Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump to Announce Changes to Cuba Policy

Today, President Donald Trump is in Miami to unveil some policy changes regarding Cuba. He is expected to roll back the changes President Barack Obama initiated when he opened up diplomatic relations with the country in 2014. That softening came after decades of ice-cold relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Trump’s new endeavors will mean a crackdown on commercial relations and tourism.

Perhaps most importantly, the changes will also affect normal people who benefit from increased tourism. Human rights groups have even called for the White House to keep the current policies because fewer travelers to the island nation will only hurt the local population. “It’s true the repressive system in Cuba has not changed, but the fact that two years of a different policy didn’t change things isn’t a reason to go back to one that was a clear failure for decades,” said Daniel Wilkinson, managing director of Human Rights Watch’s America division.

Headed to Miami to announce new U.S. policy on Cuba. We are going to empower the Cuban people and hold the regime accountable!

— President Trump (@POTUS) June 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump has clearly made it a priority to reverse as many Obama-era achievements or initiatives as possible. From pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords to immediately responding to Syria’s chemical weapons attack with force (something President Barack Obama’s critics say he wrongly failed to do), Trump’s emerging doctrine is, effectively: do what Obama did not. Could Trump’s quest to stand in stark contrast to his predecessor eventually undo Obama’s 2014 rapprochement with Cuba?

ABC News recently reported that Trump is indeed gearing up to reorient U.S. policy toward Cuba, making it harder for U.S. companies to engage with the Cuban government and restricting the growing flow of American tourists to the island.

“As the President has said, the current Cuba policy is a bad deal. It does not do enough to support human rights in Cuba,” White House spokesman Michael Short told the Associated Press, which also reported on Trump’s forthcoming policy reversal. “We anticipate an announcement in the coming weeks.”

After five decades of diplomatic inertia, Obama established formal ties with Havana in 2014. Critics say the increased investment will only prop up the Castro regime, which regularly commits human rights abuses. Since the opening of relations, American businesses and tourists have flooded the country with investment and cash. American companies–mostly in the tourism, travel, and communications industries–have struck 26 deals with the Cuban government from 2015 to 2017. And last year, 300,000 tourists flocked to the island.

Sources familiar with the Trump Administration’s thinking on the Cuba issue said the new policy will be phased in over the coming weeks. The administration has been facing intense lobbying by prominent Cuban-American lawmakers and business leaders, as many carry first-hand or second-generation memories of the Castro regime’s atrocities and were aghast at Obama’s actions in 2014.

Two of the loudest voices on Capitol Hill urging Trump to ditch America’s engagement with Cuba are Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), both Cuban-Americans. Rubio recently emailed a number of news outlets the following statement: “I am confident the president will keep his commitment on Cuba policy by making changes that are targeted and strategic and which advance the Cuban people’s aspirations for economic and political liberty.”

Meanwhile, on Cuban Independence Day last month, Trump issued a statement that “cruel despotism cannot extinguish the flame of freedom in the hearts of Cubans, and that unjust persecution cannot tamper Cubans’ dreams for their children to live free from oppression.” Trump added: “The Cuban people deserve a government that peacefully upholds democratic values, economic liberties, religious freedoms, and human rights, and my Administration is committed to achieving that vision.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Trump Reverse Obama’s Diplomatic Opening with Cuba? appeared first on Law Street.

Cuban migrants landing on American soil without visas will no longer be afforded special treatment over migrants from other countries, President Barack Obama announced on Thursday. In eliminating the 22-year-old “wet foot, dry foot” policy, Obama made what will likely be his final move in his quest to normalize relations with the Cuban government, which has wanted the U.S. to do away with the policy for years.

The “wet foot, dry foot” policy, a 1995 revision to the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, essentially allowed Cuban migrants who reached U.S. soil to stay, with or without a visa; the migrants could also apply for permanent residency. The policy favored Cuban migrants over those who fled other countries. Throughout the past few decades, tens of thousands of Cubans have taken advantage of the favorable treatment.

“By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries,” Obama said in a statement. “With this change we will continue to welcome Cubans as we welcome immigrants from other nations, consistent with our laws.” Obama said the change is effective immediately, and that the Cuban government has agreed “to accept the return of Cuban nationals who have been ordered removed, just as it has been accepting the return of migrants interdicted at sea.”

At the moment, the Cuban government does not permit migrants who have been away from the country for four years or more to return. Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said Cuban officials have already agreed to repeal that law, and will allow nearly 3,000 Cubans who fled to the U.S. as part of the Mariel boat-lift of 1980 to re-enter Cuba.

Not everybody was thrilled with Obama’s decision. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) said dropping the “wet foot, dry foot” policy will “tighten the noose the Castro regime continues to have around the neck of its own people.” Menendez, who is a also a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added: “The fact is the recent ill-conceived changes in American policy towards Cuba have rewarded the regime with an economic lifeline while leaving every day Cubans less hopeful about their futures under a brutal totalitarian dictatorship.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Ends Special Asylum Rule for Cuban Migrants appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday everyone! Last night, Trevor Noah came up with a pretty good summary of the year, saying: “2016 started with Zika and then turned bad.” But satire is the best medicine, so watching Noah’s clip could help. Hope you have a great weekend and see you on Monday! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Is This America? NC Republicans Attempt a Legislative Coup

You might have thought that American politics couldn’t get any messier right now. But in North Carolina, the GOP has basically staged a coup. When it became clear on November 9 that Pat McCrory was losing the governor’s seat, he claimed the results were too close to call, with Democrat Roy Cooper only 4,300 votes ahead. He then demanded a statewide recount and claimed that there was voter fraud, before admitting defeat on December 5. But now the GOP is trying to undermine the results by introducing two bills, HB 17 and SB 4, which would essentially strip Cooper of a lot of power.

North Carolina Republicans Make Brazen Bid for Permanent Power After Losing Governor’s Race https://t.co/VFFwNLaSpx pic.twitter.com/iNXPiSmRVQ

— Patrick (@cahulaan) December 15, 2016

The bills would prevent the new governor from making some cabinet appointments, restrict how many Democratic lawmakers could be hired, and basically ensure Republican rule continued. And last night, the NC House passed HB 17, so it’s now up to the NC Senate to decide what to do.

Denying the results of a democratic election is alarming. As Slate writes, “What’s happening in North Carolina is not politics as usual. It is an extraordinarily disturbing legislative coup, a flagrant effort to maintain one-party rule by rejecting democratic norms and revoking the will of the voters.”

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A Mexico City teen died after receiving a hickey from his 24-year-old girlfriend. Reports say that the kid was eating dinner with his family when he started having convulsions. The killer hickey had formed a blood clot and caused the young man to have a stroke.

Teen reportedly dies from his girlfriend’s hickey https://t.co/xoAa05GDH0 pic.twitter.com/xNelTbWtHc

— Huffington Post (@HuffingtonPost) August 31, 2016

There’s a reason those things hurt. Stay safe, kids.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 31, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The top stories on Law Street last week included coverage of our law school specialty rankings for real estate law and immigration law, as well as news on the U.S. approving direct flights from 10 cities to Havana. ICYMI–Check out the top stories from Law Street below.

1. Top Schools for Real Estate Law 2016

Law Street released its second set of law school specialty rankings last week. This time we ranked 44 law schools’ real estate law programs based on six categories–classes, jobs, networking, extracurriculars, location, and other ranking–and Columbia Law School came out on top. Read the full article here.

2. Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #4 Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School ranked fourth in Law Street’s top 10 schools for immigration law, with a score of 75 points out of a possible 100. Read the full article here.

