Highway to Havana

By Heidi Jutsum on 14 November 2003

Last month, the U.S. Congress approved a bill that, if enacted into law, would have taken a small but nonetheless significant bite out of the Cuban Embargo. That is, it would have permitted Americans to travel much more freely to Cuba. But President Bush promptly threatened a veto, claiming that American tourist dollars must not become a de facto source of economic succor to the repressive Castro regime. And so it was that, only a few weeks after receiving its approval Congress reversed course on the bill, passing in its stead a "compromise" bill that in effect bows to the veto threat. (Passage of the new bill allows members of Congress to receive their annual 2.2% raise.) While the debate over the embargo will certainly continue, this recent episode over the travel ban was a missed opportunity — an opportunity to promote engagement over isolation as a strategy for improving human rights, including religious freedom.

Permitting travel to Cuba would indeed allow for an influx of American tourist dollars. However, when assessing whether or not to lift the ban it is essential to note that Canada, Italy and other European countries already contribute significantly to Cuba's tourist industry; that the UN recently passed yet another resolution against the embargo by a vote of 179 to 3; and that the American political calculus of policy toward Cuba is transparent (the Cuban exile community is politically important in Florida, a crucial swing state as evidenced in recent presidential elections).

To be sure, the Bush administration is genuinely concerned about the many human rights and religious freedom violations occurring in Cuba. According to Human Rights Watch, Cuba's "laws and practices create direct and indirect impediments of religious expression." This administration sees these injustices and believes that Cuba should continue to be punished. While for some countries the "punishment" approach in foreign policy (sanctions, travel restrictions, and so on) has some value, in the case of Cuba it is obviously insufficient and alternatives have been ignored for decades. More specifically, what is too often ignored in the embargo debate is the relationship between inter-American engagement and religious freedom.

The embargo began as a form of punishment for the Castro regime, which took power after the revolution that occurred over 40 years ago. The sanctions were implemented in hopes of stifling the revolution as quickly as it began, but the policy has only succeeded in stifling exchanges of both goods and ideas between two countries separated by a mere 100 miles of water.

As advocates for lifting the travel ban rightly argue, without the isolation created by the embargo, socialism and the Castro regime would likely collapse. Co-sponsor of the Senate bill, Wyoming Republican Senator Enzi has said, "Unilateral sanctions stop not just the flow of goods, but the flow of ideas. Ideas of freedom and democracy are the keys to positive change in any nation."

Moreover, under the current policy the embargo merely legitimates Castro's claims of U.S. culpability for Cuba's current economic woes. Instead of punishing the regime, the embargo punishes the average Cubano. If the U.S. wants to create a democratic society in Cuba, it should allow free trade and travel to Cuba.

This past March, I traveled to Cuba under one of the few exceptions permitted by the current law. Along with a group of students and professors, I participated in an academic exchange of inter-American dialogue. President Bush has recently criticized these trips as an excuse for American students to be tourists on the island. But his critique fails to appreciate the long-term dividends that an engagement strategy pays. With respect to travel policies, the most important return on the investment is this: allowing students and others to travel freely means that they are also in a position to gather information — and thereby to form diverse opinions that are less skewed by misinformation and propaganda peddled by officials and activists from both the U.S. and Cuban sides of this conflict.

When we returned to the States after our 10-day trip, the only way any of us could find to describe our experience in Cuba was to say, "It's complicated…." Nothing about the country is black and white, despite what Fidel or the U.S. government might assert. When students from the University of Havana were asked what their opinion of Cuba was, they would all respond, "Well, there are good things, and there are bad things…" and then proceed to list what they thought the issues were.

Most said they believe it is good that everyone receives healthcare, education, food, housing, and a job, but most students in this generation are not satisfied with the simple necessities their parents may have found satisfactory. They complain of not being able to go to dance clubs because they don't have dollars.¹ They complain of not being able to travel. Medical students complain that they study for years to become a doctor, yet taxi drivers and even prostitutes make more money because they receive dollars directly from tourists. Cubans are left without the hope of earning more money or building a better life for their families.

Not only will the lifting of the travel ban allow more candid dialogue and fact-finding similar to the exchange I was privileged to experience, it will also allow for faith-based diplomacy to run its course. In fact, this process has already begun. For example, the Pope, upon his visit to Cuba in 1998, criticized the U.S. in multiple addresses for continuing the embargo at the peril of all parties involved. The diplomatic effects of the Pope's travels in Cuba still resound. (Even "el hombre" himself attended the Papal homily in Havana's Revolutionary Square.²)

The Pope's example is important, because he was able to articulate a third-party perspective constructively critical of both U.S. policy and Cuba's human rights violations and political repression. The crowds who were gathered responded with "el Papa libre nos quiere a tados libre (the free Pope wants us freed)!"

The ability of any single instance of faith-based diplomacy to change things must not, of course, be exaggerated. The Pope requested the release of 500 religious prisoners on his trip to Cuba, and in turn, the Cuban government released 300 prisoners. However, according to the U.S. State Department, "while the Castro regime may release 70, 80, 100 prisoners today…State security forces will tomorrow jail 700, 800, 1,000 others who had the courage to stand up to the oppression."³

This dilemma is what makes the situation of religion freedom, like the country itself, complicated. Even while I was on the island, something out of the ordinary struck me about the religious scenes that I observed. It seems that only Hispanic Catholic cultural tradition is acceptable, not the spiritual component of religion. There is a massive European-style cathedral right in the middle of Old Havana where the Bishop of Cuba holds mass, and a 50-foot statue of Christ on a hill overlooks the city. As far as can be told by architecture, what was once a professedly atheistic state has a flourishing Catholic presence. But scratch the surface a little deeper, and you begin to have doubts about the climate for genuinely free religious practice.

As I spoke with students from the University of Havana, I began to see that spirituality is not a part of the lives of most Cubans. It is acceptable to attend mass, to make sacrifices to Our Lady of Charity, Cuba's patron saint, and to participate in Santeria, an Afro-Cuban religion, but those who actually act upon their beliefs are questioned, observed, and sometimes arrested by the government as political prisoners.⁴ For instance, Cuba's constitution calls for freedom of religion, but the government uses its "freedom" to arrest those who may be plotting against the regime, including those who are "plotting" to give out food and hygiene products to children and the elderly. The Castro regime sees this as undermining their authority to give out rations.

Religious freedom is the cornerstone of a healthy civil society, and cultivating it institutionally and culturally is no easy task. Four decades of sanctions have not proven up to this task, and the time has come for a nuanced engagement strategy. The complexity of diplomacy in Cuba — not only at the governmental but also the non-governmental levels — is grounds for the lifting of the travel ban. While no one policy change is a quick-fix, it is crucial that religious leaders, political scientists, family members, students and many others are allowed free access to Cuba in order spread the message of freedom that inter-American dialogue cultivates.

Last updated 12 January 2009