Transcripts For CSPAN U.S.-Cuba Relations 20171113

Designed to partially roll back Obama Administrations strategy of engaging with the people of cuba. A few months from now, cuba will undergo a historic leadership transition while reckoning with a moribund economy and a demographic challenge in a relationship with the United States that is rapidly deteriorating as a result of President Trumps policy changes and still unresolved attacks against u. S. Diplomats. In fact the diplomatic drawdown , in havana had a direct impact on this event as the suspension of Visa Services in havana prevented us from bringing a speaker from cuba to participate in todays discussion. Nevertheless, to help us make sense of what has happened and assess what the future might bring for cuba and the United States we are privileged to , welcome to the dialogue three distinguished friends and colleagues with decades of experience working on cuba. To my immediate left, Emily Mendrala is the executive director of the center for democracy in the americas. Emily served in the Obama Administration at the National Security council and at the Cuban Affairs office in the state department. Previously a Congressional Staff member on the Senate Foreign relations committee. Michael bustamante is an assistant professor of latin American History at Florida International university specializing in modern cuba, cuba americans and the caribbean. He is coeditor of a new volume. Histories of the cuban revolution. And Jorge Dominguez is a professor for the study of mexico at Harvard University and chair of the Harvard Academy for international studies. He is the author or editor of various books. Former president of the latin american studies association, and not least, a number of the interamerican dialogue. Before diving into the conversation, i would like to acknowledge our partners at the World Press Photo exhibition. For over 60 years, more than 4 Million People in 100 cities around the globe have enjoyed the work of awardwinning photographers. Today we are fortunate today to monitas new series. It is evocative and visually stunning of everyday life in cuba. You will see the cycling through, throughout the discussion today. We also want to acknowledge the support of the ford foundation. Without him this event would not have been possible. I also want to acknowledge peter hickam our colleagues who provides invaluable support to the rule of law program. Finally, if anyone from ofac is here, rest assure the coffee and donuts were not provided by with that, we will dive into the discussion. Each of the panelists will talk for about 10 minutes. Opening remarks and then we will , open it up for discussion and we have plenty of time for your questions and comments. Emily, lets start with you. Emily thanks. If you were to put u. S. Cuba relations on a line graph, if you were to plot it with engagement on the y access, it would be a jagged line for sure. We have taken two steps forward, and one step back over several decades. But, the longterm trendline is decidedly in the upward direction. This time last year, october, 2016, the Obama Administration released the sixth of six rounds of regulatory regulations governing u. S. Cuba sanctions. Each round of regulatory changes was designed to increase the flow of people, goods, and information to and from cuba. These were couched in a larger policy of engagement. Over two years, during the final two years of the Obama Administration. The u. S. And cuban governments met regularly and engaged in dialogue and a number of issues and ultimately signed almost two dozen Bilateral Agreements. These agreements touched on issues such as Law Enforcement information sharing, cooperation on health, designating sister marine protected areas. These really wideranging discussions on a number of issues. I would say this time last year, we were on a pretty steep part of the line graph in the upward direction. More than anything, those two years of rapid progress toward normalization proved that the u. S. And cuban governments can cooperate and the cooperation can bear fruit. I think that is really important. After decades of not cooperating, it was not a sure thing that this cooperation could bear fruit. In fact, if you look at the last three years, we have seen that in fact it did. This week, everyone is aware and michael just mentioned that we have had a downward tick on the line graph with the release of new regulations governing cuban sanctions. The Treasury Department and Commerce Department govern the implementation of sanctions towards cuba. They released some new rules that will in part rollback and in part change travel to cuba and the Financial Transactions with which u. S. Entities can participate in cuba. At the state department, in concert with this, released a list of 180 prohibited entities with him u. S. Persons cannot engage in direct Financial Transactions. This announcement was the fulfillment of a june announcement that President Trump made in miami where he directed departments and agencies to begin to draft these rules. We have been expecting them for some time. In fact, i would argue that the downward tick we have seen this week is not very severe. I will get into why. But, the specific changes that were announced this week with regard to travel, individuals were previously able to travel under the people to people category and now they are no longer able to do so. However, they are allowed to travel as individuals under support for the cuban people category. There is a new definition for the support for the cuban people category which allows for people to stay at private bed and breakfasts, eat at restaurants, and there is a requirement that individuals do a Little Something else to constitute a fulltime itinerary under this category. But individuals can still travel to cuba. I think that is the big take away. There is also most notably, the state departments list of 180 prohibited entities included a number of hotels where people cannot stay, a number of stores in old havana where people cannot shop, a number of Government Entities with whom u. S. Entities cannot do business. In the coming days and weeks i know it is already happened in many respects. Lawyers will be pouring over the new rules to determine the avenues of continued engagement. It is important to note that engagement can continue. A lot of the progress from the last three years has been preserved. We still have the u. S. Embassy in cuba. Cuba still has an embassy here. U. S. Travelers can still travel to cuba and enjoy a lot of the flexibility that was implemented during the Obama Administration. General licenses, for example. Oftentimes now, travelers do not need to seek specific permission from the Treasury Department to travel. They can selfcertify that their travel needs the rules governing u. S. Sanctions. That remains in place. Dialogue will continue. The u. S. And cuban governments have made clear they will continue a dialogue on areas of mutual interest. And so, it is not by any means a full reversal of the gains towards engagement we have seen in recent years. All of this comes at a time where there is considerable momentum. U. S. Travelers continue to travel to cuba. In may of this year, we already reached the mark of the number of u. S. Travelers to cuba for the entire calendar year of 2016. This comes at a time where there is congressional momentum bipartisan congressional , momentum. Representative Rick Crawford has introduced a bill to allow for the financing for the use of financing in agricultural sales. There are 44 republicans in the house on that bill. And in the senate, a bill to lift the travel ban has a 55 senator signed under the