3. U.S. Approves Direct Flights From 10 Cities to Havana

About a year after resuming the diplomatic relationship with Cuba, the U.S. government has just approved direct commercial flights from 10 American cities to Havana. This is yet another step toward thawing a relationship that has been icy since 1961. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

About a year after resuming the diplomatic relationship with Cuba, the U.S. government has just approved direct commercial flights from 10 American cities to Havana. This is yet another step toward thawing a relationship that has been icy since 1961.

A statement by the U.S. Department of Transportation reads:

Today we take another important step toward delivering on President Obama’s promise to reengage Cuba […] Restoring regular air service holds tremendous potential to reunite Cuban American families and foster education and opportunities for American businesses of all sizes.

Officials first signed an agreement to open up American flights to Cuba in February—for the first time in more than half a century. Last month, the Transportation Department approved flights to other cities in Cuba, but now the time has come to allow air travel to the the capital city, Havana. American Airlines will receive the biggest share of flights, at 35 per week, closely followed by JetBlue with 27.

Thinking about traveling to #Cuba? Watch this video from @USEmbCuba on 5 things to know before you go! https://t.co/mHQ429chlC

— Travel – State Dept (@TravelGov) July 7, 2016

The American cities that the flights will depart from are: Atlanta, Charlotte, North Carolina, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New Jersey, New York, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale.

Florida has the highest Cuban-American population in the U.S., and so four cities will launch the most flights, at 85 per week. Demand will be high from Cuban-Americans, according to the Miami Herald.

Since Fidel Castro seized power and started collaborating with the Soviet Union in the early 1960’s, there has been mutual mistrust and economic sanctions on Cuba. The trade embargo also meant a travel ban, so that Americans could not visit the island legally.

When Obama came into office, he started working towards easing the bans and sanctions, in an effort to normalize the relationship. In 2009 he lifted the travel ban for Cuban-Americans, making it easier for people to visit relatives and travel freely.

La Habana, Cuba – Raw & Beauty, Old Glory | GLOB▲L – M▲G▲ZINE https://t.co/rW8jNvTa6z pic.twitter.com/8ABATUhrIa

— Be ▲rtist Be ▲rt (@BeArtist_BeArt) July 7, 2016

However, the ban on American tourism in Cuba is still in place, so airlines will be required to record the reason why passengers are traveling there. But if you don’t have relatives on the island and want to visit, don’t fret. There are 12 scenarios where you could still be allowed to visit. For example, you’re ok to go if it’s for religious activities, to make a public performance, or compete in an athletic competition.

The decision about the flights won’t be final until after a 30-day trial period during which potential complaints or objections will be handled. The first U.S. to Cuba flight is scheduled to fly from Fort Lauderdale to Santa Clara in September.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Approves Direct Flights From 10 Cities to Havana appeared first on Law Street.

In the same city where 20,000 tons of explosives rained down from American planes during Christmas 1972–killing more than 1,000 civilians–President Barack Obama stood in front of giant American and Vietnamese flags on Monday to announce the severing of a Cold War-era arms embargo between the U.S. and Vietnam. This is Obama’s first visit to the country, and the first leg of a trip in the Pacific.

At a news conference in Hanoi–the communist country’s northern capital on the banks of the Red River–Obama continued his pattern of deepening ties with longstanding U.S. adversaries, and of thawing relations with largely isolated communist regimes such as Cuba and Myanmar.

“The United States is fully lifting the ban on the sale of military equipment to Vietnam that has been in place for some 50 years,” Obama said to a gaggle of Vietnamese and foreign press as he insisted the ban had nothing to do with China. “It was based on our desire to complete what has been a lengthy process of moving toward normalization with Vietnam.”

Critics of the announcement however, namely human rights organizations that view Vietnam as a brutal regime with a horrendous human rights record, contend the move will cede leverage in negotiating with the Vietnamese to reel back their abuses: including jailing journalists, beating dissidents, and maintaining over 100 known political prisoners (Human Rights Watch counts 104, though it acknowledges there are most likely many more).

“The only people who would be happy [with the lifting of the ban] is the Vietnamese government, because [Obama] didn’t address human rights except in a boiler plate paragraph with no names, places or dates, no people, no sense of urgency,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) in an interview with Law Street.

According to Adams, the speech occurred on a day that served as a microcosm of Vietnam’s concerning behavior: parliamentary elections (“a rubber stamp affair,” Adams called them) were held as dissidents were rounded up. Obama did not address either in his announcement.

The full lifting of the embargo–which was partially lifted in 2014–is the final step in normalizing relations with the Southeast Asian nation, and in removing a “lingering vestige of the Cold War,” said Obama. Earlier in the trip, Obama made other moves to strengthen ties between his government and that of Tran Dai Quang, Vietnam’s president. Visa restrictions for travelers to either country will be eased, the Peace Corps will station volunteers in the country to teach English, and both Obama and Quang reiterated their commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, which is currently stalled in Congress and has failed to obtain the concrete support of any of the three remaining presidential nominees.

Obama’s stated goal in easing arms sales to Vietnam is to allow the country to defend itself amid increasingly volatile times in the region. Its powerful neighbor to the north–China–has shown signs of aggression in a territorial dispute in the South China Sea, where Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines jostle over who has the right to the Spratly Islands. In recent months, China has intensified its naval force in the region and has been hard at work in building an island in the hopes of legitimizing its claim.

Disputes over territory in the South China Sea has led to increased tension between China and much of Southeast Asia. Image courtesy of [deedavee easyflow via Flickr]

Though China is publicly supportive of the dissolution of the half century old embargo (officials reportedly hope it will lead to “normal and friendly” relations), a commentary published in the state-run Xinhua News Agency on Sunday hinted at what is perhaps its unofficial, internal view of U.S.-Vietnam relations.

“As a habitual wave-maker in the Asia-Pacific, the United States has shown no restraint in meddling in regional situation, which is evidenced by its relentless moves to disturb peace in the South China Sea,” wrote Xinhua contributor Sun Ding. On the potential embargo lift, which at the time of publishing had not been announced: “The calculating move will serve only Washington’s own strategic purposes as the United States seeks a rebalance in the Asia-Pacific.”

The White House and Vietnam’s government released a joint statement Monday afternoon in regards to the partnership between the two countries, with a section highlighting “promoting human rights and legal reform”:

The United States welcomed Vietnam’s ongoing efforts in improving its legal system and undertaking legal reform in order to better guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone in accordance with the 2013 Constitution.

But Adams isn’t convinced that Vietnam is doing anything concrete in regards to safeguarding human rights. Even if the Vietnamese government enacts law changes, it does so to benefit those in power, he said, not for the good of the people. He’s seen mixed reactions from the blogosphere in Vietnam–human rights organizations’ window into the country because they are not allowed on the ground–in regards to Obama’s speech.

Nationalist fervor is gripping Vietnam at the moment, Adams said, and so the people who are focused on the alleged threat from China are happy the embargo was lifted, and progressive liberals in the country are happy with the move as well. Others, he said, think it should have been lifted but with concessions. And while he noted this episode as being entirely about the perceived threat from China, Adams was disappointed in what he saw as a blown opportunity.

“When you have leverage, to just throw it away is unacceptable,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Despite Human Rights Disagreements, Obama Lifts Arms Embargo with Vietnam appeared first on Law Street.

The last time a cruise ship set sail from the United States to Cuba, there were nearly fifty percent less people in the world–4.4 billion–than today. The Bee Gees dominated the Billboard charts. A dozen eggs cost 48 cents.

