By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Biden will remove Cuba from the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list, reversing a Trump-era decision. This action, part of a prisoner release deal facilitated by the Catholic Church, is intended to normalize relations and alleviate Cuba’s economic hardship. The deal includes the release of hundreds of prisoners, potentially including those detained following 2021 anti-government protests. While Cuba welcomes the move, the decision’s long-term impact remains uncertain, particularly given potential future administrations’ policies.
Read the original article here
The US is poised to remove Cuba from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. This move, coming from the Biden administration, marks a significant shift in US-Cuba relations, reversing a decision made in the final days of the Trump presidency. The administration’s official statement cites a lack of evidence supporting Cuba’s continued inclusion on the list.
This action, however, has sparked a flurry of reactions, many centered on the perceived arbitrariness of the designation. Some critics argue that the placement and removal of countries on this list is often driven by political maneuvering rather than objective assessments of terrorist activities. The fact that this has happened multiple times, with both Obama and Trump administrations altering Cuba’s status, fuels this skepticism. The cyclical nature of this policy feels performative, lacking a consistent and clearly defined rationale.
The timing of the decision has also drawn attention. Why, some question, are these crucial foreign policy shifts often clustered within the final days or weeks of an administration’s term? The rush to make such changes often breeds suspicion that they are designed for political gain rather than genuine diplomatic advancement. The perception is amplified by the belief that fundamental changes to US-Cuba relations should have been addressed much earlier during Biden’s term, rather than relegated to a last-minute action.
This action is framed by many as a missed opportunity. Four years of the Biden administration could have seen far more substantial steps taken to improve relations. The argument that this designation is arbitrary is underscored by the long and complex history between the two countries, and the various interpretations of events that have shaped their relationship. Some observers even argue that the US itself should be considered for inclusion on such a list given its involvement in various controversial actions throughout history.
The decision’s implications are far-reaching. Beyond the symbolic gesture of removing Cuba from the list, practical effects include the lifting of economic sanctions and the potential for increased trade and cooperation. However, the prospect of a reversal under a future administration casts a shadow over these benefits. The very real possibility of a future president reinstating Cuba’s classification on the list raises concerns about the long-term stability of the improved relations. The current administration’s move is seen as a short-term benefit with a significant long-term uncertainty.
Moreover, there are deeper, more nuanced viewpoints. The Cuban exile community in Florida, a significant voting bloc, exerts considerable influence on US policy towards Cuba. Their views often shape the political calculus around these decisions, adding a complex domestic dimension to the foreign policy issue. The long history of strained relations, including incidents like the bombing of a passenger jet and the ongoing mystery of Havana Syndrome, further complicates the narrative and makes it difficult to view these actions independently of political history. This political undercurrent has led some to believe that efforts to normalize relations have been thwarted by the influence of certain political factions.
Critics point out that the US often seems to apply a double standard in its dealings with authoritarian regimes, primarily focusing on economic systems rather than human rights abuses. While the US collaborates with countries like China that have market economies despite their authoritarian rule, countries with centrally planned economies, even if they don’t engage in terrorism, face harsher treatment. This inconsistency suggests that the list isn’t truly objective, but rather reflects a broader ideological bias.
Ultimately, the removal of Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list remains a highly contentious issue. While it represents a potential step towards improved relations, it also highlights the ingrained complexities of the US-Cuba relationship and the continuing political sensitivities surrounding it. The decision serves as a case study on the intertwined nature of foreign policy, domestic politics, and historical baggage. The potential for future reversals underscores the fragility of any progress made and casts doubt on the enduring impact of this apparently symbolic gesture.