Cuba

The Obama administration announced today that Cuba comes off the "terrorism list." Here is some of what it said: the President in December instructed the Secretary of State to immediately launch a review of Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, and conclude that review within six months. In April, the Secretary of State completed that review and recommended to the President that Cuba should no longer be designated as a State Sponsors of Terrorism. The President then submitted to Congress the statutorily required report indicating the Administration’s intent to rescind Cuba’s State Sponsor of Terrorism designation, including the certification that Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the previous six-months; and that Cuba has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future. The 45-day Congressional pre-notification period is now complete and we are pleased to note that today the Secretary of State has rescinded Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. The rescission of Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism reflects our assessment that Cuba meets the statutory criteria for rescission. While the United States has significant concerns and disagreements with a wide range of Cuba’s policies and actions, these fall outside the criteria relevant to the rescission of a state sponsor of terrorism designation. This statement completely ignores the two main objections that have been raised. First, procedurally, this administration has year after year repeatedly kept Cuba on the list and said it merited being there. What has changed? If Cuba does not deserve to be on the list in 2015, why did it deserve to be there in previous years? Why did Secretary Kerry not say this in 2014, 2013, and so on? Was the administration abusing the statute, and misinforming the American people and Congress? Second, substantively, I note that the administration statement ignores the fact that Cuba continues to harbor and protect fugitives and terrorists, including the American Joanne Chesimard, convicted of first-degree murder of a New Jersey State Trooper. In previously designating Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, John Kerry’s Department of State said this: Cuba has long provided safe haven to members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)....The Cuban government continued to harbor fugitives wanted in the United States. Right-- true when said, and true today. So what has changed?  Quite obviously the administration has decided to ignore the criteria it previously considered binding. Safe haven for terrorists and fugitives is apparently no longer a matter of concern to the United States, at least not when it gets in the way of other policy goals--such as a rapprochement with Castro’s Cuba.

When President Obama junked 60 years of U.S. foreign policy to seek a rapprochement with the Castro regime in Cuba, he was aware that he would be accused of ignoring human rights. After all, the Obama administration got next to nothing for the concessions it made to Cuba, and from all accounts did not bargain hard for more. So the administration took the line, right from the start, that its actions would help human rights in Cuba almost automatically. The White House web page, for example, recounts the agreement with the Castro regime and then adds this: A critical focus of these actions will include continued strong support for improved human rights conditions and democratic reforms in Cuba. The promotion of democracy supports universal human rights by empowering civil society and a person’s right to speak freely, peacefully assemble, and associate, and by supporting the ability of people to freely determine their future. The U.S. efforts are aimed at promoting the independence of the Cuban people so they do not need to rely on the Cuban state. The President himself said this: where we disagree, we will raise those differences directly -– as we will continue to do on issues related to democracy and human rights in Cuba. But I believe that we can do more to support the Cuban people and promote our values through engagement. How’s that working out? Here is some recent news, about last Sunday--one single day: Nearly 200 Cuban Dissidents Arrested Monday, May 25, 2015 Nearly 200 Cuban dissidents were arrested throughout the island yesterday. In Havana, four dozen members of The Ladies in White were arrested as they attended Sunday Mass. Also arrested were male supporters, including democracy leaders Antonio Rodiles, Angel Moya and independent journalist Juan Gonzalez Febles. In Santiago, over 80 activists of the Cuban Patriotic Union (UNPACU) were beaten and arrested, including some who had been released under the Obama-Castro December 17th deal, namely Diango and Bianko Vargas Martin, and Ernesto Tamayo Guerra. Dozens of others were arrested in the interior provinces, including Raul Borges, father of political prisoner Ernesto Borges, and youth activists from the Cuban Reflection Movement. And renowned artist Tania Bruguera, who had her passport confiscated in December and is unable to leave the island, was arrested as she approached the Museum of Fine Arts to attend an exhibit for the Havana Art Biennial. The returns appear to be in, and Mr. Obama is simply wrong. His "engagement" is helping the regime by reducing U.S. pressure to respect human rights and bringing it more money from tourism and remittances. And the Castros know all this--know that the administration is now set on business as usual and that they will have an even freer hand to abuse dissidents. How do we know this? Last week, on May 21, the State Department issued this press release: U.S. Talks on Re-establishing Diplomatic Relations With Cuba Notice to the Press Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC May 21, 2015  On Thursday, May 21, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta S. Jacobson hosted the delegation from the Cuban government led by Josefina Vidal, Director General of the U.S. Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for the fourth round of talks to re-establish diplomatic relations and re-open embassies. On Friday, May 22, the heads of delegations will hold sequential press availabilities -- first Cuba, then the United States -- at approximately 11 a.m. EDT. The availabilities will take place at the Washington Foreign Press Center, located at the National Press Building, 529 14th Street NW, Suite 800, Washington D.C. 20045. So, talks on the 21st, 200 arrests just four days later. In other words, the two events are viewed by the Castro regime as entirely unrelated: talk and arrest, talk and imprison, talk and beat up protesters and demonstrators. Sadly, the two events also appear to be viewed by the Obama administration as entirely unrelated. Where is the protest? Where is the cancellation or postponement of talks? Where is any action that tells the regime it cannot embarrass the President this way? And where is the President? It is one thing for him to predict that "we can do more to support the Cuban people and promote our values through engagement." It is quite another for him to remain silent when that proves to be wrong, and our "engagement" leads to more and more abuses of human rights.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, right, talks with Cuba’s Josefina Vidal, director general of the U.S. division at Cuba’s Foreign Ministry, left, and Gustavo Machin, Cuba’s deputy chief of North American affairs, center, before a meeting with Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Trade Rodrigo Malmierca at the Hotel Nacional in Havana, Cuba, Monday, April 20, 2015. (Ramon Espinosa/Courtesy: Reuters) New York’s governor Andrew Cuomo has just returned from a visit to Cuba. The stated goal was to gin up business opportunities for New York companies. What’s wrong with that? Let’s posit that foreign policy is made by the national government, and that the governor was merely trying to advance the new Cuba policy that President Obama has announced. Let’s posit that this is a good policy and that other American officials are right to support it. So what was wrong with this trip? Two things. First, Gov. Cuomo is not a corporate executive whose job it is to maximize profits. He’s a democratically elected leader in a democratic country. Indifference to human rights is unbecoming at least, and in fact deeply offensive. But in his trip, Cuomo did not see one person who might be called a democratic or human rights activist. He saw Castro regime officials in event after event , plus the cardinal of Havana. Can one imagine that he would have visited the USSR in, say, 1985 and not seen Jewish dissidents, the refuseniks? Can one imagine him visiting apartheid South Africa and seeing only officials of the government? I don’t believe it for one second, so why is Cuba different? Why ignore the desperate struggle for freedom that so many Cubans have undertaken, and for which they have suffered and continue to suffer? Second, Cuomo dined comfortably with a Cuban spy. As the web site Capitol Hill Cubans reported, the governor was seated next to Gustavo Machin Gomez, who was expelled from the United States in 2002 as part of the Ana Belen Montes spy case. Montes was the senior Cuba analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and in 2002 was convicted of spying for Cuba and sentenced to 25 years in prison. The photo above shows the two men, Gov. Cuomo and the Cuban spy, laughing sociably. Other photos show them seated side by side at dinner. Machin is now a key figure in handling U.S. affairs in the Cuban foreign ministry, but is actually an official of the Directorate of Intelligence, as are many Cuban "diplomats." There are only two possible alternatives here: the governor knew he was seated with a Cuban spy who had been expelled from the United States and did not care, or he did not know who Machin was. The first explanation is awful, but so is the second: it shows at the very least, as we say in Washington, "bad staff work." It’s no surprise that the regime wanted to seat him next to the spy, but did no one on the governor’s staff inquire about arrangements, or make any demands at all? Would it have been too much to say "hey, guys, don’t seat him next to any spies who’ve been ejected from the United States, please?" Or did the governor and his staff assume good faith on the part of the regime? That would be the most embarrassing conclusion of all. It is reasonable for governors to follow the foreign policy set by the president, and reasonable for them to lead trade missions. But governors have many roles and responsibilities, and defending freedom and human rights is also one of them. “How do you foster the human rights dialogue that everybody says must progress?” the governor asked in a New York Times article. He then answered his own question: “It’s not through isolation, it’s through engagement.” But this must include engagement with people fighting for human rights, not just those abusing human rights. It must include meeting those demanding free elections, not just those denying them. The photos of the governor of New York laughing and toasting with a Cuban spy will demoralize the many Cubans who hope and work bravely for a free Cuba--and who have a right to expect politicians elected by free people in a democratic system to offer solidarity to them and not to their oppressors.    