That all changed at 10:24 AM Monday morning, when the first U.S. to Cuba cruise ship since 1978 docked in Havana, the island’s capital city. The 600 passengers of the Fathom Adonia–which left Miami Sunday afternoon–were welcomed by whistling and waving Cubans ashore and a Cuban band onboard.

“It’s exciting to be part of this historic voyage,” Shirley Thurman, a retiree from St. Augustine and Adonia passenger told the Miami Herald. “I am so glad we are normalizing relations with Cuba. I think the common people in Cuba have been the ones who have suffered over the years.”

Thurman was joined by hundreds of fellow Americans, as well as 10-25 native-born Cubans, according to cruise officials. As President Barack Obama prepared to make history of his own in March by being the first U.S. president in 88 years to set foot on Cuban soil, his administration made a move to ease travel restrictions, allowing travel to Cuba under “people to people” terms. Museum visits, musical performances, craft workshops, and other cultural activities would all be allowed as long as each individual kept a journal detailing their “educational visit.”

And that’s exactly what the Adonia passengers will be required to do over the next week, as they sail from Havana to Cienfuegos to Santiago de Cuba, visiting historical monuments and museums; talking to artists and engaging in community projects, all in an effort to meet the “people to people” requirements.

But the historical sea voyage wasn’t all smooth sailing. A lawsuit was filed when tickets for the trip went on sale by Francisco Marty and Amparo Sanchez, both Cuban born and so denied purchase from Carnival Corp., the ship’s operating company. At the time of the lawsuit, Raul Castro’s Communist Party restricted Cuban-born individuals seeking to re-enter their homeland via boat. Carnival was abiding by the decades old Cuban ordinance in refusing to sell Marty and Sanchez tickets, but the two pursued a lawsuit against the company anyway. According to a post on its state-run newspaper Granma on April 22, days after the lawsuit, the Castro government dropped the restrictions.

“They knew in order to accommodate normalization of relations and accommodate our bringing guests to Cuba, it would be necessary to change,” Arnold Donald, CEO of Carnival Corp. told the Miami Herald. Marty and Sanchez responded by dropping the suit, but still refusing to support what they see as Cuba’s discrimination against Cuban-born Americans.

Yet Cuba has been swamped with American tourists since the Cold War-era freeze was abated by the Obama administration in late 2014. Tourism is Cuba’s largest industry, accounting for 10 percent of its total GDP, as 3.52 million people visited the island last year. Now that a new cruise precedent has been set, that number is sure to increase in the coming years.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First U.S.-Launched Cruise Ship in Almost 40 Years Docks in Cuba appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama touched down in Cuba last week, making him the first sitting president to visit the nation in eighty-eight years. As the President and the First Family toured the historic center of Havana, they likely witnessed the stunning old city filled with the vintage cars and delicious cuisine that make Cuba unique. As a result of the embargo, Cuba sometimes seems like a land forgotten by time. However, the Cuba that the Obamas are witnessing this week  is very different than the Cuba the average tourist may experience in the next ten years.  As more opportunities for investment and travel open up in Cuba, foreign investors are making moves–especially within the hospitality sector. Consider that Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson is accompanying President Obama on his visit to Cuba–Marriott may be interested in investing on the island. Read on to see which companies are investing in Cuba and why.

Hotels and Hospitality

Starwood Hotels, the company which owns Westin, Sheraton, and W Hotels (just to name a few), made headlines by announcing that it will open three hotels in Cuba.  At the moment, all Cuban hotels are state-owned but Starwood has the financial and organizational power to build hotels that meet the state’s standards. The location of the third hotel has not been made public but the company has stated that the Hotel Inglaterra, which is owned by a Cuban state tourism company, will become one of Starwood’s Luxury Collection hotels and the Quinta Avenida, which is run by a Cuban military-run tourism group, will become a Four Points by Sheraton hotel.

The potential Starwood-Marriott merger that is currently on the table could have a major impact on how these new hotels will be built and run.  On the heels of the Starwood commitment, AirBnB has announced it will open listings on the island by April 2. AirBnB has in fact been planning for the opening of the country for some time now–last year, the company claimed the right to represent all private residences in Cuba. AirBnB’s chief executive Brian Chesky referred to Cuba as the fastest-growing country that AirBnB has ever launched in. Physical accommodation is not the only segment of the tourism sector that is expanding into Cuba: online booking website Priceline, Western Union, and Carnival cruises have all thrown their hats into the ring (Carnival will begin sailing cruises to the island in May). Multiple U.S. airlines have filed for permission to fly commercial flights into Cuba. At the moment, American citizens cannot travel to Cuba on a tourist visa but visas falling under the following twelve categories have been opened:

Family visits, official business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations, journalism, professional research, educational activities, religious activities, public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibition, support for the Cuban people, humanitarian project, activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes, exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials and certain export transactions that may be considered for authorization under existing regulations and guidelines.

Travelers must provide itineraries that justify their visa, but they no longer have to apply for a formal travel license from the government. Ease of travel is drawing a steadily increasing number of Americans to the island. According to  Jose Luis Perello Cabrera, an economist at the University of Havana, there was a 36 percent increase in the number of Americans visiting Cuba between January and May of 2015 alone.

American investors for the most part are flocking to the hospitality industry but there are a handful of cases of more specific investments. Consider Alabama-based Cleber LLC, a tractor company which was the first company to receive joint approval from the Cuban government and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Cleber LLC is looking to produce tractors in the newly built port of Mariel just outside of Havana, claiming that these tractors will deliver both a financial profit and an ethical good–improving the quality of life of Cuban farmers. Tractors are just one element of machinery that Cuban farms and factories are clamoring for and as the market continues to open, an increasing number of small businesses like Cleber LLC will be given the opportunity to sell their specialized products on the island.

Chinese Investment in Cuba

American companies are not the only investors chomping at the bit to launch projects in Cuba. Venezuela has historically been Cuba’s largest trade partner but in recent years, China has been vying for that position. Cuba has long been reliant on Venezuela for oil but the regime has now turned to China for its technology and infrastructure needs.

American companies such as AT&T have projects in Cuba waiting in their pipelines but Cuban authorities have resisted American telecommunications investment. Instead, they have turned to Chinese operators such as Huawei Technology Co. Ltd., which was tasked with installing fiber-optic connections in Old Havana. Professor William M. LeoGrande of American University has said that “partly that’s a result of the fact that historically we’ve tried to use telecommunications as an avenue to undermine their government, and so consequently they really don’t trust our hardware.”  Silicon Valley tech companies are getting left behind as Huawei installs dozens of Wi-Fi hot spots around the island. Huawei has also partnered with the Cuban telecom company Etecsa to distribute smartphones, further anchoring its brand with the Cuban public.

The economic exchange between the countries has also led to Cuban efforts to break into Asian trade: Cuba’s Havana Club rum has launched major marketing campaigns targeting the Chinese market, hoping that it will be a gateway to Asia as a whole. In 2015, airlines began operating direct flights between Beijing and Havana as both Chinese investment and tourism in Cuba soared. Although Chinese investors have not paid as much attention to the hospitality sector as American companies, China’s Suntine International-Economic Trading Company has partnered with Cuba’s Cubanacan hotel group to launch a new “Hemingway Hotel”–a luxury hotel with a price tag of at least $150 million. If the Hemingway Hotel project succeeds, then Chinese corporations may commit to more hospitality projects–putting them in direct competition with companies like Starwood and AirBnB.