bill, and thats a majority. I think that it is important to realize that there is a path, a steady path of momentum from travelers, congress, and the private sector. Just last week we saw john deere and caterpillar sign some pretty big deals at the trade fair in havana. It demonstrates that there is there may be some negative news and rhetoric coming out of the u. S. Government, but it cannot quite put back in the bottle what was unleashed in the last two and half years. But, there are challenges. And i think we will hear more about those in a little bit from other panelists. For example, there is a leadership transition in cuba coming up in february. We do not yet know what that will bring. Also, we are operating currently at skeleton staff. The u. S. Embassy in havana and the Cuban Embassy in washington. This comes as a result of mysterious symptoms experienced by u. S. Diplomats and canadian diplomats. An Ongoing Investigation into those symptoms. The u. S. Has drawn down our diplomats from havana and it is important to understand it issued a travel warning alongside it but, it in many respects is triggered bureaucratically by the drawing down of our diplomats. The next step though that the u. S. Took to expel cuban diplomats from washington, or to request that 60 of the cuban diplomats from washington leave, seems to be a bit of a step too far, or at least a step that begs the question why in the midst of an Ongoing Investigation did the u. S. Government ask the Cuban Embassy to draw down their diplomats and to do so in a way where they reportedly handed a list of 15 specific names to the Cuban Embassy. Names that gutted the commercial section and the consular sections of the Cuban Embassy in washington. I mention and the investigation into the arguably serious symptoms experienced by our diplomats is ongoing and we do not know what it will turn out. I say that to note that what we taken a step back or are on a downward path of the line graph right now, it is not quite as bad as it could be. There are some challenges on the horizon. Michael c. that is terrific. Thanks, emily. Mike, lets go to you. Michael b. good morning. Thanks so much to the dialogue for having me and organizing this event. I was asked to focus my opening remarks on the cubanamerican community. How they, we, i should say, fit into the present picture of u. S. Cuban relations. How we are responding to being affected by the developments just mentioned. It is no secret that there are vocal voices in the community. They are very much behind the recent changes in the u. S. Cuba policy announced yesterday. It begs the question is there a constituency there that supports these efforts, or are there other voices . Let me just start with some context. For the past 20 years, the university where i work has conducted a rigorous poll every year on cubanamerican Political Attitudes and opinions. What the poll shows is there is a steady trend line of shifting cuban deaspera opinion on matters of cubanamerican policy. There is Strong Majority support in the cubanamerican community for the right of all americans to travel to the island. There is majority support for ending the embargo. But, there is particularly strong support, almost universal i would say, for the right of cubanamericans to travel to the island to see family whenever they wish. It is not surprising that of all the changes that have been implemented in u. S. Cuban relations and policy, since june, this is one that has not been touched. And i dont think that is a mistake or a coincidence. Before the Obama Administration, one of the other restrictions in place was a severe limit on the ability of cubanamericans to visit the island and see their families. The Obama Administration got rid of that early on. I think those against engagement in miami have recognized that it is a political loser for them to start telling their constituents when they can go see mom. And so, there is a key way in which the cubanamerican community is therefore not affected by some of the recent changes. There were ability to travel to the island in theory it remains free and unfettered. I think that contributes to a dynamic sometimes in which many folks in miami who are by no means single issue voters, the broader noise in cubanamerican might not register as much in so far as their own ability to go back and forth is not impacted. But, there are other clear ways in which the community is affected by recent developments. To the extent that there are less u. S. Visitors overall, a kind of rich transnational economy, a flow of people, goods and money may also be impacted. Cubanamericans that travel to the island do not only go to hug mom, they go to bring cash. On the order of several billion dollars a year. Remittances to help support their relatives on the island. But also fuels a rich transnational economy, a supply chain by suitcase for many sectors of the cuban economy and also the black market. We have to a knowledge it. I think while cuban americans can continue to travel in theory and bring all of the things that they do on airplanes that they do, if we see u. S. Airlines cutting back on flights, fewer u. S. Visitors having an impact on the Small Business sector, that might slow some of that transnational motion insofar as it is connected to the tourist sector. The most important consequence that i would argue that the cubanamerican community is going to feel is a reflection of the reduction of staff both at the u. S. Embassy in havana and the Cuban Embassy here in washington. The end of the wet foot dry foot policy in the waning days of the Obama Administration was a tough pill to swallow for the cuban deaspera in general although everyone saw it coming. It was kind of a selffulfilling prophecy. As soon as a process of normalization began, a nonnormal immigration policy visavis cubans was destined to eventually fade away. Cubans began to leave the island can really record numbers. The highest numbers we have seen in some 30 years. The attitude was if youre going to go, you have to go now and that accelerated the speed with which the wet foot dry policy came to an end. Cubans had a hard time swallowing that pill though they understood where it was coming from. What has happened now with the reduction of the staff at the u. S. Embassy, it closes yet another avenue of out migration. And travel. The number of visitors visas cubans were getting was not unsubstantial. This has left a lot of people in limbo. I am forgetting the exact stat but i think i read that the u. S. Consulate in havana had one of the largest numbers of numbers of pending visas applications. Maybe Something Like 100,000. And now, it is unclear what will happen there. The state department has said that issuing of immigrant visas will be moved to bogota, colombia, not a very practical solution given for many reasons. For reasons of cost and for reasons that cubans need a visa to get to colombia. And to get a visa to colombia they have to prove they have a certain amount in the bank. And the fact that when you apply for a visa and go for the interview, you do not get a decision right away. You might have to wait. What is a cuban supposed to do . Go back to havana and come back with another visa . This is a real setback. This will lead to sharp declines of the amount of cubans coming to the United States. This has implications for what is still an important Bilateral Agreement between the u. S. And cuban governments dating back to the 1990s. The u. S. Is supposed to issue a minimum of 20,000 travel documents for legal travel. I have a hard time trying to figure out how they will meet that mark. They have also still not made clear whether there is going to