President Obama has moved to take Cuba off the "terrorism list."  The administrations defends its move in a lengthy memorandum from the State Department to Congress, but the more they explain it the less defensible it seems. The problem is that the memorandum defends not only the Obama decision, but the Castro regime.  With the help of an accounting by Capitol Hill Cubans and an article by James Kirchick in the Daily Beast, here are some things to keep in mind. --The State Department says Cuba will now meet with us to "resolve" the cases of American terrorists and killers who’ve been given safe haven in Havana, but one would have to be a fool to think they will hand anyone over. Joanna Chesimard participated in the killing of a New Jersey state trooper in 1973, was convicted and jailed, and escaped to Cuba. Anyone placing bets on how likely it is that Castro will turn her in? --What about other terrorists? Cuba protects terrorists from the Basque ETA and the Colombian FARC, for example. If Cuba does not support terrorism, what are they doing living safely in Havana? --Then there’s North Korea. Kirchick reminds us that "In 2013, the Panama Canal Authority seized a North Korean-flagged ship ferrying undeclared weapons and armaments—including two Soviet-era MiG fighters and surface-to-air missile systems—from Cuba. According to a United Nations report on the seizure, commissioned in respect to Havana’s violation of a Security Council-imposed arms embargo on the North, the shipment ’constituted the largest amount of arms and related materiel interdicted to or from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since the adoption of [UN Security Council] resolution 1718,’ prohibiting the transfer of various weapons." The best you can say is that perhaps this wasn’t Cuban support for terrorism, just support for North Korean aggression, subversion, and repression. --How do we know Cuba has not recently supported terrorism and won’t soon do it again? Why, Castro says so. We have his word. The memorandum from State says that Cuba has told us, in writing, that “Cuba rejects and condemns all terrorist acts, methods and practices in all its forms and manifestations. It likewise condemns any action intended to encourage, support, finance or cover up any terrorist act, method or practice....The Government of Cuba has never supported, nor will it ever support any act of international terrorism.” These statements are false, because we know full well that in the past Cuba has supported acts of terrorism and terrorist groups. And as noted above, we know that Cuba continues to harbor terrorists from several countries including the United States. Isn’t that support for terrorism? --Here’s a lovely insight into Cuba’s solidarity with the United States in the battle against terrorism. After 9/11, "up to 20 Cubans walked into U.S. embassies around the world and offered information on terrorism threats. Eventually, all were deemed to be Cuban intelligence agents and collaborators, purveying fabricated information. A White House official complained bitterly and publicly in 2002 that Fidel Castro’s agents had tried to send U.S. intelligence on ’wild goose’ chases that could cost lives at a time when Washington was reeling from the worst terrorism attacks in history." Is it U.S. policy now to just let bygones be bygones, so continuing to allow Americans killers to escape the law just doesn’t matter? Perhaps so: the president said recently that "the United States will not be imprisoned by the past" and that "I’m not interested in having battles that frankly started before I was born." But the Cuban move after 9/11 wasn’t before Mr. Obama was born; it was just eight years before he was president. And as for being "imprisoned by the past," perhaps someone should ask the widow and children of Woerner Foerster about that. He was the New Jersey state policeman in whose killing Chesimard participated.

