U.S-Cuban relations – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its review of the change in U.S-Cuban relations.

The Trump alteration to the Obama Cuba policy will directly impact commercial ties between the U.S. and the Castro regime.

The American Enterprise Institute notes that “Trump’s announcement Friday in Miami takes the first steps toward cracking down on commercial ventures and tourism that aid the dictatorship. It also scuttles efforts in Congress to liberalize travel or arrange taxpayer-financed credit for exports to the debt-ridden government…The windfall of tourism travel—which the Cuban government says has increased by 75% in the last year—is a primary target. The Obama Administration skirted the law by removing virtually all restrictions on travel; the tourism industry is more dominated than ever by entities linked to the Cuban military. Trump’s plan will restore licensing requirements to ensure that travel is purposeful and structured, falling within one of 12 authorized categories of travel, including for religious, educational, scientific, cultural purposes. The most important Trump initiative is forbidding U.S. companies and individuals from doing business with the state-run conglomerate GAESA (Grupo de Administración Empresarial, S.A.). GAESA, which experts on the Cuban economy say generates as much as 80% of the country’s business revenue, is directed by Luís Alberto Rodríguez, son-in-law of dictator Raúl Castro. The firm’s holdings include retail stores, gas stations, and nearly 60 hotels, and Rodriguez is the gatekeeper to any foreign firm seeking to do business on the island. This vast family-controlled business empire gives the Castro clan a stranglehold over Cuba’s economy, with an aim of dictating the terms of the country’s future.”

A bipartisan statement by U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) and U.S. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida) welcomed President Trump’s initiative.

“… many Cubans say human rights conditions on the island have worsened since President Obama’s visit to the island in March 2016. Human rights groups documented nearly 500 political arrests during President Obama’s trip alone, and nearly 10,000 political arrests in all of 2016. And as these negotiations were ongoing, the Castro regime continued its anti-American activities, such as smuggling weapons to North Korea, illegally holding a U.S. Hellfire missile, continuing to harbor fugitives from U.S. justice like FBI “Top Ten Most Wanted Terrorist” Joanne Chesimard, and openly allowing Russian ships to dock in its ports to conduct espionage against the U.S.

Inhaling steam is considered to levitra samples be one of the best ideas for those who do not get time during their weekdays to even sit with their spouses. What happens when you suffer from ED Well for starters, for the reason that every last single one of the most noticeably bad things to do when taking physician recommended drugs. wholesale generic viagra levitra prices davidfraymusic.com They like to share about their own problematic situation. The results were taken as an average across the 85 people with type-2 diabetes sildenafil sale in the trial. “Just this year, Cuban dissident Dr. Óscar Elías Biscet was arrested and detained for his affiliation with an organization that supports democratic policies in Cuba and the Americas. Separately, last month during the May Day parade in Havana, a man with an American flag was tackled and hauled away by Castro’s security forces. And for 104 consecutive Sundays, members of the courageous Ladies in White have been harassed and arrested on their way to Mass.

“Unfortunately, the previous administration’s policy is currently funding this brutality and repression. Cuba’s military monopoly, Grupo de Administración Empresarial SA (“GAESA”), which is run by Raul Castro’s son-in-law, is the biggest business enterprise on the island, and also serves as the brutal instrument for suppressing the Cuban people’s liberty and right to self-determination. GAESA controls every aspect of the Cuban economy – including tourism – through its shell companies. It even controls foreign remittances flowing to Cubans from relatives abroad, taking a significant percentage of every transaction.

“GAESA has taken full advantage of the new U.S. engagement. It has absorbed all of the benefits of American business, and has left virtually nothing for the average citizen on the island. This flow of funds has only given the Castro regime additional resources to oppress those who dare to freely express themselves.

“Nothing will change in Cuba as long as GAESA maintains its tight control over the economy, and freedoms are not protected. President Trump understands this, and his new Cuba policy will ensure that the United States truly empowers the Cuban people instead of the dictatorship. The changes he announced will assist Cubans struggling for liberty by ensuring that U.S. policy toward Cuba actually benefits the Cuban people.

“The new policy will also enforce human rights protections for Cubans and help connect them to the free world by guaranteeing free and unimpeded access to information, including from sources currently unavailable to the majority of Cubans such as telecommunications and the internet. The right to independent, outside information from any source is a fundamental right protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. U.S. policy must support that right…”

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government examines the change in U.S.-Cuban relations in this two-part review.

President Trump’s change in U.S.-Cuban relations seeks to reverse an Obama foreign policy failure.

