On Thursday, December 29, President Barack Obama placed sanctions on Russia for its alleged hacking of several American institutions. While the sanctions themselves are not unprecedented–the U.S. had sanctioned Russia two years earlier–they point to another unfortunate episode in an increasingly contentious relationship between the two nations. This relationship has eroded as these former adversaries have clashed over Crimea, the nation of Georgia, Syria, and U.S. presidential elections, all within the past decade. While some recent developments suggest the relationship may start to improve, much of the future remains uncertain. Read on to see how the U.S.-Russia relationship has developed over the years, where exactly it stands now, and what it will look like in the future.

The United States and the Empire of Russia

The relationship between the United States and Russia, then the Russian Empire, dates back to before the U.S. government was even firmly established. During the American Revolutionary War, Russia ultimately decided to remain neutral and not offer any support to the British despite being a British ally at the time. The next time the two nations went to war, in the War of 1812, Russia was once again involved as it offered to serve as a mediator. While the offer was declined by the British, a relationship between Russia and the United States was forming.

Although the relationship had initially been positive, a degree of tension arose between the two nations when the Holy Alliance–Russia, Austria, and Prussia–threatened to intercede in Central and Latin America, a perceived violation of the U.S. sphere of influence established by the Monroe Doctrine. The issue was ultimately resolved and no serious conflict resulted. Russia would get back in America’s good graces when it nominally supported the United States during the Civil War, including sending ships to the American East and West Coasts. While historians contend this move was actually to avoid having those ships blocked or destroyed by British and French troops during the Crimean War, and although Russia never provided physical support, the presence of the Russian sailors was positive.

Perhaps the most significant interaction between the two, prior to World War II, was the purchase of Alaska, completed in 1867. Russia was keen to sell the land because it was too far away to administer and also because it needed money following the Crimean War. The United States initiated the purchase in 1859 but held off on actually buying the land until 1867 following the Civil War. The sale price was $7.2 million and was initially viewed as a mistake until large mineral deposits were discovered.

The United States and Russia continued their relationship into the 20th century during several important events. The first was the United States getting Russia and several European empires to agree to an Open Door Policy in China, which ensured its territorial integrity. The second was the United States, under Theodore Roosevelt, mediating the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.

Even when the relationship was strained, the U.S. offered substantial aid to Russia following the outbreak of World War I and later during a massive famine in 1921-1923. However, the United States, along with other Allied governments, also sent troops in to undermine the new communist regime following their takeover and subsequent withdrawal from World War I. When the USSR was declared in 1922, all diplomatic ties were severed.

World War II and the Cold War

The United States did eventually reestablish diplomatic ties with the USSR in 1933. During World War II, the two countries would become allies, with the USSR receiving supplies from the U.S. as part of the Lend-Lease program and later when both countries fought the Axis Powers. These two nations, along with France, China, and the U.K. would also become the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council following the war.

That was the high point, however, and for the next 45 years or so, the relationship was increasingly tense during the Cold War. This was particularly true with the “Iron Curtain” descending on Eastern Europe in 1947 and America introducing its policy of containment. The two sides then squared off in a stalemate, which was occasionally punctuated by major events like the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Both countries also engaged in a heated space race with the USSR launching the first satellite in 1957 and United States becoming the first and only country to land a man on the moon in 1969.

Tensions normalized somewhat in the 1970s with the first talks on reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles and for cooperation in space. However, they flared once more in the 1980s with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The decade closed, though, with resumed talks on disarmament. The 1990s began with a bang, or more specifically a coup in 1991. The coup failed and so did the USSR soon after, breaking into 15 countries later that year. The video below looks at the history of the Cold War:

After the Thaw

The fall of the Soviet Union was greeted hopefully by the United States with the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, aimed at collecting nuclear material, infamously named “loose nukes,” from the former Soviet Republics. The two also collaborated again on the space program, culminating with the International Space Station.

Relations began to cool again after both George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin came to power, particularly when President Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. This was followed by Russian opposition to the Iraq war, U.S. support for Kosovo gaining independence, and an American anti-missile defense system proposed for Poland. Relations between the two countries declined precipitously following the 2008 invasion of South Ossetia and the subsequent war between Russia and Georgia.

Following this episode, the then-incoming Obama Administration called for a policy “reset” in 2009. Things certainly seemed promising with the New START agreement that called for nuclear arms reduction between the United States and Russia in 2010, along with Russia agreeing to new sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. From there, however, the situation took a turn for the worse again, when Russia supported Bashar al-Assad in Syria, alleged Russian spies were detained in the United States, and Russia cracked down on human rights in 2012 following Vladimir Putin’s election as president. Russia also expelled USAID from the country and made all NGOs register.

