Why Cuba has fallen for now on Biden’s foreign policy

Washington .– Cuba has always been present in the foreign policy of the United States, but now it appears to be a pariah. The Biden government has made it clear publicly that the relationship with Al Jazeera is far from at the top of the White House agenda, and its first signs dampened any expectations of an early rapprochement with Havana after four years of Trump’s frozen policy.

During Barack Obama’s presidency, Biden – who was Vice President – was one of the melt heroes. With the island that culminated in Obama’s historic trip to Havana in 2016, after which he visited Buenos Aires to strengthen ties with the government of Mauricio Macri.

Obama opened doors in the embargo on the island and also supported a much closer economic link with the United States through decrees, bypassing Congress, and removing Cuba from the list of countries that support terrorism.

Trump reversed that historic melt. He tightened the embargo, imposed restrictions and sanctions imposed by Obama, and in one of his last actions of government, he included Cuba once again on the blacklist of countries that support terrorism, under the pretext of its “malicious interference in Venezuela and elsewhere.” the world. Hemisphere. “

Ruthlessness toward Cuba and Venezuela expanded its support in Florida – where US policy toward Latin America tends to pass through Florida – as Trump scored a comfortable victory in the last presidential election. After leaving the White House in January, Trump moved to Palm Beach, where the Mar-a-Lago resort is located.

Joe Biden’s return to Washington subsided in hope that things would be reset And back to Obama’s policy.

The former US Vice President promised during his election campaign that he would once again make the policy of remittances and travel to the island more flexible under the pretext of improving the quality of life of Cubans. But so far, the White House has kept the trajectory set by Trump.

The policy shift towards Cuba is not currently among the president’s foreign policy priorities. Presidential spokeswoman Jean Psaki said in mid-April after Raul Castro confirmed that he would leave the leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC).

Psaki added that US policy towards Cuba will be governed by two principles: support for democracy and human rights, with an emphasis on empowering the Cuban people to determine their own future, and a philosophy that Americans, especially Cuban Americans, are too. Good ambassadors of freedom and prosperity.

Disputes

The first friction has already appeared. The Biden government’s decision to keep Cuba on the blacklist of countries that protect terrorism along with Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela, angered the government of Miguel Diaz-Canel.

“The Biden administration keeps Cuba on the list of countries not cooperating in the fight against terrorism. This defamatory measure, in addition to the continuous enforcement of Trump’s policy and the blocking measures 243, is surprising and disturbing, ”Bruno Rodriguez, Cuban Foreign Minister, wrote last Tuesday in both English and Spanish.

The Biden administration, which turns its back on the vast majority of the Cuban and American people, is taking action from Trump. Miguel Diaz-Canel’s official later insisted, in another tweet, that the gap between rhetoric and reality widened.

A few hours later, Julie Chung, the Interior Undersecretary for the Foreign Ministry in the Western Hemisphere, responded with another tweet calling for the release of Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara and Michael Castillo, two artists detained by Cuban authorities on charges of stirring up public opinion. Chaos and receive financial support from the United States.

The United States refuses to arrest artists for exercising their freedom of expression. The Cuban government cannot silence its critics by violating their human rights. The Biden government official demanded the immediate release of Luis Manuel Alcantara and Michael “El Osorbo” Castillo. “

The Cuban Foreign Ministry rejected Chung’s claim, which it considered “an overt and intrusive demagoguery” and a “simulation of concern for human rights” on the island.