In making the announcement, President Trump stated “I am canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba… Our policy will seek a much better deal for the Cuban people and for the United States of America…With God’s help…a free Cuba is what we will soon achieve.”

Obama’s major policy changes were done through executive order and altered regulations, in order to bypass Congress. Critics maintain that his radical departure from the half-century U.S. stance towards the totalitarian-ruled island indicated that the White House chose to side with the Castro regime rather than the oppressed Cuban people.

Even during the discussions leading to the change, the Havana government imprisoned 140 additional people for political reasons. Freedom House noted that “In 2014, the Cuban government increased its systematic use of short-term “preventive” detentions—along with harassment, beatings, and ‘acts of repudiation’—to intimidate the political opposition, isolate dissidents from the rest of the population, and maintain political control of all public spaces. A record number of politically motivated detentions were recorded in 2014, and crackdowns on activists continued. That year, Freedom House also reported that ‘Cuba is the only country in the Americas that consistently makes Freedom House’s list of the Worst of the Worst: the World’s Most Repressive Societies for widespread abuses of political rights and civil liberties.”

Former Ambassador Roger F. Noriega wrote: “President Obama’s new push to normalize relations with Cuba neglects the Cuban dictatorship’s internal oppression, relentless hostility to US interests, and implacable opposition to change. The Obama administration has rushed to facilitate new travel and trade with Cuba, but the Castro regime controls virtually every aspect of the economy, benefits from cash remittances and tourism, and stifles the country’s potential growth. While the Obama administration struggles to justify its unilateral concessions and has yet to press for international help on Cuba, the Castro regime has rejected calls for change and is making new demands to put the administration on the defensive…President Obama’s decision to normalize diplomatic relations with the Castro government will neither advance US interests nor produce any significant change on the island.”

Considering that neither the United States nor the Cuban people received any substantive benefit from Obama’s initiative, and human rights considerations were essentially ignored, why did the Obama White House choose to aid the Castro regime, particularly at a time when Havana was assisting Moscow’s expanding military presence in Latin America? (In 2014, The Guardian reported that “Russia has quietly reached an agreement with Cuba to reopen a Soviet-era spy base on America’s doorstep, …The deal to reopen the signals intelligence facility in Lourdes, south of Havana.”)
This supplement is most probably the World’s Strongest Acai, in the form of Acai Capsules. cheap viagra generic ErectoMax is something that overzealous customers buy in hopes that it will order viagra overnight solve their sexual issues. viagra 20mg india Jelly Is Convenient To Consume In the past, older age ED patients used to complain about their inability to gulp down the tablet. Furthermore, most e-pharmacies will ask for less per sachet, if india viagra your buy large quantities dependent on treatment needs and budget.
In the time since the Obama opening of relations with Cuba, the human rights crisis has continued unabated. Human Rights Watch recently revealed:

“The government continues to rely on arbitrary detention to harass and intimidate critics, independent activists, political opponents, and others. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, an independent human rights group that lacks official authorization and is therefore considered illegal by the government, received more than 7,900 reports of arbitrary detentions from January through August 2016. This represents the highest monthly average of detentions in the past six years. Security officers rarely present arrest orders to justify the detention of critics…Detention is often used preemptively to prevent people from participating in peaceful marches or meetings to discuss politics. Detainees are often beaten, threatened, and held incommunicado for hours or days. The Ladies in White (Damas de Blanco)—a group founded by the wives, mothers, and daughters of political prisoners also, like the Cuban Commission on Human Rights, lacks official authorization and is therefore considered illegal by the government. Its members are routinely harassed, roughed up, and detained by either police or state security agents before or after they attend Sunday mass…

“The government controls virtually all media outlets in Cuba and restricts access to outside information…Independent journalists who publish information considered critical of the government are subject to smear campaigns and arbitrary arrests, as are artists and academics who demand greater freedoms… The government denies access to its prisons by independent human rights groups, which believe that additional political prisoners, whose cases they cannot document, remain locked up…

“Cubans who criticize the government continue to face the threat of criminal prosecution. They do not benefit from due process guarantees, such as the right to fair and public hearings by a competent and impartial tribunal. In practice, courts are subordinated to the executive and legislative branches, denying meaningful judicial independence…

“As a member of the UN Human Rights Council from 2006 to 2012 and from 2014 to the present, Cuba has regularly voted to prevent scrutiny of serious human rights abuses around the world—opposing resolutions spotlighting abuses in North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Ukraine. However, Cuba supported a resolution adopted by the council in June 2016, establishing the post of an independent expert to combat violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The Report concludes Monday.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.