When The Nation magazine in a recent announcement assured those interested in taking its tours to Cuba that everything was all right, it spelled out President Trump’s new restrictions on the constitutional rights to travel to Cuba.
In fact, tours organized by The Nation, as the magazine indicated, “are now the only way the inquisitive, conscientious traveler can conduct a ‘people-to-people’ visit to Cuba.”
As Trump’s aim is to undermine and eradicate every vestige of Obama’s legacy, Obama’s normalization initiative with Cuba is paramount to these new restrictions. What Obama set in motion was to establish a new policy with Cuba that for many years had denied any possibility of bilateral relations.
“I am canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba,” Trump said during his speech last Friday in Miami. “They made a deal with a government that spread violence and instability in the region and nothing they got, think about it, nothing they got, they fought for everything and we just didn’t fight hard enough, but now, those days are over.
“We now hold the cards. The previous administration’s easing of restrictions of travel and trade does not help the Cuban people. They only enrich the Cuban regime. We will never, ever be blind to it. We know what is going on and we remember what happened.”
But like most of Trump’s plans and promises, this one falls short of completely overturning Obama’s policy. What he has done is merely offer a change in posture and tone.
In effect, the diplomatic relations instituted by Obama remain intact. Also, the newly opened embassies in Washington and Havana are functioning. And, to the general satisfaction of the ordinary Joe and Joan, no restrictions are imposed on the kinds of products Americans can bring from Cuba, particularly the favored rum and cigars.
The restrictions are mainly aimed at the Cuban government, and there was a response from Cuba even before the new policy was announced, which they viewed as “ill-advised.”
In a statement from the Cuban government, it reiterated its will to continue “a respectful and cooperative dialogue on topics of mutual interest, as well as the negotiation of outstanding issues with the U.S. Government. During the last two years it has been evidenced that both countries, as was repeatedly expressed by the president of the Councils of State and of Ministers, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, can cooperate and coexist in a civilized manner, respecting the differences and promoting everything that benefits both nations and peoples, but it should not be expected that, in order to achieve that, Cuba would make concessions inherent to its sovereignty and independence, or accept preconditions of any sort.
“Any strategy aimed at changing the political, economic and social system in Cuba, either through pressures and impositions or by using more subtle methods, shall be doomed to failure,” the statement concluded.
It is not clear what the Trump policy will mean for the “Dreamers,” the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Although he said Friday they can “rest easy,” we know how fickle and unpredictable Trump can be, and those who entered the country illegally will probably be forever in jeopardy of being deported, no matter their status.
What many African-Americans, and certainly those from the activist community, were waiting to hear from Trump was his position on Assata Shakur, who has been living in Cuba since her flight in 1979 from persecution in the death of a New Jersey state trooper.
“To the Cuban government,” Trump asserted, “I say put an end to the abuse of distance. Release the political prisoners. Stop jailing innocent people. Open yourselves to political and economic freedoms. Return the fugitives from American justice, including the return of the cop killer Joanne Chesimard.” Trump was referring to Shakur’s name before she changed it during her revolutionary transformation.
Gustavo Machin, deputy director for American affairs at the Cuban ministry of Foreign Affairs, said, “I can say it is off the table,” commenting on Shakur’s return to the states.
“There are very serious doubts about that case,” Machin said. “We consider that a politically motivated case against that lady.”