Conclusion

Although foreign investment appears to open up new opportunities for the Cuban people, it has been argued that foreign companies will only further entrench the power of Raul Castro rather than aiding the general Cuban populace. American (and other foreign) companies hiring Cuban workers will not necessarily be allowed to hire employees directly. Instead, they may only be permitted to hire people through state agencies, effectively blacklisting anybody the regime has deemed unacceptable. Foreign investors will pour their money into the regime itself rather than into the individual bank accounts of Cubans who they hire at their enterprises. Cuba is a nation with a rich cultural heritage that travelers have been drawn to for centuries but many Americans are unfamiliar with the island’s government and its approach towards controlling the population. As diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba expand, American investors are trickling into the country, hoping to prepare it for a potential flood of tourists in the coming years.

While Americans seem to have gained the upper hand regarding early investment in hospitality services, Chinese and Venezuelan companies have been positioning themselves to win the contracts on Cuba’s largest infrastructure projects. Tech investment could be a battleground, as Cisco has already committed to a training institute and Google is interested in working on Cuban connectivity but Chinese investment in Cuba’s internet has already put them at a significant advantage. The swell of foreign investment in Cuba may not provide the stability and equality that optimists hope for, but it should not be dismissed outright. Allowing open commerce and investment in Cuba will allow the nation to engage in the global economy in a way that it has never before–but it is, at least at the moment, unclear who will truly benefit from this expansion.

Resources

VOX: Airbnb and American Hotels Aren’t Wasting Any Time Ppening up in Cuba

USA Today: Starwood: 1st U.S. Company to Run Cuba Hotels in Decades

New York Times: American Firm, Starwood, Signs Deal to Manage Hotels in Cuba

CNBC: Marriott, Starwood Team up to Take on Airbnb in New Merger

New York Magazine: Discovering Cuba, One Airbnb at a Time

Financial Times: No Flood of Investment Despite US-Cuba Thaw

ATTN: 12 Ways You Can Legally Visit Cuba

NPR: U.S.-Cuba Ties Are Restored, But Most American Tourists Will Have To Wait

AP News: Stunning 36 Percent Rise in US Visits to Cuba since January

Worker’s World: U.S. Investment in Cuba: How a Little Red Tractor Jumped to Front of the Line

American Enterprise Institute: Why US Investment Won’t Bring Change to Cuba

Wall Street Journal: U.S. Competes With China for Influence in Cuba

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The New Cuba: Who is Investing in the Island? appeared first on Law Street.

One effect of increasingly normalized relations between the United States and Cuba will be an ability to travel between the two nations. But not everyone is okay with this move. In fact, New Jersey Governor and Republican primary candidate Chris Christie is fighting back–he has urged the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to reject proposed United flights between Newark Liberty International Airport and Havana.

Surprisingly, Christie’s argument for why we shouldn’t allow flights between Newark and Havana has relatively little to do with Cuba itself. Instead, he’s demanding that Cuba return fugitive Joanne Chesimard, a.k.a. Assata Shakur to U.S. custody. Shakur was a member of the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army. In 1973 she and two others were involved in a shootout with the police on the New Jersey Turnpike that left Trooper Werner Foerster dead and another officer wounded. While she was subsequently sentenced to life in prison, she escaped prison and ended up in Cuba. She has taken state-sanctioned political refuge there since 1984, and is still wanted in the United States.

But, in Cuba, she has taken on a strange almost-folk hero status. Now 67, she’s viewed as a victim of American oppression and many believe she was wrongly prosecuted.

In his letter to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Chairman John Degnan, Christie urged him to reject the proposed flights unless Shakur is extradited to the United States. In the letter, he stated:

I understand that the Port Authority is considering a request to open regular flights between Cuba and Newark Liberty International Airport. It is unacceptable to me as governor to have any flights between New Jersey and Cuba until, and unless, convicted cop-killer and escaped fugitive Joanne Chesimard [Assata Shakur] is returned to New Jersey to face justice.

This isn’t the first time that Christie has brought up Shakur when disagreeing with a move toward more open relations with Cuba. Last December, Christie wrote a letter to President Obama that also echoed this sentiment. He wrote:

Cuba’s provision of safe harbor to Chesimard by providing political asylum to a convicted cop killer . . . is an affront to every resident of our state, our country, and in particular, the men and women of the New Jersey State Police.

RT If you agree that President Obama should demand the return of Chesimard from Cuba to the US to finish her sentence pic.twitter.com/tztku57vf1

— Governor Christie (@GovChristie) December 21, 2014

On the other hand, the Obama administration has been very clear that while the U.S. will continue to push for the return of American fugitives, it won’t hamper the broadening of relations between the U.S. and Cuba.

Whether or not Degnan will heed Christie’s advice remains to be seen. But, based on Christie’s urging, Degan has said that the Port Authority board is going to dig into the request from United and conduct an immediate review. So, don’t hop on United and book your flight to Havana yet–a decades-old fugitive hunt may hamper the introduction of these new flights.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chris Christie Urges Port Authority Not to Approve Havana-Newark Flights appeared first on Law Street.

The relationship between the United States and Cuba has been slowly warming since December, when it was announced that leaders from the two formerly acrimonious nations were moving toward normalizing relations. One of the biggest steps toward that goal reached fruition on Friday, as the U.S. flag was just raised above the American embassy in Havana.

The scene at the American embassy Friday was a heavy one, rife in symbolism, as the same marines who took down the flag over 50 years ago were the ones who put it up.

Secretary of State John Kerry watched as Marines raised the flag at the US embassy in Havana http://t.co/KJrLRFOLuMpic.twitter.com/VkEZN6KbbD

— NYT Photo (@nytimesphoto) August 14, 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been an instrumental player in this new era of relations with Cuba, presided over the ceremony, calling it a “historic moment.” Kerry is the highest ranking U.S. official to visit Cuba since relations turned sour after former President Fidel Castro took power.

While the ceremonial re-opening of the embassy is certainly a big step, the fact that is just one step is important to recognize. Cuban-American relations been improving steadily, but slowly, since that fateful December announcement. For example, in April, the Obama administration removed Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The two governments conducted a series of talks that wrapped up in May. Most recently, on July 20, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. The Cuban embassy in Washington D.C. opened on July 20 as did the U.S. embassy in Havana, but the flag ceremony was only hosted at the Cuban Embassy on that day.

Cuban Flag Raised Outside Embassy in Washington #Cubahttp://t.co/YpcGMGNVolpic.twitter.com/MSRTpwdSaD — Cuba Pan Am 2015 (@CubaPanAm2015) July 21, 2015

The fact that the American-Cuban relationship has progressed in such steps really is representative of the fact that there is still a lot of work to do. One of the most contentious sticking points is the continued American trade embargo. Despite no longer serving as President, Fidel Castro has particularly criticized the United States over the continued embargo. Yesterday, he stated that the United States owes Cuba “many million of dollars” because of the loss in trade that resulted from the embargo. However, lifting it requires Congressional action, not executive, and the Republican Congress hasn’t particularly warmed to the idea.  There were also concerns over the fact that Cuban dissidents weren’t invited to the flag-raising ceremony; Kerry instead met with them separately. 

While there’s a lot to be done to reach fully normalized relations between the United States and Cuba, these steps in the right direction do bode well. It’s certainly a marked difference from even just a year ago–the coming years are almost guaranteed to bring more changes. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cuban-American Relations Continue to Crawl Forward appeared first on Law Street.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently announced that Cuba is the first county in the world to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis.

“Eliminating transmission of a virus is one of the greatest public health achievements possible,” Dr. Margaret Chan, the WHO director-general, said in a Tuesday press release. “This is a major victory in our long fight against HIV and sexually transmitted infections, and an important step towards having an AIDS-free generation.”

