The U.S. State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism includes four nations: Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba. Among them, two are identified as significant promoters of unrest and terror in the Middle East, impacting both their own citizens and others in the region. Notably, North Korea attracted international attention for the mysterious arrest of an American college student in 2016, followed by an 2017 incident in the Kuala Lumpur airport where state agents utilized a WMD-grade nerve agent to eliminate a political rival who happened to be the half-brother of Kim Jong Un.
But the inclusion of Cuba on this list prompts a critical inquiry into its justification and is emblematic of outdated foreign policy thinking among the D.C. establishment.
Nine days before President Trump left office, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo put Cuba back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. Despite numerous intelligence officials scoffing at the inclusion of Cuba, President Biden has kept Havana on it.
This has had disastrous results for the Cuban people. For one thing, it puts Cuba on a list alongside international pariahs, such as Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime, and grafts a stigma of the country as inherently dangerous and belligerent. Tourists typically do not flock to state sponsors of terrorism.
As a result of the state sponsor of terrorism designation, European tourists who visit Cuba now no longer qualify for a 90-day visa waiver into the United States. This negatively impacts Cuban private businesses that cater to tourists as well as reinforcing the image of the U.S as world policeman. Hotels in Havana are now more than half empty.
More importantly, the state sponsor of terrorism designation is yet another example of Washington’s longstanding economic and legal warfare against a small and impoverished Caribbean country that dared to go on a different developmental path 65 years ago. The inclusion of Cuba on this list carries a host of additional economic restrictions and sanctions. It further isolates the Cuban people and pushes the regime to more deeply engage with competitors to the U.S., chiefly China and Russia. This is in addition to the longstanding trade embargo that the U.S. has placed on Cuba since 1960.
A Different View of Cuba
The Cold War is over but the Red Scare mentality of that era is still prevalent on both sides of the aisle in Washington. I am not trying to excuse the Cuban regime’s abysmal human rights record or its grotesque curtailment of political freedoms for its 11 million citizens. Moreover, the Cuban regime’s economic policies in recent years are outdated and laughably insufficient for addressing the gaps in the public distribution system. That said, there is a conservative case for why normalizing relations with Cuba is in the interests of a populist right that is forging a different vision of U.S. foreign policy.
During a recent trip to Cuba, I witnessed pharmacies without medicines, long lines for gasoline and food shortages. Yet, I also saw a vibrant traditional culture where people still socialize and talk to each other. The Cuban regime eased limitations on Catholic churches in the 1990s, and Roman Catholicism is once again a growing part of the social fabric of Cuba. One can even see nuns walking the streets of Havana.
Unlike in America, Cubans were not glued to their smartphones; many were anxious to engage in dialogue with strangers. There is something to be said for a culture that prioritizes social interaction, family values and caring for one’s neighbor. Compared to the loneliness epidemic and opioid crisis in many U.S. cities, Cuba’s social ills mainly stem from economic difficulties.
Cuba has always had a robust and dynamic cultural life. Despite their proximity to the U.S. and a vocal Cuban-American enclave in Miami, Cubans are immensely proud of their ability to preserve their unique culture and national identity. Although the regime still puts up billboards with revolutionary slogans and the image of Che Guevara adorns many walls, the absence of rampant advertising and consumerism was a nice reprieve from the typical commercial bombardment in the U.S.
Although most Cubans are struggling economically, homelessness is relatively absent in the major cities and violent crime in Havana barely approaches the same level as most mid-sized American cities. Drug use, even marijuana, is a serious criminal offense in the Cuban justice system, and offenders face serious jail time. Cubans’ emphasis on social cohesion and a strong belief in public safety are values that most conservatives share.
Time for a Change
The belief in the triumph of state socialism and international proletarian revolution are fading, if not completely gone, among most Cubans. The Cuban people know that change is coming, but unfortunately the governments in both Havana and Washington seem reluctant to change the status quo.
Despite the collapse of the Soviet Bloc in the 1990s, anti-communist hysteria still retains a lot of rhetorical power among the D.C. establishment. Cuba, which has long been seen as a thorn in the side of Washington, is a useful rhetorical scapegoat for neo-cons who exaggerate the national security threat that a small impoverished Caribbean island poses to the world’s major superpower.
The U.S government’s trade embargo on Cuba dates back to 1960 when Fidel Castro nationalized U.S assets on the island. It was reinforced in 1962 after the Cuban missile crisis and is now used as an ineffective tool to supposedly weaken the Cuban dictatorship’s hold on power. As seen in our close relationship with Saudi Arabia and a number of other tyrannical dictatorships in the Global South, a country’s human rights record is not necessarily an impediment for U.S diplomatic normalization. Cuba’s proximity to Florida and its resistance to U.S hegemony is what has made Havana a strategic adversary of Washington. More importantly, the embargo has only strengthened the Cuban regime’s iron grip on its domestic political institutions.
This lack of imagination on Cuba policy is representative of the discord between the American public and the D.C. establishment. Most Americans realize that Cuba is not a state sponsor of terrorism or a genuine threat to U.S. national security. As polls suggest, most Americans want the U.S. government to end the Cuban embargo and establish diplomatic normalization with Havana. Nonetheless, policymakers continue this charade and pretend that Cuba is terrorist threat.
Much of the domestic reasoning for this continued hostility to Cuba comes from a very vocal Cuban-American community in south Florida. As Florida is now solidly a Republican state, the influence of this group on U.S. foreign policy should be reassessed. The continuing demonization of Cuba as a hellhole of totalitarianism does not help the Cuban people. But it does help prop up the Cuban regime, as the leadership in Havana blames most of the country’s economic problems on the U.S. blockade. Some of this is for good reason, but it gives the Cuban government a free pass for its malfeasance and ineptness. This, in turn, bolsters the legitimacy of the autocracy there.
Regarding the embargo on Cuba, the U.S. is the international pariah. Year after year, the UN General Assembly, with the exception of Washington and Israel, votes to overturn the U.S. economic blockade on Cuba. The continuing U.S. economic pressure on Cuba has resulted in mass illegal immigration from the island to the U.S., which has exacerbated the U.S. border crisis. In the last two years, 4 percent of the Cuban population has left the island and record numbers of Cubans are coming to the U.S., both legally and illegally. In other words, our economic and financial sanctions on Cuba is contributing to our massive border crisis.
Changing U.S. policy on Cuba takes political capital, and policymakers on both sides of the aisle are often too consumed with other matters to change the situation. That needs to change.
Removing of Cuba from the State Sponsor of Terrorism list would help improve the Cuban people’s economic well-being. Moreover, a re-establishment of diplomatic normalization with Havana could help tide the flow of illegal immigrants to our southern border and help ensure some sense of economic stability on the island.
Benjamin R. Young is an assistant professor of homeland security and emergency preparedness in the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University. He is the author of “Guns, Guerillas, and the Great Leader: North Korea and the Third World,” and his writing has appeared in a range of media outlets and peer-reviewed scholarly journals