be any process for issuing visitors visas. That also slows down the transnational flow. This does have serious impacts. This is an area of political vulnerability for representatives from from miami who are defending this policy change. In miami, it is completely possible to be a member of any political party, to have voted for the current president or not, and still believe that you want to bring your sister over to come live with you. To the extent that this drags on, this will be a real problem and i think something that constituents i hope will tell their representatives about. Let me just conclude with a question and a tentative answer or set of answers. I have argued that cubanamerican opinion on matters of u. S. Policy has shifted. And yet, we still have a scenario in which the cubanamerican communitys elected representatives cobra reflect a different point of view. Why is that . The first thing i would say is there is a difference between the cubanamerican community in general, everybody, regardless of your citizenship status and those who are u. S. Citizens and have the right to vote. I have often thought that as much effort and resourcesare put into courting support for engagement in washington, i would like the folks do a ter registration drive. I think it would help the cause. As i said already, cubans are not single issue voters. It is possible to have voted for trump and not support his policy on cuba. I would say this electoral picture may be changing. 2018 will be interesting in miami. Im sure many of you know the longtime representative, ileana roslehtinen, is retiring. That race is quickly shaping up to be a rather dynamic one. This is one the democrats think they can flip. The field is already crowded. Hard to predict where that will end up. But if that seat flips, that could have pretty significant consequences for u. S. Cuba policy. I would agree, last thought, that the rollback we have seen under the Trump Administration is significant. It will have real affects but it is also nothing close to a complete cancellation of the deal, quote unquote. I think it is for those of us that believe in the value of engagement, there is still space to work and continued to push and advocate for that agenda. Thank you. Michael c. thank you , mike. Jorge, please. Jorge i am delighted to be back at the interamerican dialogue once again. To chat about a topic that is excessively familiar in many ways. The conversations of this sort have been going on for a very long time. And i thought emilys idea of a timeline was particularly helpful in that sense. The way i would like to use my remarks not my usual mode, but i think it is helpful. How can the president s policies advance the president s goals . My own views will, i hope, be clear to you along the way that but it seems to me that is a good way to frame it. This is the president of the United States, and we are thinking about the president s goals and his policies. So, begin with the things he has said. He has said, including in the last few days, that he cares about the value, the utility and the importance and the right of the u. S. Base near the cuban city of guantanamo. Whether the role of the base as a prison will or will not expand is a little unclear to me but it will almost certainly will continue as a prison for some indefinite period of time. And for that purpose, beginning with bush 41 and continuing under clinton and bush 43 and obama and continuing now, there has been an effective collaboration between the u. S. And cuban armed forces. The reason for that is both sides have a similar interest. The u. S. Does not want the prisoners to get out. The cubans does not want the prisoners to get in. Therefore to advance the goals of the president , with regard to guantanamo, it makes sense to sustain the policies that the president inherited. Take a different topic. One of the signature questions during the trump president ial campaign on which is continued to emphasize over the last several months of the first year of his administration is migration. And, as you have heard, therefore, the agreement signed in january 2017 fits perfectly the president s migration goals and therefore the continuation of those inherited policies. Fits they fit admirably well his goals. The easiest way to put it is that cubans would be treated in the same way as everybody else under u. S. Immigration law when they seek to enter the United States. The more important point is that there are Bilateral Agreements indicating the joint interest consent of the two governments that include not only treating cubans in that way, that also for the u. S. To return cubans who have attempted to enter the United States without proper documentation. Whether they are crossing the straits of florida or the u. S. Mexican border and that cuba would agree to accept them. That is a better agreement than the United States has with any other country in the world. It is a lot more effective. It is much more professional a treatment for the u. S. Coast guard and for other u. S. Migration personal involved in these issues. So to advance the goals of the , president , the policies he inherited on this issue area work very well also. Law enforcement. With regard to a variety of topics, certainly violent crime, and drug trafficking. The president has made it clear during the campaign and at various times during this first year of his presidency that he cares about the basket of issues that one would associate with regard to Law Enforcement. Cuba and the United States began to cooperate informally but steadily on Law Enforcement issues through the 1990s and of 2016mer they formalized an agreement to make sure Security Forces in both countries could be especially effective. For anyone who reads through the u. S. Government reports with regard to whether other governments in other countries do or do not cooperate and advance the policies with regard to drug traffic interdiction and punishment of criminals associated with that line of work, cuba shows up amazingly well. It is not just the policy commitment of the cuban government but the effectiveness of the cuban government in doing exactly what President Trumps goals indicate cuban government policy and cuban government goals ought to be. In this issue area as well, affirming the inherited policies that the Trump Administration has received, serve best the the president s goals. Onto a different topic. The president has indicated at various times that he thinks with regard to international trade, the u. S. Should enjoy surpluses. And, if you apply that to cuba, beginning at the start of the 21st century, early in the bush administration, authorized by congress, the United States became an agricultural exporter to cuba. And that created by almost any calculation of percentage standards, a sensational, albeit in terms of monetary worth only a few billion dollars, but a sensational trade surplus for the United States. Those policies of agricultural exports continued under the Obama Presidency and have continued into 2017 under the Trump Administration. The amount or calendar 2016 was in the neighborhood of 245 million. The Civil Aviation agreement negotiated during the Obama Administration also fits well preferenceesidents of asymmetric agreements. That advances the economic interests of the United States. The agreement on paper looks like any normal Civil Aviation agreement where there is the rights established for both sides. In practice cuba has only one , airline and it does not fly to the United States. So, that all of the traffic between the United States and cuba necessarily adds to the onesided economic advantage of the United States. Even the regulations