Cuban-Americans’ contributions to Cuba’s future
By Jesús Arboleya Cervera
HAVANA – Much is being said about the possible contribution of Cuban-Americans to the future of Cuba. Some have even described them as the nation’s “saviors”; others have totally dismissed their importance, even their convenience, to the country.
Almost certainly, the fairest evaluation is not at these extremes, so it is advisable to analyze the real potential of these contributions and the requirements for their materialization.
So far, in the Cuban-American community, three political forces exist: the far right, which conditions any type of contribution to a change in the Cuban “regime”; the so-called moderates, who conceive these contributions as a way to promote “a gradual and peaceful transition” toward capitalism; and, finally, those who favor the reestablishment of ties without any conditions, who are considered to be leftist, though their ideological positions are very varied.
(To place the latter at the left of the political spectrum could be a maneuver to disqualify and isolate them.)
Because the first and third options are very clear, I’ll concentrate on an analysis of the moderates’ proposals, which is seen as a “novelty” that will propitiate a “dialogue” with Cuban society, which today is at the center of all debates.
To the moderates, the strength of their position lies in how indispensable the economic potential of the Cuban-American community is for the future of Cuba, and the decisive role that the investments of Cuban-American capitalists would have in the country’s economy.
In my opinion, those suppositions are exaggerated. More importantly, they steer the moderates away from what would really be their fundamental contribution to the nation and from the reasons that would justify their importance to Cuba.
In concrete terms, the economic impact in Cuba of the Cuban-American community is expressed in the sending of remittances and other forms of contact with the island. Until now, these contributions are said to range between $1 billion and $2 billion per year. Studies done by Inter-American Dialogue estimate that only 68 percent of that comes from the United States.
Although nothing indicates that the remittances will reach a decisive level for the Cuban economy, as happens in other Latin American countries, they do constitute an appreciable contribution to the country’s revenues and might increase if the U.S. rules that limit such remittances are abolished.
One interesting fact is that a major part of this money is intended for investments in private businesses conducted by relatives and friends in Cuba, which implies that Cuban-Americans are already investing on the island.
Instead of destabilizing the system, those investments have become an incentive to self-employment, which is encouraged by the ongoing reforms, from the standpoint that such activities can coexist with Cuba’s socialist model.
It is to be hoped, then, that this type of investment is expanded and institutionalized as the reforms advance, particularly if changes are made in the U.S. policy that legally forbids it at this time. Thus, the investments would slip naturally into the national economy.
However, this type of investment is not what the moderates are promoting. The reason is that this money, arising from the true people-to-people contact, having an impact on the concrete conditions in which the Cuban economy unfolds, and having social and ideological connotations that cannot be ignored, is not accompanied by political demands against the system that would condition its use.
The same happens when there’s talk of the possibility that Cuban-American capitalists would invest in national companies. The law that regulates foreign investment in Cuba does not exclude this possibility, but the proposals so far made by these groups do not abide by this law. Instead, they demand to be considered as “native capital” – capital criollo – and ask to operate under premises that clearly run counter to the existing system.
Beyond the political considerations involved, the truth is that the real potential of these investments, as much as some people attempt to magnify them, doesn’t have the relative importance the proponents claim. It is obvious that, even investing under conditions that are acceptable to the Cuban side, the country’s development will not hinge on those investments, simply because their volume does not justify such expectation.
Holding the market as sacred, at a time when its excesses are being resisted worldwide, shows how far out of step are these groups’ proposals to Cuba. In reality, in order to open to the neoliberal market and gain access to the immense transnational capital under these conditions, Cuba does not need the Cuban-American capitalists.
The question then is if these capitalists are willing to invest in Cuba under conditions that are not damaging to the national patrimony, that ease the social conflicts through an adequate distribution of wealth and protect the environment.
It would be unthinkable to ask Cuba to move against the processes that are taking place worldwide, especially in Latin America, which explain the advance of Latin American and Caribbean integration. There, Cuba is playing a very active role, given the strategic importance it assigns to that process for the future of Cuba and the whole region.
Another big failing in the proposals of the groups that posit the opening of the Cuban market to Cuban-American capital is that, in the present situation, such an opening is not possible because of the U.S. blockade.
Beyond some moralistic statements, the Americans’ priorities do not include changing this reality, which means that they expect concessions on credit from the Cuban side. Worse yet, they want to keep the status quo as a mechanism of pressure against Cuba, which would place them side by side with the far right.
Of course, these expectations are also ineffectual because if the result were to cave to U.S. pressure, Cuba doesn’t need the Cuban-Americans either.
I’m not trying to reject outright the role that these groups could perform in the improvement of Cuba’s relations with the Cuban-American community. Particularly because these are basic expressions of a process that could advance and work through dialogue.
The fact is that, given the historical predominance of the far right in the Cuban-American community, the existence of groups in the dominant sectors that, at least for ethical reasons, condemn the United States’ economic blockade and distance themselves from the more extremist groups has a significance that cannot be ignored by Cuba.
But that is not sufficient to move beyond “conciliatory gestures,” if such stance does not translate into concrete actions in the United States that demonstrate a willingness to promote real changes in the policies of that country, as well as the ability to accomplish them.
It is clear that the Cuban government should adjust its policy on emigration to facilitate this process, but the determinant will be the emergence in the Cuban-American community of forces that represent the majority’s interest in maintaining a normal relation with their homeland, which is impossible under the rules imposed by the current U.S. policy.
Such a normalization would benefit both sides and therefore it is legitimate for us Cubans to worry about the Cuban-American political life and vice versa, and even about mutual influences. But same as the natural political stage of the Cubans is Cuba and Cubans reserve the right to reject foreign interference, the Cuban-Americans’ stage is the United States, something that the far right learned quickly enough. Thus its preponderance.
Understanding reality is indispensable to the moderates, so they can fortify their importance to Cuba and are not left out of the political games ahead. That – and no other – is their basic contribution to the future of the Cuban nation, to their own future and that of the community they wish to represent.
Progreso Semanal/ Weekly authorizes the total or partial reproduction of the articles written by our journalists, so long as source and author are identified.
