemporary forces in the world that can save humanity and the planet.  The emergence of an alternative vision committed to global justice is good news for the people of the United States, who have historically yearned for the fulfillment of the promise of democracy.  They have not yet heard this good news.


Key words: Cuba, diplomatic relations

     Cuba enters the stage of diplomatic relations with the United States with a commitment to its revolution and its sovereignty.  A July 1 declaration by the Cuban Revolutionary Government expresses well the attitude of the Cuban leadership and the Cuban people.  It declared:

     Since the December 17 announcement by the two governments of the intention to establish diplomatic relations, Cuba has insisted on four points.  The first is related to the US list of nations that sponsor terrorism, the validity of which was rejected in 2006 by the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement at its XIV Summit.  Since December 17, the Cuban government has stated repeatedly that it should never have been placed on such a list; inasmuch as Cuba not only has never engaged in or sponsored terrorism, but in fact has been again and again the victim of terrorism, much of it originating in the United States.  The United States conceded: Cuba was officially removed from the list of terrorist countries on May 29, although the United States made no admission of wrong-doing.

     The second point has to do with the Cuban Interests Section in Washington.  Although the United States and Cuba have not had diplomatic relations since 1961, they did agree, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, to establish interests sections.  For the past year, the Cuban Interests Section in Washington has not had banking services, as a result of the difficulties that the US sanctions against Cuba create for the providing of such services.  This has required the Cuban Interests Section to suspend many of its services to Cuban nationals living in the United States.  Since December 17, Cuba has insisted that banking services be provided to the Cuban Interests Section and to the future Cuban embassy.  This step also has been taken: the Stonegood Bank has agreed to provide banking services.

     The third point concerns the behavior of the members of the US diplomatic mission in a future US embassy in Cuba.  The US Interests Section in Havana has engaged systematically in the creation of an “opposition,” in violation of international norms with respect to diplomatic missions, according to which diplomats should not involve themselves in the internal affairs of their host nations.  Cuban journalist Cristina Escobar got to the heart of the matter when she asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest:  “Is the administration of Barack Obama committed to a change in the behavior of the functionaries of the future embassy in Havana?  Will the programs of regime change, promoted by the present Interests Section, be maintained, or will Cuban laws be respected?”  The Press Secretary responded ambiguously, although he did observe that the United States would like to see certain changes in Cuba.

     Since December 17, Cuba repeatedly has insisted that the behavior of US diplomats in Cuba should conform to the Vienna conventions of diplomatic and consular relations.  The United States negotiating team has affirmed from the outset that the Vienna conventions will serve as the basis for the establishment of diplomatic relations, but it has been ambiguous as to whether or not this implies a change in the comportment of the US diplomatic staff in Cuba.
 
      This point was reiterated by Raúl Castro in his letter to Barack Obama of July 1, 2015:

     In his letter to the Cuban president of the same date, Barack Obama affirmed these same principles, and he confirmed that the Vienna conventions ought to be applied to the diplomatic relations between the two countries.  However, he did not acknowledge that the US Interests Section in Havana has violated said norms.  Concretely, in his letter to Raúl Castro, Obama gave no indication that the behavior of the US diplomatic mission will change in the future.  

      Indeed, in his press conference of July 1, Obama implied that the US diplomatic mission in Cuba will continue to interfere in Cuban affairs.  He stated that the establishment of diplomatic relations will mean more US diplomats, enabling the US diplomatic mission to increase contact with the Cuban people and to be more extensively involved throughout the island. 

      Thus we have arrived at the point of the establishment of diplomatic relation and the formal acknowledgement that diplomatic relations should be guided by the Vienna conventions, but we do not know if it means in practice that the United States diplomatic mission will refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of Cuba.  US diplomatic missions often interfere in the affairs of nations, but they generally do so covertly.  They openly violate the Vienna conventions only with respect to those nations that defend their sovereignty in a form that challenges the fundamental structures of the neocolonial world-system and that threatens the interests of the global neocolonial powers.  Among such nations are Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.  It would not be surprising if the United States in the future were to treat Cuba as it treats these nations, where US diplomatic missions openly involve themselves in their internal affairs, in violation of the Vienna conventions.