that went into effect yesterday, the closer you get to a u. S. Business interests, the less adversely they are affected. Marriott starr would is doing just fine marriottstarwood is doing just fine. It is important to bear in mind that even this element of asymmetric economic relations has the consent of the cuban government. Because for the cuban government, this is not an is not an optimal deal, but it is a much editor deal and not having this. It is what makes this possible to increase the number of visitors as emily indicated, it , makes it possible to develop other Economic Activity. In a country where the best functioning economic sectors happens to be tourism. The other is the love economy. What that also tells you is that on all of the issues that i am touching, the cuban government may not like some of the new regulations that have gone into affect, or the words that accompany the regulations, but it does not really have a better alternative. What is interesting about the cuban government response, beginning in early 2017 but particularly since june, is how remarkably tame it is and how remarkably moderate it is. It does not have a better response. And this is what makes the continuation of these policies possible. The president indicated in his remarks in june that he also cared about fostering market economy openings in cuba. And there are various ways in which they may or may not be a u. S. Relationship with the cuban market economy. The pillars of it include four visitors, flights, remittances, and permitting the kinds of Economic Activity like airbnb to which u. S. Visitors may go. One of the things that is noteworthy about the regulations that went into effect yesterday is that they affirm all four. You heard that from emily and michael. The sisters can visit. Flights may continue. Remittances may be sent. People are being steered into private bedandbreakfast agreements whether managed or not by airbnb, it does not matter in this case. The cuban private economy, particularly in the city of havana thrives under these , arrangements, will function better under these arrangements, and to the extent that the president truly does believe in the goal he has articulated, to support a market economy in cuba, then the policies that yesterdays regulations reaffirmed advances the president s goals as well. Bear in mind that the cuban government may be somewhat unhappy about elements of how its private sector economy has been growing. There is some public evidence of that, but the cuban government does not have a better alternative to grow its economy than to permit these activities. But once again, in this area, it consents to its evolution. Worth remembering not in yesterdays regulations that the president s Budget Proposal to congress it may be dead on , arrival because ileana has not stepped down, but they have office of management and budget opposed proposed to zero out the money from helmsburton and that is consistent with the preferences of the cuban government. Political changes. They have been alluded to already. The president , by his words and actions, and the secretary of state by being even more explicit in his words to Career Foreign Service personnel, have actions, and the secretary of indicated that a regime change is not a top priority in general for the Foreign Policy of the United States. The secretary of state, in particular, has described it quite clearly. With regard to cuba, that seems to be different. What is interesting is that if one follows the logic of the remarks of the president and the secretary of state, it is because there is not that much at stake in u. S. Cuban relations that the administration believes they can afford to pursue a policy that has the current components of regime change. But it is even in that context, not pushing it enough to undermine or even to undercut the other president ial goals and policies. But to the extent that monitoring the president ial succession scheduled to take place in cuba at the end of the month of february, it does make sense to continue diplomatic relations as the Trump Administration continues to affirm. To monitor the process of succession which may include not only president raul castro but of course many other members of the leadership. It includes affirming cubanamerican travel. It includes affirming study abroad programs and the like. All because they are among the relatively few instruments that the United States has to try to the silicate encourage, and , motivate possibilities of political change in cuba. As does that segment of the president s remarks in june, 2017 where President Trump he indicated he would like to continue to negotiate with cuba. In particular, with regard to fugitives of justice. But more generally, regarding providing a variety of motivations on topics to be confirmed. The issue them of the regulations advanced yesterday nearly all of which were anticipated by the president s remarks last june could be put in the following way. The political news from yesterday, as opposed to the Regulatory News from yesterday, the political news is how much of the inherited policies has been affirmed. Down to the credit cards that you and i know we cannot use. But, they were part of the old regulations and have remained in the new regulations. It is noteworthy that some of michaels representatives in Congress Found the decisions yesterday not to have gone as far as they would have liked. And if you follow the line of , argument i am trying to present to you, it is because this more modest version of the regulations injures less the president s stated goals. That is my take on the regulations. Regulations yesterday, for the most part, advance none of his goals. They get in the way of market opening activities. They make it more difficult to advance the kinds of practical objectives that are an element of the component of a president ial statement in june about fostering entrepreneurship in cuba in the private sector. They are, for the most part, annoying. The impact on the cuban government will require some relatively modest readjustments at the margins. More annoying they will be to u. S. Travelers and to student groups or universities and colleges that wish to establish there. What is most adverse to the president s goals what is truly , counterproductive to almost any view of the president s goals as he has articulated them, and on this point i end, is shredding the consulates in havana and in washington. People need to move to accomplish the kinds of objectives that the president has articulated. Preventing the issuance of these is a gross mistake. The sooner it is corrected, the better. But i think we are better off if we try to think through and argue the kinds of lines that i have tried to sketch to you. For those who, like me, disagree with the regulations that went into effect yesterday, formulate it in a way that tells the administration we do understand a lot of what you are doing and a lot of what youre not doing. I will stop there. Michael c. terrific. Thank you so much, jorge. We have a rich set of issues on the table. I will take the prerogative to the first question on quality. If we take emilys line graph metaphor and try to extend that out into the future, i think i heard from all of you that we are on a downward slope at the moment. That the relations at the moment are going through a rocky period. I also heard reasons for perhaps cautious optimism. Some factors that point to underlying strength or resilience in the relationship. Whether emilys references to congressional support for trade and travel. Whether mikes discussion of the attitudes of the cubanamerican community, especially as it pertains to strong