Are we in business?

HAVANA — On the black-and-white board where Cuba and the U.S. have been moving their pieces since Dec. 17 there are some gray squares that might remove the pressure from the game. I say “might” because in politics, as in chess, the variations, though not infinite, are many and the fear of the fall of the King (am talking about the chess pieces) could even paralyze the intentions.

After Cuban President Raúl Castro, at the Third Summit of the CELAC, set his key demands for the normalization of bilateral relations — the lifting of the blockade and the repeal of the Cuban Adjustment Act; the return of the naval base at Guantánamo; the elimination of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism — and after hearing the White House responses, almost everyone is certain that the match will last a long time.

The first example came during the talks in Havana, where the consensus was that there is no consensus on matters of emigration and human rights, to cite only two issues.

However, the commitment to sit down again at the dialogue table, and the expressions of interest, especially from a segment of the U.S. business sector, lead us to believe that commercial relations will be the first to tread on that stone-covered road.

Provided, however, that a practical stance is maintained in the face of the inevitable differences that predictably will remain. Therein lies, in a way, “the art of civilized coexistence.”

The most recent expressions in favor of doing business with Cuba came from Missouri, where Gov. John Nixon said that his state will be the first to knock at the doors of Cuba to discuss business.

Nixon announced that he will travel to Havana during the first week of March along with members of the U.S. Agricultural Coalition for Cuba (USACC), an organization that shelters more than 40 prominent agricultural businesses in the U.S. and submitted to Congress a petition to lift the blockade.

It was learned that Governor Nixon will arrive in the Cuban capital accompanied by 75 producers of rice, soy, corn, pork, poultry and beef, members of the Missouri Farm Bureau and the USACC. Presumably, they will be welcomed by their counterparts in Cuba, although none of this has been published in the local press.

In fact, there have been no local reactions to any of the initiatives by American NGOs related to an expansion of the bilateral exchange.

Only references have been made in Cuba’s digital press about the bipartisan group of U.S. senators who introduced in Congress the first bill calling for an elimination of the restrictions on travel to Cuba by ordinary U.S. citizens, which undoubtedly would help alleviate part of the blockade.

Apparently, caution — and even silence — is the password for the Cuban media’s “journalistic treatment” of a subject that impacts directly on the citizenry and loudly demands clarity (as much as available), so as not to fuel optimism or, on the contrary, give way to immobility.

And I say “not to fuel optimism” because popular intention — enunciated from unilateral interests — is not enough to transact businesses that are sustainable for any length of time. So far, Cuba cannot use the U.S. dollar in its financial transactions, cannot purchase products that contain more than 10 percent in U.S. components, and cannot export to the U.S. either goods or services.

Beyond the trilogy of “cannots” that are seen as the key to everything else (in economic terms), are the clauses on which both nations trade at present: Cuba must pay cash in advance when buying from its neighbor to the north.

According to U.S. regulations, these impositions are due to the fear that Havana may not meet its commitments. Meanwhile, the markets in regional countries, like Brazil, grant Cuba credits and attractive payment terms. The trade with the green-and-yellow giant — in the time and the form established until now — belies the theory that Cuba is a “poor risk.”

Conversely, the measures dictated by Barack Obama weeks after Dec. 17 point to an emerging sector of the Cuban society, the so-called self-employed entrepreneurs, without clearly establishing the ways in which these entrepreneurs could be empowered, in terms of the current schemes of importation, which are a State monopoly.

The possibility that the small private businesses can accede to the Yanqui market is barely a wish that’s hard to materialize, if you take as a reference the latest Cuban Customs regulations and the lack of legal figures (natural persons or cooperatives) who are authorized to buy abroad.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that Cuba loses $685 million per year because of the blockade’s impact on commercial relations, while the United States’ losses are almost double. The focus of attention on the days following Dec. 17 has been the considerable amount of Cuba’s rice imports, estimated at $300 million per year.

All this takes place on a stage of global crisis. For Cuba, the year 2014 ended below expectations. Projected GNP growth had been 2.2 percent, but the actual growth was only 1.3 percent, the result of noncompliance with the production plans of the sugar and manufactured-goods industries.

The Cuban economy’s plan for 2015 foresees a grown of 4 percent, and the authorities have said that they are confident of a recovery in cattle raising, construction, manufacture and agriculture.

Nevertheless, the year began with an intense drought that affects almost all of the national territory and whose consequences cannot be foretold. Besides, it is estimated that the country will spend more than $2.19 billion in the importation of food, $137 million more than in 2014.

Obviously, Cuba would be more interested in making its local production satisfy the needs of the domestic market, so dependency might decrease and autonomy might increase. In terms of food for the population, this has been called “alimentary sovereignty.”

Today, the limitations in the area of foreign-capital investment are on the U.S. side of the chess board, now that Cuba has opened its portfolio of opportunities in sectors it considers important for the “sustainable development” of its economic model and therefore of its political and social models.

“To lift these trade barriers is also an opportunity to expand the reach of our democratic values and ideals,” said Gov. John Nixon of Missouri. “I think that the best way to have an open and peaceful world is to feed the people and meet them. This gives us an opportunity as a state — right here in the heart of the country — to be leaders, something that people 30 or 40 years ago never thought possible.”

At this juncture, it is not idle to explore the opportunities that may open on the other side of the Straits. After all, it’s only business.

Progreso Semanal/ Weekly authorizes the total or partial reproduction of the articles by our journalists, so long as source and author are identified.