     The fourth point on which Cuba has insisted since December 17 is that the two nations should proceed toward the normalization of relations and that normalization would require: the elimination of the economic, commercial and financial blockade, which the United States has imposed on Cuba since 1963; the return of the territory of the Guantanamo Naval Base, which the United States has occupied since a 1903 treaty with the neocolonial republic of Cuba; the ceasing of US radio and television transmissions to the island, which are in violation of Cuban and international law; an end to programs that seek regime change in Cuba through subversion and destabilization; and compensation for damage caused by the US blockade.  

      All of these Cuban requirements for normalization were reiterated in the July 1 Declaration of the Revolutionary Government of Cuba.  The declaration also noted that normal relations would have to be constructed on bonds that have not existed between the two countries since the 1898 US military intervention in the Cuban war of independence against Spanish colonialism.  The declaration further asserted that “relations ought to be based on absolute respect for our independence and sovereignty; the inalienable right of every state to choose its political, economic, social and cultural system, without interference in any form; and sovereign equality and reciprocity, which constitute principles of international law that cannot be waived.”

     Thus, in the Cuban concept of normalization, Cuban sovereignty would be fully respected.  Cuba rejects interference in any form, including financing and supporting an opposition and the use of the media to confuse and manipulate the people, with the intention of promoting destabilization.  The United States uses such strategies with respect to Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, and they have been condemned by these nations as violations of international law and their sovereignty.

     The US government defends the interests of corporations, and accordingly, it cannot accept the Cuban definition of normalization, not with respect to Cuba, Latin America, nor the nations of the Third World.  The true sovereignty of the formerly colonized nations of the world is inconsistent with the structures of the neocolonial world-system and is incompatible with the interests of transnational corporations and the neocolonial powers.  

      Moreover, the people of the United States are not prepared to understand and accept the Cuban definition of normalization.  The people have not yet attained the political maturity to understand that the neocolonial world-system is structurally undemocratic and is not economically, financially, politically or ecologically sustainable.  The political culture of the United States is not yet ready for the establishment of normal relations with Cuba in accordance with the Cuban understanding of normalization.

     The political debate in the United States with respect to Cuba is between the Right, which wants to maintain the blockade against Cuba; and moderates who want to normalize relations, but in a US sense of normalization, not in the Cuban sense.  The moderates are divided among three sectors: first, political actors who want to bring about change in the Cuban political-economic-cultural system through new strategies, many of whom would support interference in the internal affairs of Cuba in accordance with the model developed in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador; secondly, companies who want to do business in Cuba; and thirdly, citizens who want to travel to Cuba.  There is a smaller progressive sector that has been opposed to the US blockade because it violates the rights of the Cuban people and international law.  In this multifaceted debate and ideological mix, there are few voices in the United States that understand what Cuba really is and what Cuba means to the neocolonized peoples of the world and the future of humanity.

      But with the emergence of movements in opposition to the structures of the neocolonial world-system among the neocolonized peoples of the world, there exists the possibility for the rise of a popular movement in the United States that defends the sovereign rights of all nations, recognizing that a more just and democratic world-system is the path to the sustainability of the world-system and to the survival of humanity.  Such a popular movement would support normal relations between Cuba and the United States, with normalization understood in the Cuban sense, and not as a new and sophisticated form of imperialism or as an opportunity for profit or tourism.

    We the people of the United States must and can arrive at an affirmation of normalization in the Cuban sense as an indispensable guideline for relations among nations, necessary because humanity cannot survive without each nation respecting the sovereignty of all nations.  The day will come when the people of the United States recognize the contradiction between the structures of the neocolonial world-system and the principle of the sovereignty of nations, but it has not arrived yet.


Note: Quotations have been translated from Spanish by Charles McKelvey.


Key words: Cuba, US-Cuba, US-Cuba relations, diplomatic relations, normalization, Vienna conventions