A dirty deal with Cuba would be better than the alternatives

Not since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 has the United States held so much power over Cuba’s fate. By taking control of the distribution of Venezuelan oil after capturing Nicolás Maduro, that country’s dictator, America cut Cuba off from its last reliable energy supplier. The threat of renewed tariffs has prevented other friendly countries, like Mexico, from stepping in. Many countries that employed Cuban doctors, and paid the regime directly for their service, have been bullied into sending them back, cutting off precious foreign currency. On March 16th the power went out across the whole of Cuba for the fourth time in five months. Protests are increasing. Temperatures are rising.

Not for the first time, the goal of an American pressure campaign is unclear. “I do believe I’ll be…having the honour of taking Cuba,” Donald Trump said on March 16th. “Whether I free it, take it, I think I can do anything I want with it.” Marco Rubio, his Cuban-American secretary of state, is more diplomatic but just as opaque. “Cuba’s status quo is unacceptable,” he said on February 25th, after meeting regime officials in St Kitts & Nevis. “Cuba needs to change…and it doesn’t have to change all at once.” Who knows what this means?

What is clear is that the regime has been forced to negotiate. On March 13th Miguel Díaz-Canel, Cuba’s president, admitted publicly to speaking to the Americans. A deal appears to be taking shape, modelled on the one the Trump administration has cut with the regime in Venezuela. The Americans have, in fact, been allowing fuel to be shipped to Cuba since the middle of February, but only via the private sector. Under the deal this arrangement would be expanded. The country would open up to American investment, particularly in energy. Political prisoners would be released, and exiles would be permitted to return, not just as tourists but as business owners.

Crucially, the Castro family and most of the ruling figures clustered around it seem likely to hold on to power. The Cubans in St Kitts included Fidel’s nephew and great-nephew. Mr Díaz-Canel holds little real clout, but he may well end up being ousted to satisfy Mr Trump and protect the Castros.

It is remarkable that a communist regime has managed to survive for 67 years with the world’s most powerful nation, just a hundred miles away, bent on its destruction. To do so, the regime has regularly reneged on agreements like the one Mr Trump is considering. Many of those who care about Cuba, particularly Cuban-Americans in the United States, argue against any deal that does not involve the departure of the Castro network from the island and the end of the regime.

But after six decades of single-party rule, the regime is too entrenched to be removed at a stroke. Instead, Messrs Trump and Rubio are in a position to negotiate an opening-up that may, eventually, lead to the regime’s demise. The Americans should enforce compliance to a far greater extent than they have in the past. If the regime starts using shadow-fleet tankers to import fuel, bypassing the private sector, America could seize them. If the release of political prisoners stalls, the supply of oil could be stalled too. Sanctions would remain in place, with licences being used to allow investment. If the private sector can be helped to grow faster than the state-controlled economy, the regime’s latitude for control will shrink. Over time, America should then demand political liberalisation, too.

Cutting a deal may let the regime cling on. But the alternatives are worse. If Mr Trump ends his blockade with nothing to show for it, the regime may be empowered. Continuing to squeeze in the hope of igniting protests that topple the strongmen is unlikely to work. Cubans pay a high price for challenging their government; in the past many have preferred simply to leave the country. A prolonged blockade risks creating a humanitarian crisis on America’s doorstep. That would be bad for Cubans and bad for the United States, and would risk pushing Cuba further into the arms of China and Russia.

Mr Trump wrongly thinks he can run the western hemisphere through aggression alone. But when it comes to Cuba, he has an opportunity to do what he thinks he does best: make a deal. Then he should stick to it. ■