operating consulates in both countries that allow the movement of people that the community has become accustomed to. Or jorges salient discussion of narrowly interpreted u. S. Interests and how those are best advanced in many cases by a policy of continuity rather than one of change from the prior administration. So, i guess being a little provocative, does that mean that you all are optimistic that in a couple of years, we will look at at this as a low point and these underlying factors will, over time, put us in a better place in the bilateral relationship . Or do you see a continuing deepening of the current freeze . If i could ask you all in answering to make reference to what is happening in cuba, especially the leadership change. Many of us saw the video of the Vice President that circulated recently pointing to no immediate change in some of the more hardline policies of the cuban government. If you could reflect on the way the events in cuba itself may shape this timeline if we extend it out say 24 months. Let us start with jorge and work backwards. Jorge let me take where your question comment just ended. So, if you dial back to president obamas visit to havana, in retrospect, it was too successful. It scared the cuban leaders. And beginning with Fidel Castros last public act of defiance, he publicly criticized his brother for how the obama invitation was handled. And it led to a period which had not ended by the time of the u. S. President ial election and that has continued since that time. That has constrained what might have been further consequences of an opening of u. S. Cuban relations in terms of domestic politics and the freedom of expression. The kinds of concerns the Vice President articulated in that set of remarks in the video. There is a cuban election coming up. Not just a president ial succession that has been scheduled. Cuban elections have not received a vast amount of attention from the international press. Because, in the National Assembly elections, it is an ideal electoral law if you are a politician, the number of seats is equal to the number of candidates and so, you will win. The interesting feature, less wellknown about cuban electoral law, is that it has nevertheless retained three rights for the voter. I am not counting abstentions. These people show up to vote. One is you can vote blank. Second, you can annul your ballot. And the third is you can vote selectively. For reasons i have never understood, the cuban government decided to cluster candidates. In any district, you are collecting between two and five people to the National Assembly. You can vote for candidate a though they even will both become members of the National Assembly. Nevertheless, it is also clear that what the Cuban Communist Party and the Mass Organizations want you, dear voter, to do is to vote for the united slate. You could sum those three votes blank, null and selective not dissident but nonconforming. In the 2013 National Assembly election, there were many nonconforming votes. Between a fifth camcorder were nonconforming votes. 1. 8 million cubans choosing to vote in ways that were at odds with the preferences of the established political organizations. That is not a small matter. It was not a tiny number. It is one of the reasons why the municipal election process that is now underway, the government is much more alarmed about who might be candidates then they were before. Suppose the cuban electoral law said something such as this in a district with 2 to 5 candidates, the candidate with the fewest votes would be defeated. Not a radical idea. Five candidates. Four get elected. One loses. If that rule had been applied in the 2013 National Assembly elections, one third of the Political Bureau would be defeated. That is part of the political issue. It is not just a change of name. If i were the Vice President trying to become president of cuba, i would do what politicians in any country do. Assume that those who would like an opening are already forming. The ones whom i need to win, because that is where the median voter in this electorate 1000 , people or so who will have an opinion so maybe in the team of the next president of cuba those are the ones who are afraid of the opening. If i were advising the Vice President , i would have advised him to do exactly what he did. Michael c. mike, estrangement or engagement . Michael b. i am not particularly optimistic at the moment about this dip being a temporary thing. I guess it depends on how we define temporary. Certainly, over the course of this administration, i do not see any real strong incentives for this administration to try to figure out the consular issue in particular. I think there is an element of the administration that would just as soon not issue as many visas to everybody, to be frank. And so, there is an element of this that kind of results whatever we think about the measures that were taken to reduce the personal and whether they were justified or not the result is sort of even more consistent with the policy on immigration than the wet foot dry foot is. So, i do not think that is particularly encouraging. I would also say that, in terms of cubas internal dynamic, i think some of what jorge has just described predates the Trump Administration coming in. There was a way in which the manner in which the obama opening was framed, at times really wrankled the other side. Politically it was an argument where if the old policy did not work, let us try something else. The problem is work to what end . The u. S. Defines it in a way that the cuban government like and they still feel that way during the notion that a nicer u. S. Policy would be a trojan horse that is something that was in the rhetoric and that cuban authorities had begun to react to. Maybe counterintuitively, the policy, even if it is mostly rhetorically aggressive and the engagement has remained or there are still a lot of avenues for that, the harsher rhetoric is something that is easier to deal with on the other side. I think there may be an element of the cuban Political Society that knows how to deal with this. I would say there is a new variable. That variable there are several new variables. Cubas economy is not doing great. They have not been able to meet their projected targets for regrowth. There was some positive news this week about foreign investment. But, the demographic problem is real. The sort of stalling of the internal economic agenda, things have not moved. August, there was a freezing of issuing of new licenses for Small Business people. Some of this was a reaction to what was happening under obama dont help the scenario Going Forward. So, i dont know what the relationship is between the internal and the extra. It is a complicated question. Ive got to be honest i am not , particularly optimistic. I think there are important avenues to keep the travel going. This will not be like falling off of a cliff. But certainly in the next year or two i think we may be in for some inertia. Michael c. emily . Emily over a 10year period, i think the trend line will be positive. Over two years, i dont know. I would like to be positive. I think, as i articulated in my remarks, there has been a lot of momentum on travel, business ties, on government dialogue. I do think that will continue. But, as we have all mentioned, cuba is getting ready to head into a leadership transition. We, right now, are acutely aware that during leadership transitions, there is a lot of rhetoric. There is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of posturing. It is unclear how that will affect the bilateral relationship. I think i will focus a second on congress. I think it is remarkable that, despite