Bread and freedom: What’s the path forward for US-Cuba relations? | Opinion

Does a pragmatic way forward exist for the U.S. and Cuba without sacrificing the Cuban people’s demands for bread and freedom to the expediency of a Trump “deal” or the regime’s insistence on staying in power? A verifiable, staged agreement could include an economic and political opening on the island and an end to the U.S. embargo.

Ten years ago, President Barack Obama gave a historic speech in Havana aimed at normalizing Cuba relations. That effort failed. Today, high-level meetings are occurring again, but they are not aimed at normalization.

Instead, the Cuban government is seeking to avert a humanitarian catastrophe while retaining power. What President Donald Trump wants is less clear, but he has certainly exchanged Obama’s “carrot” for the “big stick” of an oil blockade — even if he has recently made incoherent exceptions to it by allowing at least one Russian tanker through.

Trump’s casually stated aims of “taking Cuba” or “freeing Cuba” are very different goals. He also claims that “Cuba’s next” and that “he can do anything he wants with it.” But can he? The Cuban regime, though weakened and illegitimate, still maintains control. U.S. military action is unlikely considering Trump’s distaste for nation-building and given the current U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is more circumspect. While calling the status quo “unacceptable” and saying that both “the people in charge” and “the system” need to change, he has also hinted that Cuba “doesn’t have to change all at once.” This suggests an economic opening could precede political reform. Rubio is also reportedly negotiating with members of the Castro family.

But is such a “deal” acceptable to the Cuban people? Will they have a say at all? The Cuban government does not represent them. Does Trump? Does Rubio? Cubans cannot expect the interests of Trump to align with their own despite the palpable pro-interventionist sentiment among many. They must continue to demand both bread and freedom, refusing to sacrifice one for the other.

Havana is likely demanding an immediate end to the oil blockade and the lifting of the embargo. In response, the U.S. should expand its allowance of oil imports by Cuba’s private sector. The embargo should be reevaluated while testing whether Havana honors its commitments. If it does, sanctions relief should follow. By linking economic concessions to verifiable political progress, the U.S. can support the Cuban people without propping up a failing dictatorship.

While the embargo is an article of anti-communist faith in Miami, no U.S. president is better positioned than Trump to make such a deal and convince Cuban-Americans to accept it. Havana would have to make major concessions, though likely not immediate regime change, which Cubans urgently and justly demand.

On the U.S. side, priorities should include the release of political prisoners, an end to routine repression and a major economic opening that prioritizes Cuba’s private sector. This would allow U.S. companies into Cuba, expanding on the opening given to Cuban-Americans. Compensation should also be provided for confiscated property claims.

The hardest issue will be the U.S. demand that Cuba open its political system. This is a non-starter for the regime but essential for most Cubans. Given Trump’s deal in Venezuela, this is certainly not a deal-breaker for him. However, the symbolic resignation of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel could break the impasse — though Díaz-Canel has publicly rejected this. Any such deal is unlikely to include a political prohibition on the Castro family, especially given the rising prominence of second- and third-generation figures like Alejandro Castro Espín, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, and Óscar Pérez-Oliva Fraga.

Lastly, opposition political parties should be legalized and the right to return restored. This would allow Cubans to return, organize, re-join civil society and compete in elections. This could pave the way for a peaceful democratic transition.

The stakes are high. A failed state would be a humanitarian tragedy for Cuba, and a major security and immigration challenge for the U.S. By focusing on empowering Cuban citizens and demanding systemic change in exchange for lifting the embargo, Cuba can move toward a future — as demanded so long ago by Cuban independence leader José Martí — “with all and for the good of all.”

Ted A. Henken is a professor of sociology and Latin American studies at Baruch College, CUNY.