An interesting move
By Elsa Claro
It is not a goal of the type that makes soccer history. It is not even a home run, but undoubtedly Cuba scored a pair of runs in just 48 hours.
On Monday, the European Union announced what various media described as “a small political gesture” when the foreign ministers of the European community gave a mandate to Catherine Ashton to open exploratory talks with the authorities in Havana in search of an uncertain but possible and improved contractual relationship with the island. A consolation prize?
On Tuesday, again, Cuba had the support of the United Nations, with 187 countries rejecting the blockade* to which it has been subjected, the longest ever imposed by the United States.
Optimistic after her debut, the new Spanish Foreign Minister, Trinidad Jimenez, told journalists in Luxembourg that “a formula has been sought that represents the start of a new relationship with Cuba, which is a huge expectation and, de facto, overrides the common position.”
Acknowledging the careful preparatory work of his predecessor, Miguel Angel Moratinos, the foreign minister explained: “In some ways, the common position and the one-sidedness it expressed are overtaken by a framework of bilateral relations that could lead in the future to an agreement between the European Union and Cuba.”
The largest of the Antilles is the only Latin American country that has no cooperation agreement with the EU, a contradiction given that almost all nations of the Old World, forming the 27-member EU, signed and maintained commercial ties with Cuba since 1988, when Cuba was still part of the defunct CMEA.
These links grew in the mid-1990s, and it should be noted that the EU has sidestepped U.S. extraterritorial laws that prevent such links. Despite this commendable position, its relations with Cuba are pendular, reacting to the influence of the U.S. or politicians who are neither transparent nor restrained.
One case is José María Aznar. When he attended the IX Ibero-American Summit in 1999, and after a brief contact with a small group of oppositionists, I asked him if he planned to meet with other segments of Cuban civilian society.
With a hubris that amazed local and foreign journalists present, he told me that he already had a clear idea of what happened in the country, merely through what was said by his conspicuous guests.
European diplomats consider that the first version of a common position, presented by Aznar’s Spain, was worse than the one finally passed 14 years ago after several countries toned it down. It is possible that the former head of the Spanish government is slightly disturbed by the possibility that the policy he promoted in 1996 might cease to exist.
Like everything that’s arbitrary, the common position will expire sooner or later, but a better version may come in December when Lady Ashton, the High Representative for EU Foreign Policy, issues her report. Incidentally, she said at the end of the conclave that “we should think and reflect, but we recognize what Cuba is doing.”
Now, the media and the Spanish politicians themselves believe that, to relaunch the application to the EU, it was useful to build on the steps taken by the government of President Raúl Castro, even though the Popular Party maintained the normal extremist stance that characterizes it.
The deliberate release of 42 opponents to the Cuban process, along with a large group of their relatives, and the willingness to continue that procedure despite the provocative statements of some who are committed to maintaining a discrepancy for simple personal convenience, is the main example.
The development of structural changes in the Cuban economy, which took legal dimension when the regulations were published in the Official Gazette, although an internal affair, were also put forward by Spain to its EU peers. Spain considers the ongoing remodeling to be another signal to adjust the European position to reality. After all, speaking pragmatically and truthfully, Spain is the island’s main trading partner, its second-largest investor and supplier of tourists.
The result at the United Nations – 187 votes for, 2 against, 3 abstentions – is not surprising. It was repeated for 19 consecutive years and reconfirms that even sensitive allies of Washington, except for the usual exceptions, do not venture to side with the U.S. in something so obviously heartless and outworn.
The global context, despite the crisis that strikes without distinguishing between rich and disadvantaged nations, does not do away with the crooked intentions that abound, but it seems to permeate the moment with crystal-clear realism. I hope so.
* Voting in favor of the blockade were the U.S. and Israel. Abstaining were Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.