Although both countries came to some agreements to strengthen sanctions on North Korea following its nuclear weapons test in 2013, relations continued to deteriorate when Russia granted asylum to Edward Snowden later that year. This intensified significantly with Russia’s seizure and subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, as well as its support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine. These actions led the U.S. to place economic sanctions on Russia and expel it from the G8.

Most recently, the United States and Russia have continued to bicker over the Syrian conflict and Russian support for the Assad regime. However, the greatest spat appears to have come in the wake of the recent election when several U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had interfered in the presidential election through targeted hacking and leaking. This news caused President Obama to increase sanctions and expel 35 Russian nationals from the country. The CIA updated its assessment to conclude that not only did Russia interfere in the election, it did so to help elect Donald Trump.

Going Forward

While Russia and the U.S. have shared a tense relationship for more than a decade, the two countries see signs of hope with the election of Donald Trump. President Trump has seemed to confirm this with what he has already said concerning Russia. For evidence, one need look only as far as President Obama’s recent sanctions against Russia and President Trump’s subsequent praise of Vladimir Putin’s intelligence for not responding in kind. The following video looks at the potential relationship with Donald Trump as president:

President Trump indicated that he hopes to warm relations between the two countries not just with his words but also with his recent actions–namely, by nominating Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State. Tillerson was formerly the CEO of Exxon Mobile and has a lot of business experience working with the Russian government. In fact, Tillerson was once awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship by Vladimir Putin himself. While all of Tillerson’s experience with the country comes from his work in the private sector–acting on behalf of Exxon Mobil rather than the American government–early indications suggest that Russia is pleased with his selection.

Nevertheless, the U.S.-Russia relationship is dictated by more than just the president and his cabinet and that is where things start to get complicated. While Trump sang Putin’s praises for exercising restraint, Republican members of Congress were happy to see additional sanctions placed on Russia, which many considered overdue. In some cases, such as with Senator John McCain, the sanctions were not enough and he pledged to work for even tougher measures. Thus the jury remains out on the future of the relationship; however, the opportunity for improvement appears to be there.

Conclusion

The relationship between Russia and the United States has ebbed and flowed. At first, like many other countries in Europe, Russia treated the United States as a trading partner but not much else. However, with the dawn of the twentieth century and the ascension of the United States as one of the preeminent powers in the world, Russia began to take notice. This situation came to a head following World War II when they were the only two superpowers left standing, prompting competition for ideological control of the world.

However, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, early indications seemed to suggest the United States and Russia could finally work together and form a more collaborative relationship. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case, as the early 21st century featured more disagreement and mutual antagonism. With the rise of Vladimir Putin and his sustained grip on power, the situation has only deteriorated further. While newly elected President Trump has suggested a closer partnership, it remains to be seen if that will stand the test of his term or if Congressional Republicans will even allow it. In the meantime, the United States and Russia will continue their long, circling dance, interacting when necessary and quarreling regularly.

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 Story Behind the U.S.-Russia Relationship appeared first on Law Street.

This morning, Florida Senator Marco Rubio took to Facebook to announce that he will support Rex Tillerson’s nomination for Secretary of State, despite the tough questions that Rubio had for Tillerson during his confirmation hearing.

Rubio’s long statement praises Tillerson’s patriotism and “impressive record of leadership,” but also highlights a number of concerns that Rubio brought up during the confirmation hearing, like Tillerson’s refusal to call Vladimir Putin a war criminal. However, at the end of his statement, Rubio states his support of Tillerson despite these concerns, saying that he must “balance these concerns with his extensive experience and success in international commerce” and that “it would be against our national interests to have this confirmation unnecessarily delayed or embroiled in controversy.”

Rubio’s support comes a day after Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham released a joint statement in support of Tillerson. In addition to Rubio, Graham and McCain were the two primary hurdles in the way of Tillerson’s confirmation.

“We need a Secretary of State who recognizes that our nation cannot succeed in the world by itself,” the joint statement reads. “The views that Mr. Tillerson has expressed, both privately and publicly during the confirmation process, give us confidence that he will be a champion for a strong and engaged role for America in the world.”

The main criticism that senators on both sides of the aisle have of Tillerson is his connection to the Russian government when he served as CEO of Exxon Mobil, having received the Russian Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin. Tillerson also lobbied the White House to lift the sanctions that were imposed on Russia after the invasion of Crimea.

