Within a few weeks, five years will have passed after the visit of president Obama to Cuba. As it happens with many events, the pictures that circulated in the media from the very beginning of this visit, as well as the inner mechanisms of memory, have contributed to mythologize them with some sort of mark. Given these circumstances, Temas invited a group of scholars on inter-American relations from the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean, and particularly from Cuba, to reflect on their connotation. We are retrieving these observations because of their effectiveness to think critically and equably about some problems of today and about future scenarios.

*Published on March 18, 2016

The visit of U.S. President Barack Obama to Cuba does not admit a single and simplified reading. This transcendental event demands a broad view and a multiple approach.

In the first place, it seems to mark the definitive end of the Cold War in this part of the world. No other bilateral relationship in the Americas since the outbreak of the Cuban Revolution, nor any other after the collapse of the Soviet Union, had the peculiarity of revealing so clearly the logic of the Cold War in terms of the link between the two superpowers and the countries within their spheres of influence. Three fundamental features characterized this logic: the predominance of coercive diplomacy, the notion of limited sovereignty, and ideological obsession. These features became manifest in the deployment of a policy centered on the threat and use of force, either openly or clandestinely; the refusal to allow States to adopt internally the political and economic model of their choice; and the management of foreign relations with the peripheral country based on a system of beliefs that scorned negotiation and enshrined dogmatism. Obama's presence in Cuba can be interpreted as bearing testimony to the closing of the longest and most costly chapter of the Cold War in the continent.

Secondly, this historic milestone has been made possible by significant political, economic, demographic, and other changes in the United States and Cuba that paved the way for a new dialogue. I. William Zartman, a great expert on negotiations, has studied and proved that spaces and areas for compromise open up when there is a hurting stalemate; that is to say, a damaging deadlock that makes the leaders, as has been the case here, to establish contacts, resume talks and assume commitments.

Third, the role that Latin America has played in favor of this promising change cannot be ignored. In the 1970s and 1980s, hardly a few isolated voices from progressive political parties and labor union movements pointed out that Cuba is an indivisible part of the family of American nations, that the blockade it suffers is unjustifiable, and that the normalization of U.S.-Cuban ties was growing more and more imperative. Since the advent of democracies in the region until the last American summits, governments of different nature made these assertions stronger and more far-reaching and legitimate, thus turning them into a widely shared demand and one of the few issues capable of generating broad political consensus in Latin America. Undoubtedly, the United States and Cuba have "sat at the dialogue table" for their own reasons and interests, but Latin America was always present and demanding that this longed-for moment be reached. Had the region remained apathetic toward the Cuban case, the White House would possibly have taken longer to initiate the rapprochement process we are witnessing today.

Fourth, it is important to take into account the influence of the redistribution of global power and influence on this process. It is clear that the projection and participation of actors from other regions has intensified, that Latin America's options for diversification have expanded, and that today’s world pays more heed to the foreign policies of our countries. The step taken in relation to Cuba shows that Washington intends to reassert its presence in the broad Caribbean Basin—its main security perimeter—and to not lose business deals and partners to the advance of China and other countries.

The latter also explains to a considerable degree the reason that President Obama is extending his trip to Argentina after his visit to Havana, seizing on the recent change of government in the Southern Cone country, undoubtedly more in tune with his vision of the world and his interests than the outgoing one. During the Kirchner years, particularly during Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's second presidential term, Argentina strengthened its relations with China and Russia while maintaining a "distant coldness" with Washington.

From Buenos Aires, we hail Barack Obama's visit to Cuba in the hope that it will be a decisive milestone in the bilateral rapprochement on new foundations. We recognize that there are still significant obstacles to further progress, especially the resistance to this policy of rapprochement by certain circles of power in the United States, as evidenced by the debates within the Republican Party as part of the race for the White House nomination. In this regard, it is worth bearing in mind that the lifting of the blockade is still a pending issue to be resolved after the coming US elections.

In summary, this is a very positive development now that the region is going through serious political and economic difficulties that are likely to worsen, and a bit of fresh air in a U.S. and world scenario bound to live a period of stormy weather in years to come.

Traduccion: Jesus Bran