Preventive treatment for mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis is not 100 percent effective, so the WHO defines elimination as a reduction of transmission to a level that it no longer constitutes a public health problem. So the country must demonstrate that it has seen less than 50 infections from this particular route of transmission per 100,000 live births for at least one year. Cuba has surpassed those requirements. In 2013, only two babies were born with HIV and five with syphilis. Officials claim that this recent milestone shows that an end to the AIDS epidemic is possible, and that they expect more countries to seek validation from the WHO.

There are 16 million women worldwide who are living with HIV, and each year, about 1.4 million of them will get pregnant. The risk of passing the virus to the child is only around 1 percent if anti-HIV drugs are provided during phases of potential infection, which span through the pregnancy until breastfeeding. However if completely untreated, the risks are much greater, with a 45 percent chance of the child being infected during one of the pregnancy stages. Even though syphilis does not receive as much attention, infection during pregnancy and the absence of antibiotics can lead to stillbirth or neonatal death.

In order to reduce the mother-to-child transmission rate, the WHO and Pan American Health Organization began to work with Cuba and other countries back in 2010. The initiative worked to improve testing and treatment for these infections, caesarian deliveries, prenatal care, and breastfeeding substitutes. Some of their services also include prenatal care. Maternal and child health programs are integrated with HIV and STD programs. Similar services, which are a part of Cuba’s universal health system, are being implemented in a number of other countries to help work toward the global target of less than 40,000 new infections annually.

Worldwide, the number of children born with HIV dropped to 240,000 in 2013 from 400,000 in 2009, the WHO reported. In order to reach the target of no more than 40,000 new child infections in 2015, officials say more efforts will be needed around the world. But while Cuba may have been the first country to receive the WHO validation, that does not mean other countries have not reach elimination status. According to the Pan American Health Organization’s Director Carissa Etienne, it’s likely that the U.S. and Canada have already eliminated mother-to-child transmission of both of these infections, but haven’t sought validation.

So what do Cuba’s recent medical advances mean for the United States now that a relationship has been formed?

Cuba has one of the most advanced medical biotechnology industries in the world and invests heavily in the production of new treatments and medications. The Cuban biotech industry is said to hold around 1,200 international patients, and markets pharmaceutical products and vaccines in more than 50 countries–but not in the United States. For the 26 million people in the United States who have diabetes and the 80,000 Americans who suffer from diabetics amputations a year, this has significance. Because of the government’s continuous funding, Cuba has developed a safe and effective medication that reduces the risk of amputation by 78 percent.

This is just one example of how Americans can benefit from all of Cuba’s medical advances. Cuba’s medical prowess is impressive–eliminating HIV and syphilis transmissions are just one example of its potential. Even with the new relationship recently announced, Cuba and the United States have a lot of work to do to improve their relationship. But hopefully this new relationship will encourage Cuba to share its medical advances, and improve health worldwide.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cuba Becomes First Country to Eliminate Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV and Syphilis appeared first on Law Street.

In Colombia a violent conflict has been raging for more than 50 years. This conflict has pitted the nation’s government against a rebel–possibly terrorist–group known as FARC. With the struggle surpassing the half-century mark, both sides have been willing to return to the negotiating table to give peace yet another chance. However, the process is once again under the threat of unraveling due to a familiar cycle of FARC ambushes and government reprisals. Read on to learn about the conflict’s history, previous efforts at peace, other groups and issues in play, and whether this round of negotiations is likely to actually result in peace for the embattled nation.

History of the Conflict

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia’s (FARC) earliest origins can be traced all the way back to the late 1940s and 50s. During this time, the two major political parties in Colombia–the Liberals and the Conservatives–were locked in a brutal civil war for control of the country. The conflict left more than 300,000 people dead. Following the end of the war, the Conservatives took control of the government and barred many of their Liberal opponents from participating, in effect marginalizing them. Several groups emerged as a reaction. One of these groups was led by Manuel Marulanda, who founded the FARC’s precursor, the Marquetalia Republic, and was the first leader of FARC as well. This group began arming and organizing in the mountains.

In 1964, the government launched an attack on this organization, quickly routing them. However, Marulanda escaped along with several followers. Before fleeing he and other group leaders agreed to the Agrarian Program of the Guerillas, basically FARC’s constitution, which created roles within the group and a common strategy. This was followed up every two or four years by congresses where the group’s members would meet to discuss new policies.

A seminal moment was reached at one such conference in 1982, when members became determined to solidify their control in the mountainous regions and also begin to expand their influence into cities with the ultimate goal of taking the capital. In the ensuing years, particularly from the 1990s to the early 2000s, the group engaged in several high profile and ostentatious attacks on police, soldiers, villagers, rival groups, and even a presidential inauguration.

Ideology and Perception

FARC was founded on a Marxist-Leninist ideology. The group claims to represent the lower class of the country, namely the poor and farmers, who it feels are being oppressed by the government. It also opposes the opening up of the country to foreign interests, particularly American corporations, which it views as imperialistic.

However, while FARC espouses a high-minded ideology, its actions are less than noble. In fact the group has been designated a terrorist organization by a number of countries including the U.S. This is due in part to the group’s tactics, ranging the whole violent gambit from murder to bombings. With its base in Colombia, as well as its presence in Ecuador, Panama, Brazil, Venezuela, and Peru, the group launches attacks usually within its own territory as well as outside raids to obtain supplies. These attacks generally target military personnel and foreigners, however a large number of civilians have been caught in the cross fire.

FARC’s Power Base

While its commitment to Marxist-Leninism is dubious, so too are the ways the group generates its funding. Much of the wealth created by FARC has been through practices such as kidnapping, extortion, and cocaine trafficking. In fact, estimates for the amount of money FARC earned from the cocaine trade range from $220 million to $3.5 billion. FARC has also, recently, added the ignominious task of illegal gold mining to this grim list.

Additionally, the group has allegedly received support from like minded and sympathetic governments in Venezuela and Ecuador. According to documents the Colombian military claims it seized in a raid against FARC in Ecuador in 2008, then-Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez had given the group $300 million. While Chavez denied the allegations, these countries have been open to FARC in response to U.S. support of the Colombian government.

So Close Yet So Far Away

The current peace negotiations between FARC and the Colombian government are not the first attempts at a détente. In fact they are far from it–attempts to broker peace between the two sides have gone on almost as long as the fighting. The first efforts came in 1984 when, as part of Uribe Accords, FARC agreed to stop the kidnappings and the government pushed the group to channel its energy into legitimate political movements. Although the ceasefire ultimately did not hold and the group continued fighting, it did lead to the Patriotic Union and the Colombian Communist Party. These were the legitimate government parties associated with the FARC, similar to Hamas in Palestine or Sinn Fein in Ireland.

These talks failed however, because FARC’s political candidates, though successful, were repeatedly murdered by right-wing paramilitary groups. Additionally no demands of a ceasefire were ever made on behalf of the government.

The next major effort came in 1998, when then-President Andres Pastrana once again agreed to provide FARC with a demilitarized zone from which to operate. However, this move backfired as FARC capitalized on the temporary weakness of the government to recollect itself militarily, launch attacks, grow coca, and kidnap officials. Nevertheless, this lack of commitment on behalf of FARC may have ushered in its own decline, as it led to a backlash in which the citizenry called for a tougher stand against the rebels. This was carried out by then-incoming President Álvaro Uribe.