As part of the Obama administration’s deal with the Castro regime in Cuba, Castro agreed to release 53 prisoners. This was not quite the concession that it appeared to be, for some of the prisoners had already been released and the release of the rest had already been promised to Spain. Sen. Robert Menendez noted that “Some of the 53 were released well before June, before the list was supposedly put together,” he said. “As a matter of fact, 14, to be exact, were released six to eight months before the December 17 announcement. One was released over a year ago.” But the larger problem is that tyrants can always arrest dissidents, human rights activists, and peaceful protesters faster than we can get them out. So it is in Cuba, where the Cuban Commission for Human Rights has documented 492 political arrests during the single month of February 2015. This was the month during which Nancy Pelosi led a congressional delegation to Cuba, but neither she nor any of the other members of her delegation have said one word about this wave of arrests. When he announced the changes in Cuba policy last December, President Obama said "Now, where we disagree, we will raise those differences directly -– as we will continue to do on issues related to democracy and human rights in Cuba. But I believe that we can do more to support the Cuban people and promote our values through engagement." So far, that’s a delusion. And what have we done to support human rights in Cuba since the president’s announcement on December 17th? We’ve engaged in lots of secret discussions with the regime. Here is the statement from the Department of State after the meeting in late January: Today, January 22, 2015, U.S. and Cuban officials met in Havana to discuss issues of mutual interest to the United States and Cuba. The Cuban delegation was led by the Foreign Ministry’s Director General for U.S. Affairs, Josefina Vidal Ferreiro. I led the delegation for the United States. This extended bilateral session has included constructive and encouraging dialogue. We discussed cooperation on important issues of mutual interest such as trafficking in persons, law enforcement, environmental protection, telecommunications and global health security, including coordinated responses to oil spills and Ebola. As a central element of our policy, we pressed the Cuban government for improved human rights conditions, including freedom of expression and assembly. We look forward to continuing our bilateral dialogue on these important issues, including those on which significant differences remain, as our nations build on the success of these talks going forward. Note the tone: no denunciation of growing human rights abuses in Cuba. Instead, "we pressed the Cuban government." In other words, the subject was raised at these cordial secret meetings. One can imagine how much pressure the Cubans felt themselves to be under. On February 27th, more of the same from the State Department official conducting the talks with Cuba, Roberta Jacobson: I am pleased to report that today we saw the type of constructive exchange that advances us toward a more productive diplomatic relationship. This spirit of exchange is also evident in the events of the coming weeks. Next week, Cuba will send two delegations for separate consultations on trafficking in persons and civil aviation. Next month, a delegation led by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy Ambassador Danny Sepulveda will travel to Havana to work with the Cuban Government on increasing its capacity for greater internet connectivity to better support access to information by the Cuban people. Also in March, an interagency delegation will travel to Cuba to exchange ideas and information about recent U.S. regulatory changes. We agreed to meet at the end of March to discuss the structure of our human rights dialogue. Does that sound like "pressing the Cuban government" very hard? The "spirit of exchange." "Constructive exchange." Again, those remarks were made in the very month in which a wave of arrests occurred. How will the Obama administration react? Well, we have the answer: a "human rights dialogue." I once engaged in such a formal dialogue, with the Ceaucescu regime in Romania, in 1982. It was a farce, as are all such "dialogues" with vicious and oppressive regimes. Here is the key point: formal "human rights dialogues" are a substitute for action against abuses, not a form of action against abuses. So it will be with Cuba. We are now about ten weeks since the president’s great announcement on relations with Cuba, and the result so far is deeper oppression there. That increase in oppression has resulted in nothing from the American side: no serious denunciation, no words from the president, no actions (such as a delay in talks). Results so far: Obama 53 (if you want to be generous), Castro 492.  It’s not hard to see who’s winning, and it’s not hard to see that the Cuban people are losing.