Upon the release of his statement, Rubio has been met with criticism aimed at his lack of political courage.

Marco Rubio is the same man who called Obama “weak” on Russia. https://t.co/b48AfTgtKk

— Terrell J. Starr (@Russian_Starr) January 23, 2017

We knew how @marcorubio’s tough talk about Tillerson would turn out, because we all knew how how his tough talk about Trump would turn out.

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) January 23, 2017

Marco Rubio just listed his spine for sale on Craigslist.

— Michael Blackman (@ParaComedian09) January 23, 2017

So Marco Rubio:

1) Grilled Rex Tillerson and tried to embarrass him about Putin

2) Is now voting to confirm Rex Tillerson

— Matt O’Brien (@ObsoleteDogma) January 23, 2017

Rubio garnered a wave of praise after his comments during Tillerson’s confirmation hearing, particularly for a line of questioning in which Rubio called for “moral clarity” and pushed Tillerson on his refusal to label foreign actors as sponsors of terrorism or in violation of international law.

“These were not obscure areas […] it should not be hard to say that Vladimir Putin’s military has conducted war crimes in Aleppo,” Rubio said. He added, “It is never acceptable, you would agree, for a military to specifically target civilians. I find it discouraging your inability to cite that, which is globally accepted.” The video below shows Rubio’s comments.

Rubio has a history of balking on his perceived strong stances, including his support of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee after calling him a “con man,” and running for Senate after repeatedly saying that he had no intention of running if he did not become president.

I have only said like 10000 times I will be a private citizen in January.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is expected to vote on Tillerson’s nomination sometime on Monday.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Marco Rubio Pledges his Support for Tillerson, Making Confirmation Likely appeared first on Law Street.

On December 2, President-elect Donald Trump dramatically broke from decades of United States policy in Asia by speaking with the president of Taiwan via a phone conversation. This call was the first known contact between either a U.S. president or a president-elect with a Taiwanese leader since before the U.S. severed diplomatic relations with the island in 1979. The event shocked the world, and the statements from Trump that followed only seemed to exacerbate strained relations between the U.S. and China.

The phone call was seen as a departure from the “One China” policy, that has governed U.S. relations in Asia since the late 1970s. But what exactly is the One China policy? And how will this potentially colossal shift in foreign policy from President-elect Trump and his administration affect the future of U.S.-China relations?

Evolution of the One China policy

In the 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communiqué, the U.S. withdrew any diplomatic recognition from Taiwan in order to acknowledge the Beijing regime as the sole legal government of China, thus creating the One China policy. The policy reflects the view that there is only one state called “China,” despite two governments claiming to be “China.” This policy differs from the One China principle, which insists that both Taiwan and mainland China are inalienable parts of China. Neither the Republic of China, nor the People’s Republic of China recognize the other as a legitimate government. Officially, the U.S. defines the full content of its One China policy as consisting of three Sino-American communiqués, one at the time of Nixon’s visit (1972), mutual establishment of diplomatic relations (1978), and the attempted resolution of American arms sales in 1982.

This particular policy can be traced all the way back to 1949 and the end of the Chinese civil war. The defeated Nationalists retreated to Taiwan and made it their seat of government, while the Communists held on to the mainland. At first, many countries, including the U.S., wanted to distance themselves from Communist China; however, the U.S. started to see a mutual need to develop relations in the 1970s. Proposals that the U.S. recognize two Chinas were strongly rejected by the People’s Republic of China. Finally, in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. normalized relations with China, cutting diplomatic and official ties with Taiwan. Furthermore, the U.S. withdrew U.S. forces from Taiwan, allowing the mutual defense treaty in Taiwan to expire.

Current State of Affairs

The U.S. has made it abundantly clear on a global stage that it does not consider the political entity in Taiwan to be a state. However, it also does not accept the contention that Taiwan is part of China; the formal legal position from the U.S. is that Taiwan’s status is “undetermined.” Taiwan’s lack of diplomatic recognition by the U.S. and many other nations means it cannot become a member of most international organizations, including the United Nations.

So, that means for nearly four decades, the U.S. has had somewhat of a relationship with a foreign government it does not officially recognize, that government governs a state that the U.S. does not formally acknowledge exists, and resides on an island whose status according to the U.S. is undetermined. The U.S. and Taiwan also have significant presences in each country that have very specific diplomatic privileges and immunities. Taiwan’s president is allowed to make “transit stops” in the U.S. while traveling to other destinations, though is not allowed to make official visits to the U.S. and is not invited as an official delegate to U.S. events. Additionally, the Taiwan Relations Act, which was also enacted in 1979, mandates that the U.S. make defensive arms available to Taiwan, help maintain the island’s ability to resist any force that could jeopardize its security, and potentially take appropriate actions if there is any such threat.