The latest round of peace negotiations began secretly in Cuba. When preliminary agreements were reached, another round was proposed to be conducted in Norway, with final negotiations returning to Cuba. As part of this agreement, several reforms passed aimed at compensating victims and pardoning FARC members. The discussions themselves centered on six points. These points included rural development and land policy; the political participation of FARC; ending the conflict and reinserting FARC members back into civilian life; the end to cultivation of illicit crops and drug trafficking; reparations for victims; and lastly the implementation of these agreed-upon measures once the negotiations had concluded.

So far tentative agreements have been reached on three of the issues, although nothing is finalized until the whole process has been implemented. These three points were land redistribution, the role in civil society for demobilized FARC members, and putting an end to the illicit growing of crops used for the drug trade. However, the negotiations were temporarily put on hold when FARC kidnapped three high-ranking military officers. They were eventually released and talks resumed.

The discussions have once more been put under pressure, with the attacks on soldiers as well as a raid that killed one of the FARC negotiators. The ceasefire has also been lifted by the government and airstrikes against rebel positions have begun once more. Despite this pressure though, talks have continued in Cuba.

Other Players in Colombia

Along with FARC there are several other groups at work. These groups can be divided into left wing, of which FARC is one, and right wing, which generally oppose FARC at all levels.

Leftists

While FARC may be the largest and most infamous group in Colombia, it is far from the only one. Another Leftist group in the country is the ELN or National Liberation Army. The ELN formed at the same time as FARC, however its membership was comprised chiefly of students, Catholics, and intellectuals who were more focused on replicating a Castro-style revolution. While the groups have similar beginnings and ideologies, ELN is focused more in urban areas as opposed to the rural locations FARC dominates. Despite these similarities however, the groups have clashed directly. ELN, like FARC, is also listed as a terrorist organization, according to the U.S. State Department.

Both of these groups have operated under the larger Simon Bolivar Guerilla Coordinating Group, an umbrella organization for left-wing organizations. Along with FARC and ELN, M-19 and EPL also worked under this designation. M-19, or the April 19^th movement, was FARC’s attempt at an urban organization. However, this group ultimately broke away and became independent. EPL was another aggressive communist group that was eventually weakened by FARC attacks.

Leftist groups such as these both help and hurt FARC’s position. By existing and making similar demands they reveal to the government the reality of problems such as poverty, which can be more easily dismissed if they are only discussed by one group with a controversial past. On the other side, they can be harmful by splintering the potential support base for FARC and directly undermining the group when they engage in internal conflicts that can create more violence.

Right-Wing Paramilitaries

While leftist groups formed in reaction to the conservative government,right-wing groups formed in response to organizations such as FARC. These started out small in the 1960s as local self-defense groups authorized by Colombia’s Congress.

Eventually they consolidated into the AUC or United Self Defense Forces of Colombia. This was essentially a holding company paramilitary group, created and funded by rich farmers and narcotics traffickers to protect these people and their interests from FARC and like-minded organizations. This group was very strong and its membership ranged from 8,000 to 20,000 members. Additionally, while there was never any admitted connections between these groups and the government, it has been widely speculated that the administration often looked the other way or even funded the operations. Although the group was disbanded in 2006 and its leaders pardoned, many of its former members are suspected of continuing to operate in the drug trade and other criminal operations. This group was also considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government until 2014.

These right-wing para-military groups have a dual effect on FARC. On one side they show the violence perpetrated against the group, often at the behest of the government or powerful individuals, which can further justify FARC’s cause. Conversely they are actively trying to destroy FARC and have seen a certain degree of success. In either case, they have ratcheted up the violence and created a culture of fear and mistrust. They also make FARC less likely to come to the peace table because they are seen as the secret hand of the government.

Economics and Legacy

Decline of FARC

While securing peace with FARC is still an important goal, its importance has diminished over time. This is partly due to economics, as in 2012 a free trade agreement between Colombia and the U.S. went into effect, making the allies that much closer. Additionally, the economy of Colombia has continued to grow despite the fighting, averaging nearly 6 percent growth a year. In individual terms this has meant the average income per person has gone from $5800 dollars in 2000 to $10,000 in 2011.

The effect of this is two fold. For a government weary of fighting and eager to shine on the global stage, defeating or at least containing FARC would allow it to focus more on improving its economy and the well being of its citizens. Additionally, an improved standard of living would also seem to undermine the very existence of FARC as the group was originally supposedly founded on the idea of protecting and standing up for underrepresented groups, namely the peasants.

FARC also appears to be declining. In 2001, the group was believed to have as many as 16,000 members; that number has recently dwindled to as few as 6,000 to 8,000. This has been the result of an intensified campaign by former President Uribe, whose father was murdered by FARC in a kidnapping attempt. Aside from decreased membership, the leadership of FARC has also been hit hard. After its founder died of a heart attack in 2008, his second in command was subsequently killed in the raid in Ecuador. Other leaders have also been killed. Desertion has become a problem as well as some fighters, who were attracted by noble ideas, have become jaded by the drug trafficking and perpetual violence.

Legacy

So what legacy does FARC leave behind? In terms of numbers, over 220,000 people have been killed as a result of fighting between the group and the government since its inception. Additionally, much of the popular support once enjoyed by FARC has eroded, as people have become exhausted with the conflict and simply want a better life. Most of the territory once held by FARC has also been lost as a result of the increased military efforts on behalf of the government. Thus, FARC’s strength and importance has been greatly reduced. Still, an agreement between the group and the government would be a major step in rebuilding the war-torn nation.

Conclusion

The most recent round of talks between Colombia and FARC offer a glimmer of hope. But this hope can only be achieved if both sides stop committing the same perpetual violent acts that have spawned this conflict in the first place. Nevertheless, if the last few month’s actions are any indication, this is not going to happen.

This presents a challenge to both sides. On one side, FARC is a diminished organization that faces enemies on all sides and has few friends. The government, meanwhile, clearly wants to capitalize on economic growth and turn the page on the history of drug violence and terrorist insurgencies. Both of these goals can be accomplished, but the two sides have to come to terms and end a destructive conflict that has lasted for more than 50 years.

Resources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: Peace Talks in Colombia

Additional

Stanford University: Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army

Council on Foreign Relations: FARC, ELN: Colombia’s Left Wing Guerillas

BBC News: Colombian FARC Negotiator Killed in Bombing Raid

Institute of the Americas: Colombia Pushes Back Cartels, Terrorists to Become Economic Powerhouse

Al Jazeera: Profile: The FARC

Ploughshares: Colombia

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FARC: Preventing Peace in Colombia? appeared first on Law Street.

On December 17, 2014 following a prisoner exchange, President Obama outlined efforts being made to normalize relations with Cuba. The announcement was monumental as it signaled a major change in a policy dating back to the Cold War. It was also vague. What exactly did this mean and how will the Cuban American community take this? To answer these questions it is necessary to go back in time and look at the relationship between the United States and Cuba from the beginning, from before the embargo to present day.

History

It’s easy to imagine that the relationship between Cuba and the United States only began when Fidel Castro became the ruling dictator; however, the two nations shared a bond that is much older than that era. It can be argued that it goes all the way back to the 1860s when, after seceding from the Union, the Confederacy believed it would eventually conquer the small island of Cuba and incorporate it as one of its states. A more concrete beginning to the relationship, however, lies in the events following the American victory in the Spanish-American War.