Recently I wrote here about how Secretary of State Kerry absorbed the shouting and screaming of the Iranian negotiator in the nuclear talks, apparently without any objection. But it seems Kerry is not the only U.S. official amenable to being pushed around. In the last week former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, now the Democratic Leader there, led a congressional delegation or CODEL to Cuba. Needless to say, the delegation met with Cuban dissidents and human rights activists as well as with Communist Party and Cuban government officials, right? Wrong. Not a one. Why not? The Castro regime didn’t want them to. In fact, it threatened them. Here’s the story, from Capitol Hill Cubans: Last month, a delegation led by U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) met with a group of dissidents. In response to this encounter, the Castro regime cancelled all subsequent meetings with its officials, including dictator Raul Castro himself. To ensure such dissident meetings did not become a constant, the Castro regime threatened to put a halt to all Congressional delegations visiting the island -- including Pelosi’s. The condition for these Congressional trips to resume was that they don’t meet with dissidents -- and Pelosi happily complied. Last weekend’s delegation, composed of U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Mark Warner (D-VA), also happily complied. This is shameful. It does of course give the lie to theories (indulged in by the Obama administration, for example) that the new Obama policy would lead to more openness in Cuba. In fact, we now have a situation where more members of Congress want to go there, and do go, but while there they stiff the very people we should be supporting: those peacefully working for freedom. Instead, these solons of the Republic --and let’s again mention Klobuchar, Warner, Flake, McCaskill, and Pelosi--complied with the Communist regime’s demands and did not see ONE single human rights or democracy activist. Obama policy toward Cuba is bad enough, but these visits are making things even worse by suggesting that our Congress simply has no interest in freedom there. Is it too much to ask that America’s elected representatives refuse to be pushed around by the Castro regime that way? They would be much better off staying home than lending themselves to Castro’s propaganda exercises and official lectures--and surely the people of Cuba would be as well. Eight years ago Nancy Pelosi visited another dictatorship, that of Bashar al-Assad in Syria (against the advice and desire of the White House). There as in Cuba she lent herself to regime propaganda. I well recall her report to President Bush when she returned from that trip, and she was simply fooled by Assad. Looking at the fire that has consumed 200,000 lives in Syria, one might have thought she’s be twice shy about being burnt by brutal dictatorships. But one would be wrong.    

The shortcomings of the new Obama administration policy toward Cuba have been sharply described in a recent blog post at the Cuban civil society web site SATS, by Antonio G. Rodiles. Rodiles, a human rights activist, was beaten and arrested in 2012, and released after Amnesty International and other groups protested this arrest. What does Rodiles say? First, the Obama approach grants treats the Castro regime as the legitimate government of Cuba. But it has never been elected, and should not be granted that legitimacy. Second, the Obama approach grants that Cuba’s future and its "transition to democracy" will be in the hands of the current regime and its top officials. No political preconditions have been put in place before the United States moves forward toward diplomatic relations, removing the embargo, and taking other steps that aid the regime. The assumption seems to be that today’s powers that be --the Castros and their closest collaborators--will remain tomorrow, but that is a formula for continuing authoritarianism. Third, the Obama approach treats democratic development and respect for human rights as the eventual product of supposed economic transformations in Cuba. But freedom should be the prime goal, not a hypothetical by-product of economic change. Finally, Rodiles notes that this Obama approach will of course favor those Cubans who go along, as against those who seek a quicker move toward liberty and view the regime as brutally repressive and illegitimate. This too helps the Castro regime. Instead, the goal should be to open sufficient space for political actors and civil society to have the main say in the direction of change in Cuba. Cuban dissidents, democracy activists, and human rights activists have many opinions about U.S. policy, all the products of a living under the Castro regime where they face and often experience brutality and prison. It’s unfortunate in the extreme that those views appear to have no role in the formulation of American policy toward Cuba.  