the negative rhetoric from the Trump Administration, and despite the june announcement and despite the departments and agencies spending the last several months drafting new rules to restrict trade and travel, that there has been a concerted effort in congress to gather cosponsors to bills to either lift the embargo entirely or two erode elements of the embargo. Among republicans, and i think that is worth mentioning because some of the folks it is not to senator flake is best positioned himself publicly at odds with the administration but some of the house who are among the first import is a candidate trump during the primary are the leaders on the bills to promote engagement. They are the ones who are advocating to their colleagues the need to change our policy. They have over the last six months gathered more republican cosponsors during the uncertain time. I think that bodes well for a continued positive trend line. Ok. It was a great internet three session. We are ready for your questions and comments. We will take three at a time and hopefully have time for a few rounds. Lets start with you. Erickson. I want to come back to cuba knowledge resource. Interpret thisto as possibly being good . It could be really negative. I want to know what you you have seen or heard from those on the ground. How are they interpreting this . The second question is about Human Society cuban society. Thank you. Right here . Good morning. Alex sanchez. One question for emily. The you think a worstcase scenario, they will consider shutting down the embassy in the u. S. Section, or it is just a redline . After thebig happened new president comes in the power . I think michael can talk about this. About places you cannot go to in cuba, you mentioned airbnb. There are stores they cannot go to. Question appear. Up here. Former Foreign Service for 31 years starting in the kennedy administration. I was on the cuban desk in 1968. Died, numberara two in the intersection, 19791980. You got muriel. I would like to ask a leadership question. Raul castro opened up cuba to the 20th century. In my day he was the bad guy. He did not give any our speeches, but he ran the army, the intelligence service, and the police. He protected his brother on the sanguys, probably killed fuegos, sent shea gemara on great wishes sheche gavara on missions to keep him out of the country. So he is a bad guy. To make money for the army, the police, and the intelligence service. In my book, and im oldfashioned, he is a bad guy. Question . Is he changed . Is he going to heaven . What happens to him . Of, dizzyt get a lot going to heaven questions about. Emily, lets start with you. I was in havana in june during the president s announcement. Was to my itinerary meet with many cuban entrepreneurs to get their assessment of the u. S. Policy debate in advance of the announcement. I happen to be there when the announcement was made. President trump in his remarks said his policy towards cuba was designed to support the cuban private sector and designed to divert funds away from certain government coffers and into the cuban private sector. With her i was meeting pretty clear that that was not the best they did not think the policy would have that effect. A month later we brought a number of them up to washington so they could make their voices with in the d. C. Debate the state department, with commerce, with members of congress. Presented some policy recommendations that the how u. S. Policy can best support the cuban private sector. In that month between the announcement and their efficacy tour they all experienced a number of cancellations. Their overarching sentiment was that negative rhetoric and ambiguity in our policy deters travel and deters engagement. In the short term had seen the impact of that. Day fastforward to present in the wake of the travel warning, they have seen a further reduction in cancellations. The cuban private sector is not all hospitality focused. We had a couple of folks on the efficacy delegation advocacy delegation who serve cuban clients, for the cuban clients they serve, many of them are in the hospitality sector and have an extra resource because of the increased travel, primarily of u. S. Travelers, increased resources to be a will to contract an event planner for their wedding, or two post ads or to post as a private magazine, for hire of 50 photographer to come and do some ads for their hospitality business. All the hospitality sector had experienced acutely the shortterm impact of the ambiguity of the policy in the negative rhetoric. The secondary market was starting to feel the impact. Felt more inill be the coming months. That said, ive heard from the travel industry that there is a sense of relief that the rules of finally come out. What was really hurting the travel industry from their perspective was the monthlong drafting process and the fear of what was coming in the uncertainty. And the rules that stated if you bought your ticket before the announcement or before the implementation of the rules, before President Trump was differenthat were the goalposts. From thege traveler United States would just as soon wait until the dust settles before traveling. I think from the travel industrys perspective, yesterday the dust began to settle and there will be a clearer view on the path bash on the way to travel to cuba legally. That will have an impact of supporting the cuban private sector down the road. You dont have much to add on her response to the Small Business side. One of the weird regulatory things we have to figure out is, if individual people to people travel is now not possible and you have to go in a group again, this expanded definition of support for the cuban people, which looked a lot like what people to people was, whether tore is enough momentum funnel people into that and convince people to get on board that train, i think that is seen. To the fear of leading up to the regulations, the other thing that may impact is going toward is this negative noose around this. Leading up to the regulations, the other thing that may impact things Going Forward is just this negative noose around this. I think people often are not as into the weeds reading regulations as i was, and they just here hear i cannot go anymore. And thats the end of it and they decide to go somewhere else. There may be further ends, Small Business sector certainly ive interacted with and a concerned and are concerned about increasing the overall numbers of u. S. Travelers, i think there is confusion, and it helps that sector. So to the question on enforcement, its a good question. The list of banned enterprises i think is 180ish. Most of that list is comprised of various hotels that are joint ventures between, not all but many are joint ventures between a Foreign Company and another branch of the cuban or state company that is linked or is at least accused of being linked to the cuban armed forces. But there is also some really strange things on there. You cannot engage i think with a producer of soda, but it does not list another brand of soda that is also made. So we are now in the business of telling americans which brands of soda they can drink. Rum, too. There are some brands listed and not others. So as far as getting rid of if mantra this administration is stripping away has listless regulations this seems to fly in , the face of that. But enforcement is a keeping. Cubas economy is basically a cash economy, especially from a tourist perspective or least the u. S. Tourist perspective. So how to figure out, how to audit the receipt of which brand of coke i drink, i do not know if that is i just do not know. I think the point is just to create sort of