Opinion
Better Latin-American relations can only be achieved through cultural education
By Cesar Renero ’17
November 3, 2016
Tags opinion
On Oct. 27, Ernesto Domínguez López, associate professor and the director of the Center for the Study of the United States at the University of Havana, gave a lecture at Hamilton College concerning the changing dynamics of the U.S.-Cuba relationship, stressing particularly the Cuban viewpoint in an area of foreign policy that has been marked by tension and mistrust for six decades. The relevance of this talk is exacerbated not just by the racist rhetoric of the Trump campaign, but by the demographic reality that Hispanics are already the second-largest ethnic group in the U.S. behind non-Hispanic whites.
Domínguez López placed his analysis of the warming of relations almost entirely in Cuban terms, giving a refreshing viewpoint that is often dominated by American perspectives. He stressed that the start of relations does not imply an immediate normalization of relations, but rather is part of a broader regional realignment. While he hopes for a prompt end to the embargo, he recognized that there is much diplomatic work to be done before American-Cuban trade becomes a reality. He especially praised the direction the Obama administration took regarding the issue, predicting it would win favor among Hispanic voters.
In terms of Latin American policy, Domínguez López characterized the Cuban issue as a central roadblock in many countries’ trust of the United States. This viewpoint, while perhaps unfamiliar to American audiences, is frequent in left-wing circles south of the Rio Grande. The legacy of the Cold War not only left Cuba isolated, but also stymied democracy and growth in the region. U.S.-backed dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Central American countries are still fresh in the minds of many Latin Americans. Coupled with the increased income inequality and wealth concentration of American-led neoliberalism, these foreign policy failures partly explain why populist politicians, such as Evo Morales, have found electoral success by defying “Yankee Imperialism.” Normalizing relations with Cuba is a major step in the right direction to regain trust in the region and ameliorate the negative effects our Cold War policy has had on the region.
Relating to Cuba’s Marxist-Leninist regime, Domínguez López addressed the lingering question of who will succeed once the Castros leave power, pointing to Miguel Diaz-Canel as the most likely contender. This implicitly suggested that Cuba will not have a democratic revolution once its ruling dynasty dies out. Rather, Cuba will focus on salient measures to increase its competitiveness and economic activity without radically changing its political structure—a compromise reminiscent of capital-friendly Chinese communism. He highlighted the geopolitical position of Cuba as a potential regional trade hub and the construction of the Mariel Harbour as part of the ongoing efforts to increase Cuban influence in its immediate vicinity, also acknowledging the large Cuban-American population in the Floridian Peninsula. While such an idea may seem far-fetched, it also speaks to the desire of a freer, more connected Cuba that can keep up with a changing world.
However, Domínguez López’s comments must be taken with a grain of salt. His positions do not necessarily reflect the stance of the Cuban government, but certainly inform the methodology and schemas that are being used within Cuba to open its economy to the world. Following his remarks, Sol M. Linowitz Visiting Professor of international affairs and former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico and Argentina, Tony Wayne explained the diplomatic process that entailed the warming of relations, which was a two-year project. Based on such a timeline, he cautioned against being overtly optimistic regarding the relationship’s future, balancing out the main speaker’s idealism.
In a way, the two speakers’ dynamic reflected the current state of affairs: a money-thirsty nation desperate to increase economic growth, grappling with an aging superpower that finds itself treading more cautiously since the foreign policy disasters of the Bush administration. Nevertheless, the lecture itself was a representation of increased interest in the region. Donald Trump’s campaign has already lambasted Mexicans, and his most concrete foreign policy is that of his infamous border wall. Hopefully a majority of Americans will reject him at the polls, but it does evidence growing feelings of isolationism and nativism that will only engender ineffective foreign policy that fails to take into account other nations’ perspectives.
Beyond the lecture, we as Americans must realize that while we can deliberate the extent of our involvement half-way across the world, having good relations with our neighbours is critical to our national security and is ultimately in our economic interest. This can only be achieved with greater understanding of the idiosyncrasies of each national culture and political arena in one of the most diverse regions on the planet. Hamilton seems to have taken note, and appropriately secured Wayne, an expert in Latin-America, as a professor for this semester. We, too, should take note and begin concerning ourselves with our oft-ignored continent, instead of capitulating to the pangs of dread that seem to guide the conversation relating to terrorism. This is not to say that terrorism should be ignored, but that our foreign policy’s obsession with it is hampering opportunities for greater cooperation with peoples that are already living on our side of the world.