There are more Cuban political prisoners  today than on the day President Obama announced his deal with the Castro brothers, December 17. Part of that deal was supposed to see 53 Cuban political prisoners released, but now it’s three weeks later and they have not been released. Nor have they even been identified. As the Washington Post put it in a headline, “Mystery surrounds 53 Cuban political prisoners supposed to be set free.” Instead of releasing them, the Cuban regime has in fact arrested more dissidents, two weeks after the Obama speech and just before New Year’s. How are we to know if the regime is ever going to meet its commitment to the Obama White House? How can we track the liberation of these prisoners? We can’t. Nor will Cuban refusal to release them slow down the Obama policy. The next step is for our Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs to visit Cuba, and she is going even if they refuse to release anyone. Read this incredible exchange between reporters and the State Department spokesman on Monday: QUESTION: Under the Administration’s deal to normalize relations with the Castro regime, 53 Cuban political prisoners are set to be released. Do we know who they are and where they are now? MS. PSAKI: Well, when the announcement was made in December, of course, the United States shared the names of individuals jailed in Cuba on charges related to their political activities. We’re not going to outline who those individuals were. We shared them with the Cuban Government. Obviously, it’s a topic that we will remain engaged with them with, but I don’t expect we’ll be releasing a public list. QUESTION: There’s a prominent dissident group in Cuba, the Ladies in White; they’ve been protesting the new policy. And they say the list is so secretive that no one knows who’s on there. Is there a lack of transparency? MS. PSAKI: Well, we know who’s on there, and the Cuban Government knows who’s on there, and we’ve given a specific number. Obviously, there are a range of steps that both sides will need to continue to work together to take over the coming weeks. One of the reasons why we felt so strongly about changing our policy is that this – the old policy was not just broken on the economic front, but it was making it impossible for civil society and people to operate and kind of live and communicate in Cuba. So there’s a range of benefits, not just the release of the prisoners, which, obviously, we see as something that’s positive and we’ll continue to discuss and press; but there are other steps that will help, I think, groups like you mentioned, and we think it will take some time but over the coming months. QUESTION: Jen, are you saying that you don’t – you cannot confirm if Cuba has actually released a single one of these 53? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to confirm for you publicly, no. QUESTION: (Inaudible.) QUESTION: Well, hold on. Hold on a second. Can we – I mean, is it – what’s happening? Are they out? Are they not out? Have some of them gotten out and others are – we’re not asking for – I’m not asking for names. It would be nice to have them, but where are they? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more updates to provide for you, Matt. QUESTION: So you don’t know or you cannot tell us if -- MS. PSAKI: It’s not that I don’t know; I don’t have any updates to provide for you. QUESTION: I don’t – okay. QUESTION: So you do know. QUESTION: So you know that they have not been released. Is that what you’re saying? MS. PSAKI: That’s not what I’m saying. I will see if there’s more – anything more publicly we can share. QUESTION: It would seem to me that if you come out and announce that the Cubans have agreed to free 53, then you should be able to say whether or not you know that the 53 have actually been released or not. That would seem -- MS. PSAKI: It’s always easier for me when we can provide more details publicly, as you know, but I will see if there’s more we can provide. QUESTION: Right. Do you know if there has been a date yet set for the migration/beginning of normalization talks that Assistant Secretary Jacobson is going to go to Havana for? MS. PSAKI: Well, they’re likely to happen later this month. I think we’re still working on finalizing the dates. Hopefully, we’ll have that in the coming days. QUESTION: And the recent arrests and then releases and re-arrests of dissidents, despite the promise to free 53 political prisoners, won’t have any effect on the timing of that or on the entire idea of normalization, or will it? MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously, I mean, as I mentioned, I mean, one of the reasons why we moved forward with the change in policy is because we want to empower Cuban citizens to give them greater ability to promote positive change going forward. And a critical focus of our announced actions include continued strong focus on improved human rights conditions, of which we know that the situation in Cuba remains poor. There are limits on fundamental freedoms. There are – including freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. This will certainly be part of our ongoing dialogue. QUESTION: Right. But -- MS. PSAKI: But no, it hasn’t impacted the timing of the next round of discussions, no. QUESTION: Well, the problem that I’m having with this, though, is that you say that the last 50 years of policy has been broken because it didn’t do anything. But then you announce that it’s changed, and within a week or two weeks of the announcement that you’re going to change your – fundamentally change, alter the relationship that you’ve had with Cuba, not only can you not confirm that the 53 people that they said they would – the political prisoners – said that they would release, you can’t confirm that they have been released; but one