After the end of that war, Spain ended its claim to Cuba. The United States granted Cuba its independence, but this came with two conditions: first, that the United States had the right to intervene in Cuban affairs; and second, that the U.S. would be granted a continuous lease for a naval base, which would become the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

While the United States has clearly exercised the second right, it also made use of the first. The U.S. intervened in Cuban affairs by frequently helping to crush rebellions in the first half of the twentieth century, despite brutal crackdowns on dissent, which was one of the reasons it allegedly wanted to fight Spain for Cuba’s independence in the first place. Aside from American government overtures, American businesses also invested heavily in Havana, turning it into a popular vacation getaway. Even the Mafia became involved in Cuba, using it as a conference center and investing there heavily themselves.

The Cuban revolution occurred in 1959, and Fidel Castro overthrew the U.S.-supported Batista regime. The immediate aftermath did not foreshadow what was to come. In fact, in one of history’s odd turns of events, the United States quickly recognized Castro’s regime, and Castro himself came to visit Washington, D.C. just weeks after the successful coup.

The honeymoon phase, of course, did not last long. Along with Castro’s increasingly clear Communist leaning, he made efforts to nationalize private companies, including American ones, and impose heavy taxes on American goods, which served to sour the relationship. In response to heavy taxes on American goods, President Eisenhower in turn enacted trade restrictions allowing for only food and medical supplies to be shipped to the island. Outraged at what they deemed to be American imperialism, Cuban officials then increased trade with the Soviet Union. This proved to be the nail in the coffin; the United States severed all diplomatic ties and the permanent and infamous embargo was put into place in early 1962.

Sanctions & Embargo

The embargo itself both leveled economic sanctions on Cuba and restricted travel and commerce with the country for all people and companies under United States authority. The embargo was strengthened in 1963 with the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, which prohibited financial transactions with Cuba and outlawed the importation of Cuban-made goods. The embargo was further strengthened by two additional acts passed in the 1990s.  According to these acts, the embargo could only be lifted if Cuba would:

Legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions.

Since Cuba has not met these conditions yet the embargo has endured.

Diplomacy Under the Embargo

Since the enactment of the embargo, the two countries have been at strife, communicating only through Switzerland when necessary. Nevertheless, while the two nations were not talking they were still crossing each other’s paths. The action was greatest immediately following the embargo with the Bay of Pigs disaster and the Cuban Missile crisis, which nearly led to nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.  

In the Bay of Pigs operation, 1,400 Cuban exiles who had been trained in Guatemala were to land at night and begin guerilla operations against the Castro regime with the additional aid of U.S. airstrikes. The invasion faltered immediately when the airstrikes missed their target and the invading force met much stiffer resistance than expected. In the end, downed U.S. pilots were taken hostage and nearly the entire invading group was  forced to either fall back, surrender, or was killed.

That operation led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that situation, Cuba asked for and was to receive Soviet nuclear weapons as a deterrent against future American attacks. The United States learned of the planned installation of nuclear weapons and a standoff briefly ensued when Cuba was quarantined by American naval ships. Eventually the Soviets agreed publicly to remove the weapons if the United States promised not to invade Cuba; privately the U.S. also removed nuclear weapons it had in Turkey.

Since the 1960s, the relationship can best be characterized as a standoff with each side occasionally making an effort to proverbially poke its rival. On Cuba’s part this includes releasing thousands of criminals and mentally ill and sending them to the beaches of Florida as exiles. For the United States, this has meant continuing to turn the screws and ratcheting up the intensity of sanctions, even while Cuba suffers from hunger and a grossly underdeveloped infrastructure.

The video below outlines Cuba and U.S. relations since Castro’s takeover.

The Winds of Change

Despite nearly 60 years of animosity, the relationship between the two nations began to change again following the election of President Barack Obama in 2008. As part of his original campaign platform, Obama had vowed to reduce restrictions on Cuban-Americans who want to visit relatives. Obama’s actions were two-fold: first, they allowed Cuban-Americans with family in Cuba to travel there freely, and they eliminated the cap on the amount of remittances people could send back. Secondly, people without family members in Cuba were also allowed to send capped remittances to the island, and could travel there with a license for educational or religious reasons. This also opened Cuba to companies that wished to provide cellular, television, and telephone services to the island.

Recent Developments

The last domino fell the day before the president made his speech on the path to normalization between Cuba and the United States when Alan Gross, an imprisoned USAID worker, was finally released and brought home to America in a prisoner exchange. The exchange was in part made possible through a dialogue brokered by Pope Francis who had invited the two sides to resolve their differences. Also, part of the agreement were pledges by both countries to open embassies in each other’s capitals. Additionally, the United States promised to further relax business and commercial travel restrictions with the island nation. Lastly, the U.S. has guaranteed to go even further by unfreezing bank accounts and agreeing to review Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terror.

The video below explains what exactly the president plans to do.

Obstacles

There are still several potential obstacles to the establishment of full relations. First is the large Cuban-American voting bloc in Florida, a traditionally pivotal swing state. Many Cuban-Americans want to see the entire Castro family regime removed before relations are normalized; however, that may be changing–while a 1991 FIU poll reported that 87 percent of Cuban-Americans supported the embargo, by the time Obama was elected in 2008 the majority had moved the other way. Although this reversed course yet again, by 2014 the majority of Cuban-Americans polled were once more in favor of lifting the embargo. Support was especially strong among young people, with 90 percent in favor of reestablishing diplomatic ties with Cuba. So, it’s difficult to tell conclusively what percentage of the Cuban-American population will be in favor of these more normalized relations.

Another obstacle is Cuba’s extremely poor human rights record. As mentioned earlier, one of the conditions for removing the embargo by the United States was that Cuba respect internationally recognized human rights. Cuba’s human rights record has remained dismal. In 2014, Human Rights Watch listed Cuba as “not free.” More specifically, in three indicators–freedom rating, civil liberties, and political rights–Cuba received scores of six and a half, six, and seven, respectively.  The scale goes from one to seven, with seven being the worst. Clearly, if Cuba wants to lift the embargo and normalize relations with the U.S., improving its regard for human rights is something that needs a lot of work.

Most challenging for President Obama, however, is Congress. While the president can make some tweaks to the relationship himself, he needs Congress in order to abolish the embargo as it is codified into law. This will most likely prove especially difficult for a president who was not having much success dealing with Congress before Republicans won a majority in both the House and Senate in 2014; however, the political loyalties of Cuban-Americans themselves may alter the status quo.

Traditionally, Cuban-Americans have favored the Republican party; in 2002 according to a Pew poll, 64 percent favored Republicans. However, by 2014 only 47 percent favored Republicans and 44 percent now favored Democrats. This is partly a result of this demographic skewing younger, and the younger generation being overall more open to reconciliation. Whatever the reason may be, both parties now will likely work to secure this group’s loyalty. Thus, while the Republican Congress may be recalcitrant on many issues supported by the president, if it believes Cuban-Americans desire an end to the embargo and normalized Cuban relations with the United States, the prospect of that happening is much more likely. Congress may be especially eager to act if it means maintaining historical support from a key swing state supporter. 

Potential Outcomes

While the Cato Institute estimates that the U.S. could gain as much as $1.2 billion annually from lifting the embargo on Cuba, the economic worth pales in comparison to other considerations. By finally lifting the embargo the United States could signal a major policy change from the Cold War tactics of years past and even the “democracy by force” doctrine that many people associate with the war in Iraq.

Furthermore, it could also signal to some of the United States’ other antagonists, namely Iran and North Korea, that there is another way dialogue can be established. It may even serve as a way to save face as the sanctions on both of those countries are also seemingly ineffective. Additionally, it may further add some lost luster to the United States’ image of being an international good guy and not a traditional Western imperialist. Specifically, for other developed critics of the United States such as Russia and China, this might remove some of their argument that the United States is hypocritical and has different policies for different countries based on its interests.

