Although the title seems to be only a rhetorical question, the truth is that it has been the most repeated –and not only in Cuba– provided that, no matter where or by whom, the issue of Cuba-US relations is addressed. The US, which is actually the relationship between Cuba and the US government (s), which is more rigorous, since it distinguishes Cuba as what it is, one, and excludes the people of the USA from the historical conflict.
Of course, at least since 2015, when the "normalization of relations" became fashionable with Obama, the answer must always have depended on what - each, or each party - understood by "normalization." And as the dictionaries tell us that «to normalize is to submit to the norm, to put in order, to make a thing normal ...», as they refer to the norm we have to go back to them again to specify what it is: it imposes or is "adopted" and directs the behavior. Thus, normalization is only possible from the norm (that each one, or each party accepts), from the principle adopted as the guiding force of conduct, and the correct development. Thus, if the norm that governs the conduct of the parties is different or, worse still if one of the parties adopts as norm rules unacceptable to the other,
And the norm that shows the history of relations between Cuba and the United States, from long before Cuba was independent, can be traced in the ambitions of what would be an imperial nation and the actions that it would take. And in doing so, it can be seen that as early as April 1812, in a report addressed to the viceroy by Luis de Onís, then Spain's minister plenipotentiary in Washington, about the territorial expansion of the United States reads: "Each day the ambitious ideas of this Republic are developing more and more and confirming its hostile views against Spain ..., this government has not proposed anything less than to set its limits at the mouth of the Norte or Bravo River, following its course until the degree 31 and from there pulling a straight line to the Pacific Sea, consequently taking the provinces of Texas, Nuevo Santander, Coahuila, New Mexico and part of the Province of Nueva Vizcaya and Sonora. This project will seem a delirium for any sensible person, but it is no less certain that the project exists, and that a plan has been expressly drawn up for these provinces by order of the government, also including in said limits the island of Cuba as a natural belonging of this Republic ». (End of quote)
Then came, in 1823, John Quincy Adams and the Ripe Fruit Policy; in the same year the Monroe Doctrine, "America for the Americans," and, following the same logic, successive governments did everything possible to prevent Cuba's independence from Spain until, considering themselves powerful enough, "inexplicably" (history shows other events and in other parts of the world "inexplicable" and conveniently used) the explosion of Maine took place as a justification for the intervention in our war of independence, and with it the possibility of taking over Cuba. Then there were more military interventions that left the naval base in Guantánamo and the possibility of turning Cuba into the first neocolonial enclave ..., and others and the same government that promoted and supported the dictatorships of Machado and Batista,
Understanding the problem of normalization and without talking more about the normality that has never been, it is necessary to assess the relationships themselves and even if they are convenient for the parties. The first idea that arises, also induced by history, is to just appreciate adherence to the rules, now considering international relations, to try to envision possible scenarios.
It goes beyond the objectives of this article even to list the long road traveled by humanity to reach the current international system, which is formally based on norms that recognize principles such as the equality of States, non-interference in their internal affairs, peaceful solution of the conflicts between them and the relationship based on the institutionality based on International Law; nor would there be enough space to outline the shortcomings of the system itself.
But it turns out that even for the United States there is no longer a system that, according to its Secretary of State, Blinken, in his speech A Foreign Policy for the American People, is not capable of "saving the world from authoritarianism" nor of "dealing with to the geopolitical challenge that China represents ». Nor does the system seem to serve participants in recent G7, NATO, Council and European Commission meetings in which President Biden referred to the need for a 'rules-based world order, and even in The new Atlantic Charter, recently signed, also talks about rules ..., although these are neither those of International Law nor those of the UN Charter, nor can they explain that even the previous rules, and the failed policies derived from them, were the that produced disasters like those in Iraq, Libya,
When it comes to relations, one cannot fail to consider the hackneyed issue of priority, or more exactly, of Cuba's supposed "non-priority" for the US. The answer becomes evident when recalling the fury with which, since 1959, all US presidents (six Democrats and seven Republicans) have acted against Cuba; also the blockade with its billionaire economic losses and suffering for Cubans, although it implies the repudiation of the genocidal policy by the world in the un; the invasion by Playa Girón with its resounding failure and the ridicule of the invaders; the hundreds of terrorist actions, including the Barbados plane crime, and the thousands of deaths and disabilities resulting from all those actions…, and the Torricelli and Helms-Burton laws,
Would it not be at least naive to suppose that so much interest from 13 American presidents (and also those who preceded them since 1812), including the current one with his sudden and excessive interest in the well-being of the Cuban people, is only related to territorial strategy and not with the geostrategy of the empire?
The analysis demands not to overestimate - because it would even disrespect the US establishment and its "symbolic power" based on the mythical history of exceptionalism and "manifest destiny" - the incidence in them of politicians who call themselves Cubans just because it serves their businesses well. , and influencers who owe their "influence" to the money allocated in the US budget to the subversion of order in Cuba and their ability to decide the foreign policy of the powerful northern nation with respect to Cuba.
Does all of the above mean that it is not possible for there to be mutually advantageous relations between Cuba and the United States? What will the everlasting claims to Cuba by the United States, its servants, and vassals, about democracy, freedom, and human rights remain, when in the United States those institutions are cracked while in Cuba respect for them is strengthened?
Undoubtedly, a civilized and respectful coexistence, in which the action of none of the parties is counterproductive to the common objectives, is beneficial for both nations and is what Cuba has always tried to be consistent with Marti's declaration that guides us. : «Cuba does not go begging around the world, it walks as a sister, and acts with the authority of such. By saving himself, save ”, which has made us respect each other as a people and we have earned the respect of others. That is why everyone knows, friends and those who are not, that no country can address the small island in intimidating language: respect requires dialogue between equals to deal with common issues.
And if the foregoing is true, it is no less true that Cuba knows that it cannot depend on an unreliable partner that is reluctant to admit that pending issues can only be solved with its government on the basis of negotiation and cooperation, and who insists on assuming that pressure, blackmail, and sanctions can break her. Cuba is also aware of the accelerated changes that have occurred and continue to occur in this 21st century in geoeconomics, geopolitics, and global governance, which make it increasingly possible to distance itself from the mechanisms in which the United States still maintains its role. hegemony.
Cuba has always been willing, despite the past and precisely because of it, to open dialogue to resolve pending issues, all of them, with the US Government, on the basis of equality, mutual respect and within the framework of the International Law and the Charter of the United Nations; It has also been cooperating in all areas, beginning with the scientific and academic and, in particular, in that of biotechnology and medicine, and including religious and cultural and business in general. All of this is well known to potential North American counterparts and known to our friends, who are many in the US, whose elite, meanwhile, has not yet been found after the resounding failure of neoliberal globalization,
By; Jorge Casals Llano, Sept,5,2021, Granma Newspaper.