of the very first things the Cubans do afterwards is continue to arrest dissidents. So if the policy was broken for 50 years, the change in policy doesn’t seem to have fixed it. MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, our view was never that the changes would take place and be implemented with a matter – in a matter of weeks. This has, as you noted, been decades of a broken policy. QUESTION: Yeah. But -- MS. PSAKI: It’s going to take a long time to change it. QUESTION: Okay, all right. So is the release of the 53 confirmable publicly from you a prerequisite for Assistant Secretary Jacobson going down there and having these talks to start normalization? MS. PSAKI: A prerequisite? No, this is a -- QUESTION: So the Cubans don’t have to actually -- MS. PSAKI: These are -- QUESTION: -- do anything? MS. PSAKI: Matt, no. This is something they have agreed to. I would point you to them for any updates on the number of people or if people have been released. There are migration talks that have been scheduled for some time. Obviously, this is a different, a unique – or not unique, but a different set of circumstances given the announcements in December. QUESTION: Well, I’m sure that these prisoners would like to migrate out of their jail cells, right? So is that not – the Cubans don’t actually have to follow through on their promise to release the 53 in order for the -- MS. PSAKI: That’s part of what was agreed to, Matt. I don’t have any other announcements on that front to make. So it appears the United States is bound by this agreement to send the Assistant Secretary to Cuba, but the regime is not bound by its promise to release the prisoners. This is remarkable. Perhaps this is just shoddy negotiating by the White House, and it has served the president and the United States poorly—and the human rights of the  Cuban people even worse. But one cannot escape the conclusion that the White House was so desperate to reach a deal that it demanded close to nothing, got even less than it demanded and less than it thought it had received--and doesn’t care. So the administration announced that 53 prisoners would be released, and is mostly indifferent to the regime’s failure to release them. What should the president do? Simple: tell the Cubans to let those people out, now, or he will denounce them and rescind the changes he has announced. But of course that would turn Mr. Obama’s huge “achievement” into an obvious diplomatic disaster, and he will not do it. Better to avoid this embarrassment than to try and force the regime to keep its promises and get those people out of prison. The deal with Cuba looked weak and lacking in a genuine moral basis when it was announced. Today it looks worse. One cannot read that exchange above without cringing.    

The opening of U.S. diplomatic ties with Cuba will bring real change to the island and raise Washington’s stature in the region, says CFR’s Julia Sweig.

There is wonderful news this morning: that Alan Gross is finally free, out of a Cuban prison and back on American soil. For his family, this is the answer to prayers and the right outcome to a long struggle. Gross was unjustly imprisoned by the Castro regime. The Obama administration finally gave in and traded three Cuban spies for Gross. Whether that was a smart move can be debated. Some would argue that as Gross’s health deteriorated, the Castro regime would release him rather than see him die in their prisons. But that’s playing with Gross’s life, and it’s pretty clear that his health has already deteriorated badly. The larger question is whether the Obama administration has actually promised the Cubans far more--opening an embassy, ending the embargo, and in essence making zero demands of Havana. Reports differ; the latest suggest that talks will now commence that will cover a wide range of goals. Here’s CNN: President Barack Obama is also set to announce a broad range of diplomatic and regulatory measures in what officials called the most sweeping change in U.S. policy toward Cuba since the 1961 embargo was imposed....For a President who took office promising to engage Cuba, the move could help shape Obama’s foreign policy legacy. "We are charting a new course toward Cuba," a senior administration official said. "The President understood the time was right to attempt a new approach, both because of the beginnings of changes in Cuba and because of the impediment this was causing for our regional policy." What’s missing here? The Cuban people. Human rights. Freedom of speech or press. Free elections. An end to imprisonment of peaceful demonstrators. The impression that the CNN account and other accounts give is that the United States will seek nothing in return for giving the Castro regime just about everything it wants. Note the words quoted by CNN--a senior official talks of the "beginnings of changes in Cuba." On human rights, liberty, individual freedom there have been no changes: Cuba remains a communist dictatorship run by the Castros. The new Republican-led Congress has a job to do here: to ask whether the President simply forgot about the Cuban people’s rights in his urge to show he isn’t just a lame duck and can still do important things. To make sure that the United States isn’t giving this vile regime a lifeline just when the old age of the Castro brothers is bringing it closer and closer to an end. To limit the benefits to Castro unless and until there are human rights improvements in Cuba. Fr0m Iran to Egypt to China, the Obama administration has shown itself largely indifferent to human rights in its efforts to "reach out" to and "engage" with regimes--rather than with the peoples they oppress. This looks like another example. So, joy for Alan Gross and his family. But not for the people on the island from which he has been freed.