“Made in Taiwan” Courtesy of diaper : License (CC BY 2.0)

Moreover, there is a substantial amount of trade and investment between the U.S. and Taiwan. The U.S. is Taiwan’s second-largest trading partner, and Taiwan ranks as the ninth-largest trading partner for the U.S. In 2015, U.S. goods and services trade with Taiwan totaled $86.9 billion. According to data from the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of goods and services to Taiwan employed an estimated 217,000 workers in 2014. The U.S.-Taiwan industry includes a vast array of products: electrical machinery, vehicles, plastics, snack foods, as well as processed fruits and vegetables. However, China has grown to be Taiwan’s largest trade partner, absorbing nearly 30 percent of Taiwan’s exports by value. Any significant stirring of the status quo has the potential for grim consequences for the U.S., China, and Taiwan.

Trump’s Position on One China

Despite the strong U.S. stance on One China, Trump took a phone call from Taiwan’s leader, Tsai Ing-wen. It was a roughly ten-minute long conversation, described as a congratulatory phone call. Trump maintained that it would have been disrespectful not to have taken the call, and that he had only heard about it just an hour or two in advance. Just two days after the controversial phone call, Trump took a pointed jab at China on Twitter, accusing the country of keeping its currency artificially low and engaging in military posturing in the South China Sea.

Trump boldly stated in an interview with Fox News Sunday on December 11 that he does not feel “bound by a one-China policy.” Moreover, the Trump transition team has openly referred to Tsai Ing-wen as “President of Taiwan.” This public recognition of Tsai Ing-wen as President of Taiwan openly undermines the only aspect of One China that both the U.S. and China actually seem to agree upon–that Taiwan is not a state.

Future concerns about U.S.-China relations

Many U.S. leaders are concerned that Trump’s flippancy with regard to the One China policy will lead to further strained relations with China. In fact, China expressed that it is “seriously concerned” after President-elect Trump questioned whether the U.S. should maintain its current position. Recent comments by Trump have demonstrated a willingness to use One China as a bargaining chip to iron out more favorable deals on trade.

Critics have further pointed out that Trump’s inexperience in foreign relations could have profound consequences globally. Tensions have already increased in the South China Sea, a major shipping route, as Chinese dredging operations continue in the Spratly Islands–China has been turning sandbars into islands with airfields, ports, and lighthouses. Beijing has also warned any U.S. warships and military aircrafts to stay away from the islands. A front-page opinion piece published on the overseas edition of the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s official platform, noted that the call set a bad precedent and rang a warning bell in China.

In the past, China has not been afraid to express displeasure with U.S.-Taiwan relations and perceived violations of the One China policy. After the U.S. granted Taiwan’s pro-independence president, Lee Teng-hui, a visa to visit Cornell University in 1995, China conducted a missile test in the Taiwan Strait. The test was seen as a way to intimidate Taiwanese voters into not voting for Teng-hui during the 1996 election, though he did end up winning.

Presently, China has made its position abundantly clear. Cooperation with the U.S. cannot occur if Trump does not adhere to the One China policy. On December 10, Chinese military aircraft flew over waterways near Taiwan as part of long-range exercises. The drills lasted for about four hours and involved more than 10 aircrafts. Furthermore, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang stated, “Adherence to the One China principle serves as the political foundation for the development of China-US ties. If this foundation is wobbled and weakened, there is no possibility for the two countries to grow their relations in a sound and steady way and cooperate on key areas.”

Military action is not the only method China could utilize to effectively retaliate against the U.S. for violating the One China policy or attempting to use Taiwan as a pawn in negotiations. China could make business increasingly difficult on its soil and use state-run media to encourage public boycotts of U.S. companies. Additionally, allies of Taiwan could be persuaded to switch allegiance to China, if given more aid. China could cease communications with Washington and further decrease trade and economic ties with Taiwan.

Conclusion

While the future is unknown, one thing appears to be certain: China will not tolerate anything less than the current status quo. Careless indifference to the One China policy could have serious ramifications on a global scale. If the new administration ignores decades-old diplomatic relations with China, there is a large risk of destabilizing U.S.-China relations and perhaps even sparking a true crisis.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “One China” Policy and Donald Trump 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.