regulatory mark to this incentivize people from potentially going for a doctorate of any dramatic increase budget. I would like to think that more important things to worry about , but we will have to wait and see about really the enforcement and the followthrough greater , auditing. I do think the enforcement peace might fall disproportionately on some kinds of folks. Theres new wording im still trying to parse and forgot about educational travel, about study abroad programs. Jorge, i know as express would you do with the bureaucracy of on those matters, and i think u. S. University study abroad programs may be an easily identifiable and conspicuous target. In terms of Civil Society, and i will end with this, thats a loaded term and i know it is a complicated one. What i would say is if there is a sector of Civil Society that is on board with the Trump Administration policies, i dont think, they dont speak for the vast majority. I would include Civil Society as everyday people. This is not being seen favorably. I think theres an incredible, the normalization process had its ups and downs. I think they were overinflated expectations of what it would bring or how quickly an average cubans perspective. They were clear winners in the process and others, not so much. But the idea that we go back even if just, still get back on later, that is an incredibly disappointing thing, particularly for young people who have made a conscious decision to say stay, and when some had the decision to leave and they see where their in the have showed up upper area of miami or elsewhere. And so did not be going back to this kind of old story i think , its a tough pill to swallow. I hope it doesnt last long. Michael c. jorge, do you want to take on the question of legacy . Jorge its a very good question and youre quite right to ask this. There is, its noteworthy that there are many and have long been many biographies of fidel castro but not one good one of raul castro. But moreover, it is analytically important still today, given that he will remain in the head of the Cuban Communist Party, after the transition, it remains pertinent to think about it. So first point is the contrast. If one takes a long time span of raul castros life, he first appears in the public arena, when troops under his command, rebel troops under his command kidnap a whole bunch of your u. S. Citizens. And subsequently available archival information made it clear that at the time his brother fidel castro thought that raul was an extremist and nearly crazy. And so there was a real difference of opinion between the two brothers. And jump forward to the mid1960s, it is his ministry that is responsible for, and it is him as minister who most resists ending the program known as the [speaking spanish] military units that were in effect, forced labor camps where a variety of people were sent, most notably thousands of those accused to be homosexuals. Castro who is raul invites obama to his van a. Havana. His daughter is the advocate of affirming that being gay is not a crime under the laws of the republic of cuba and adopting another a practical a number of practical policies, including police training, to make sure this is affirmed. In 1968, cubas small version of a revolution, called the affirmse, raul publicly we did not make a revolution to protect the right to trade and leads to the expiration of x appropriation of these things like beauty shops and hot dog stand and plumbers, all of which become state enterprises. And then it is raul castro in 2010 who announces the policy to update the cuban economy. It opens up a Significant Growth for all of these small, private business activities. Two very different kinds of behavior. The first time i noticed a split between the two brothers is in the early 1990s. In the middle of a severe economic crisis, raul castro publicly gives an interview and he had his favorite journalist give him a planted question, what is the greatest threat to cuban National Security today . Rauls answer was beans. Cubans have to eat and it is only after that that you have fidel castro offering policy changes from the private sector. So there are interesting ruaulss, where today views, which he had suppressed them which other people have been known to suppress of their own views in that moment of time, i do not think so. That is fine mentioned the decision to kidnap a bunch of u. S. Citizens. I think this is a man that generally learned. Who generally learning, meaning he changed his views on important questions. He changes his views not just from deeper reading, but because the world had changed and he unlike his brother was prepared to add just to these changes adjust to these changes, and that might not get him to heaven, but at least out of purgatory. [laughter] michael c. ok. Heard so far is what the u. S. Reaction to donald trump is going to be, how the u. S. May or may not perform, what kind of relationship the cubans have a role in this, i presume. They have to make choices about policyeaction to the new agenda of the Trump Administration. Now we see some countries have gotten angry, some politicians in latin america have gotten angry at the United States and have called for resistance. And others, perhaps the wide majority are ready to accommodate the Trump Presidency and try to find ways of continuing. Is there any debate or question oughthow when government to respond to this, to the trump say . Ies but say . Lets good morning. I am from howard university, adjunct faculty on global strategy. My questions revolve around macrolevel. As a policy continues to shift, there was a conversation about eliminating the 10 tax on u. S. Dollars at the state level. How is that impacting the moving forward . Secondly, the question around the currency, and how is it going to impact things moving forward . Lastly, maybe four months ago there was a dialogue on both sides of the aisle about a serious discussion about the elimination of the blockade, has that died completely or do we see some of that continuing to happen behind the scenes and we expect something to happen in the future with that . Michael c. Mark Schneider . Mark schneider. This goes to the question, jorge, the view linking trump goals and policy decisions, and it also goes to the question of where raul is. It relates to venezuela. From the standpoint of the trip administration, it is one of the few areas where he has been outspoken and clearly opposed to the direction of events in venezuela toward a more dictatorial regime. In that context one of the few nations that seems to have influence there is cuba. The question is, does the recent policy decisions, one have any effect on cubas willingness to please full role . Ands it simply unrelated there is unlikely to be any shift in cuban policy with respect to venezuela . Michael c. thank you, mark. Lets start there. Jorge, if you want to take that question and we will move backwards. Peters question. I would say that the cuban government has by its actions and more recently by its words, signaled very clearly how it is thinking about this. It is prepared to continue to go down the list, guantanamo, migration, civil litigation and the like. The cuban government is all set with that. The response to whether it was a response of the new regulations, or to the speech in june, the selfdiscipline with which the cuban government officials have responded is noteworthy at a minimum, to put it modestly. This is a highly professional theme. Raul castroce from all the way down. This is their view. I think honestly the reason is they do not have a better alternative, it is not better for them to tear up some of these things, to retaliate against the United