On a more personal level for President Obama, this could signal a foreign policy coup that seems needed after the debacle with the Syrian Red Line and ISIS. If the president is successful in this endeavor it might also secure an important voting bloc in a swing state for Democrats down the road. Of course it may also come back to bite the United States if Cuba doesn’t make any changes. It might make people worry yet again that the United States is weak and has no stomach for drawn out conflicts anymore, which could actually further embolden adversaries such as Iran and North Korea even more. Still, the potential to garner goodwill, end fruitless policies, and reassert the image of the United States as a haven for freedom seem to outweigh the bad and are also the most likely outcomes.

Conclusion

While many critics of normalizing relations with Cuba say that the president is essentially rewarding the country and prolonging the regime, their facts do not add up. Although Cuba certainly should be required to improve its human rights laws as part of any normalization, sanctions seemed to be ineffective. In today’s globalized world, countries cannot be shunned simply because their policies are not what we want them to be. This is especially relevant for nations such as Iran and North Korea that also draw Washington’s ire and are sanctioned accordingly for it. Rapprochement with Cuba therefore appears to have raised more questions than answers, but perhaps these questions are the key to an overall more successful foreign policy.

Resources

Primary

Council on Foreign Relations: US-Cuba Relations

Additional 

Time: US Cuba Relations

ProCon: Cuba Embargo

NPR: Polls Show Cuban American Views

Cato Institute: Time to End Cuban Embargo

History Net: Confederacy

History: Spanish American War

JFK Library and Museum: Bay of Pigs

Freedom House: Cuba

Harvard Political Review: Reexamining the Cuban Embargo

Washington Post: US-Cuba Relations

NPR: Obama Eases Limits on Cuba Travel, Remittances

US Department of State: Cuban Missile Crisis

Pew Research Center: After Decades of GOP Support

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. and Cuba: The Path to Normalized Relations appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been almost 25 years since the end of the Cold War, but still some vestiges remain. One of the most apparent is the relationship between the United States and Cuba. We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Cuba, located not even 100 miles off the coast of Florida, since 1961. That’s a long time–in the name of interesting context, for the entire duration of President Barack Obama’s life, we have not had normalized relations with Cuba. But that began to change yesterday. Those frozen relations are beginning to thaw. Diplomatic relations are being opened back up, prisoners are being released, and both travel and trade will be expanded, among other steps.

The conversation between Washington and Havana took 18 months, and eventually included both President Barack Obama, and President Raul Castro. Castro has officially been President of Cuba since 2008, although his brother, former President Fidel Castro basically handed over power in 2006. There was also a third major player–Pope Francis.

The Pope’s role does make sense. After all, he’s the first pope to hail from Latin America, and Cuba is heavily Catholic. Although exact statistics are difficult to obtain, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops estimates that a little over 50 percent of Cubans are Catholic. Since President Raul Castro took power, he’s been more flexible about allowing the Catholic Church to operate in Cuba than his brother. Pope Francis’s motives seem clear–he believed that improving relations between the United States and Cuba would help both Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the two nations.

There’s a fourth player to consider though, although maybe calling him a non-player would be more accurate. This whole conversation sends an interesting message to Russian President Vladmir Putin, who most definitely wasn’t invited to the party. During the Cold War, Cuba was one of Russia’s bargaining chips. That’s pretty much what the entire Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Since the Cold War ended, Russia and Cuba have remained pretty close.

However, Russia isn’t nearly as good of a benefactor or friend as they used to be. They’ve had a rough time of it lately. Russia received quite a bit of international ire for its meddling in Ukraine; the U.S. Congress just passed new sanctions against Russia in response to the Ukraine situation. In addition, the Russian economy is very much struggling. The Russian unit of currency–the ruble–has fallen to a historic low. Putin has attempted to comfort his people, basically claiming that the Russian economy will bounce back within two years, which seems more like a bandaid than a promise. Putin also partly blamed the rough economic conditions in Russia on Western interference. Put simply, Putin is both in trouble, and pretty annoyed with the U.S. right now.

So, it becomes clear that the move to improve relations with Cuba can be seen as a diplomatic victory for the U.S.. Our relationship with Cuba will probably undermine Russia’s, and will be a symbol of Russia’s seemingly wavering international influence. Given that Russia and the U.S. haven’t been particularly friendly lately–the whole Ukraine debacle is a major reason why–it makes sense why the U.S. might want to take away some of Russia’s friends. It’s not going to majorly affect the Russian economy, or anything of the sort, but it looks really bad. It may take a lot of straws to break a camel’s back, but there’s no reason not to add straws when you can.

There were many reasons that the U.S. and Cuba took such a historic step this week–moral, diplomatic, and economic, just to name a few. Whatever reasons ended up being the most convincing, one thing is certain. It’s definitely a new era in American and Cuban relations.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Left Out: United States and Cuba Thaw Relations appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like the US just can’t catch a break on the international relations front these days. Just in case you aren’t aware, America is very publicly getting her ass handed to her on the global stage. I’m not even going to talk about the Russia and Crimea disaster. I’ll roll right over Venezuela forcing American Embassy officials to leave, and bashing Panama for being the United States’ “lackey.” What I really want to talk about is the latest incident between the US and Cuba, which is quite interesting, and more importantly, involves our favorite topic — technology.

To set this up, Cuba is open about its vigilant monitoring and prevention of access to communication and the internet. Ramiro Valdes, former Cuban telecommunications minister, referred to the internet as a “wild colt,” believing it “should be tamed.”  With that pointed out, is it wrong to let a country decide their own internet restrictions and communication freedoms?

It’s reported that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) spent an estimated $1.6 million to develop and implement Zunzuneo, a Cuban social network similar to Twitter. The Associated Press claimed that USAID conspired to influence political thought and incite support of the Cuban people to challenge their government. In addition, there were suggestions that USAID wanted to gather important information of Cuban cellphone users.

Zunzuneo’s implementation was somewhat elaborate. The use of offshore bank accounts and operating companies, marketing campaigns to encourage new users, and mock ads to give the appearance of a legitimate company, were all enlisted to hide the social media platform’s origin. Zunzuneo gained a following of nearly 40,000 over its two-year existence, but the program abruptly ended after losing its funding in 2012. Yesterday Congress requested a hearing with USAID’s  Administrator, Rajiv Shah, to question him on the program’s purpose and if it sought to gather information about Cuban cellphone users. In response Shah said, “The purpose of the program was to support access to information and to allow people to communicate with each other.”  USAID has also released their eight facts about ZunZuneo.

That’s USAID’s story, and they’re sticking to it. However, let’s critically think this through. The US has never gotten over its inability to make Cuba revolt against Castro, nor can they accept the loss of influence the US had over the Cuban government.  Also, in 2010 we witnessed several countries rising up against their governments and succeeding in overthrowing them. Much of the ability of protesters and revolutionaries was due to technology, specifically social media outlets like YouTube and Twitter to communicate to the masses both inside and outside of their countries.

The influence of social media is quite evident, which is why people and organizations are always asking us to check out their Facebook page and tweet them. USAID is known for providing services and resources to populations around the world in need — because of this reputation, we shouldn’t discount their claims of wanting to provide a kind of technology and communication to a population that doesn’t have it. In acknowledging this possibility, I also have to acknowledge that if a government agency wanted to influence young people in another country, the use of social media would probably be  the most helpful in accomplishing that goal.

__

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did USAID Actually Create Zunzuneo, the Cuban Twitter? appeared first on Law Street.