States. Assumption is as much as they dislike having to accommodate and adjust to the Trump Administration, that they have and it they will likely to continue to do so. Mark, to your question on of an ezeula, a on ventas will let me say, my first conversation about in just a few months we will have exchanged with the vent economy minister, who thought that this was the way to go. You know come a this is the 20th anniversary of that conversation. Uela, i haves wilez thought for some time that the would beernment willing to be part of some International Arrangement with them. I do not think this takes an enormous amount of mental effort. Cubans who come back from service in venezuela, the tens of thousands who have done so, they keep saying that this is not a government. It is also not a revolutionary government. They may not take the logical step, what the heck are we doing here but it is not. This incumbent president , unlike lacks anpredecessor, array of skills, not just confidence. It is not inconceivable for venezuela to say that our main interest is to save our partnership with bolivia, of which this incumbent is an obstacle. Administration, with a be prepared to engage with the cubans as administrations in the past were prepared to engage in colombia over negotiations and dealings, it is not unreasonable to do that. But that remains to be seen. Even in the context of, you know, what could the, are there any cuban additional signals, let me rephrase that, not specifically on venezuela but the willingness to say to the Trump Administration, if you move a little bit we are prepared to move a little bit. The Cuban Foreign minister responds to the President Trumps june speech, his response was if you want to negotiate over fugitives lets negotiate over fugitives. It did not go any further because there was no response from the u. S. , but it was not saying no. So the sonic attacks. There is more than both governments could do, but one thing the cuban government did, which it did not do for a halfcentury, was invited the fbi to come repeatedly. One could imagine undertaken additional activities from both sides, but it is not like the cuban government has simply sat on its hands and been grumpy. It is sustaining the agreements and it is showing a willingness to pick up the conversation, but it requires both sides. I want to build on jorges answer to peters question. Michael b. there are, i would agree with jorge that the response from the cuban government has been quite measured throughout the sort of lead up, particularly on the sonic attacks issue. Although i would note that i think more recently the tone has notched up a little bit. I sense a kind of degree of annoyance that some of those perhaps signals that you just offer exactly, that they has not been taken up, so to speak. We will see whether that continues or if it is a momentary thing. I think there are things the cuban government can do to respond directly to some of the inconvenience and hindrances that will be the result of whether the announcements the other day or the reduction in diplomatic personnel. I mentioned that Cubas Embassy is left with one consular officer that has to process the difficult amount of paperwork. Noting, ifis worth you want to visit and you were born there you cannot enter but the passport of another country where you have been naturalized, you have to go with a cuban passport if you left before 1970, i believe. There is a lot of paperwork, it is valid for six years, but it has to be renovated or renewed every two years and it is an expensive proposition. The government recently took a step in getting rid of something called the of the passport. The best way to translate is an activation of the passport, but if they issue you one why is it inactive . But there are other things one can do. Renewing every two years, get rid of that and reduce the workload of the consulate here and help more cubanamericans continue to go more easily and more frequently, that seems to be in their interest to do that. On the other hand, there is a way in which i hope the cuban government, whether on matters of the economy or on politics or society, will not base its decisions entirely on the dynamic bilaterally. Cubas future does not depend only on its relationship with the United States, as much as those pies are of singler there are issues at stake in terms of the function of the economy and political system, conversations that have been going on that frankly do not have much to do with the bilateral dynamic. What i worry about is a downturn in tone of the bilateral dynamic shaping the other conversation or inhibiting it. So anyway i hope the cuban tendingnt kind of keeps to its business, the business of its people. Obviously in the context of ofaterally that is full obstacles, but there are many covers asians not about that and i hope whether it is currency or others of unconvincing, i hope they keep their eyes on the prize, so to speak. Michael c. emily, final word. Emily i will adjust the question about the cover to end the conversation the embargo between republicans and democrats. What weve we seen recently is more of a constituent driven effort to advocate for the end of the embargo, and its common in the last two years when businesses have gone down to cuba to discover what opportunities they have. There has been more opportunity for travel and more opportunity for educational exchanges. The farmers can all but taste the increase in their sales if the u. S. Government were to allow for the use of financing in agricultural sales. You see these constituent groups advocating to their members to do something, to change the way that we engage with cuba and ultimately lift the embargo. Yes is the short answer to those questions, they are continuing and they will continue at a pace even despite the current chill in the bilateral relations. I neglected to answer your question about the embassy closing. I think it is important to bear in mind the process behind the ordered departure we are in right now. Orderedderstanding, no departure can last longer than 180 days. When that clock started is a bit unclear, but i think we are coming up, be it february or the month following, on an upper down decision on whether or not to reinstate artist mats. Reinstate our diplomats. I do not think the down will be the closing of the embassy. I cannot speak for certain on that, but again my understanding is that we are the department to determine that it is safe to send our diplomats back. And we would return to status quo and have diplomats and families back. To determine that there is still andsk to our diplomats, that the departure must remain in place then the post would back to unaccompanied which means no family members could move back down and that Staffing Levels could remain as is at skeletal levels or could gradually pick back up. But i think thats an important Decision Point and in conversations with the state department, i tried to tease out what the criteria are that are being used to make these determinations about whether it is safe to send our diplomats back and it is a conversation that will be had in the next several months. I do not anticipate, or if i had to make a bet, i would not anticipate they would revert back. Michael c. this is been incredibly rich and informative discussion, clearly a lot on the table and a lot of things we will be tracking during this dynamic time in u. S. And cuba relations. I want to thank everybody. [applause] michael c. thank you for sharing your thoughts and your mornings with us, thank you for being here and are excellent questions and hope to see you soon at the dialogue. This week, the house and Senate Continue more on