[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. welcome to inter-american dialog. i direct the rule of law program. almost three years ago presidents obama and castro embarked on a historic opening on relations between the united states and cuba. two days ago the trump administration announced a series of regulatory changes designed to partially roll back the obama administration's strategy of maximizing engagement with the people of cuba and a few months from now, cuba will undergo a historic leadership transitioning with a morebund economy and demographic challenges and a relationship with the united states rapidly deteriorating as president trump's attacks on

diplomates. and a suspension of visa services in havana prevented us from bringing a speaker from cuba to participate in today's discussions. to help us make sense of what's happened in the future months and what it might happen in the future of the united states and cuban relations, we're privileged to welcome to the dialog three distinguished friends and colleagues with decades of experience working on cuba. to my immediately left. emily is the director of center for democracies in americas, served in the obama administration at the national security council and cuban affairs at the state department and previously a provincialal stf member. and mike is the assistant professor of latin america history in specializing in

cuba. and the cuba revolution. and jorge is the professor for study of mexico at harvard university and chair of the harvard community for international and area studies, the author or editor of various books, and former president of the matlin america studies association and not least a member of the interamerica dialog. i'd like to quickly acknowledge our partners over 4 million people in cities around the globe have enjoyed the award winning photographers. and we welcome "on the edge" series, and you'll see these cycling through throughout the discussion today and we want to acknowledge the support of the for ford foundation without

whom this event would not have been possible and i'd like to acknowledge two of my colleagues at the dialog, a professor, and a cuban-american lawyer who provides invaluable support to the rule of law program. finally if anybody that is here, coffee and donuts was not provided by a group. and we'll open this up for discussion and have plenty of time for your questions and comments. emily, let's start with you. >> great, thanks. sort of put u.s.-cuba relations on a line graph with engagement on the y axis, it would be a jagged line for sure. we've taken two steps forward, one step back, one step forward, two steps back, over several decades, but the

long-term trendline is decidedly in the upward direction. and this time last year, so october, 2016 the obama administration released the sixth of six of round of regulatory changes, governing u.s.-cuba sanctions. and in each round of regulatory changes was designed to increase the flow of people, goods and information to and from cuba. and these are couched in a larger policy of engagement over two years, during the final two years of the obama administration. the u.s. and cuban governments met regularly and engaged on a number of issues and ultimately signed almost two dozen bilateral agreements and these agreements have some issues, such as law enforcement information sharing, cooperation on health, and

designating sister, marine protected areas, these are wide-ranking discussions on a number of issues. and so i say this time last year, we're on a pretty steep, steep part of the line graph in the upper direction. and more than anything, those two years of rapid progress toward normalization proves that the u.s. and cuban governments can cooperate and that their cooperation can bear fruit and i think that's important. it wasn't a sure thing that this cooperation could bear fruit. if you look ats last three years, we've seen that that affected this. this week, everyone's aware and michael just mentioned it, that we've had a downward tick on the line graph, with the release of new regulations

governing cuba sanctions. the treasury department and commerce department govern the implementation of sanctions toward cuba and released some new rules that will, in part, roll back and in part change travel to u.s. travel to cuba and the financial transactions with which u.s. entities can participate in cuba. and then the state department in concert with this released a list of 180 prohibited entities with whom u.s. persons cannot engage in financial transactions. this announcement was the fulfillment of a june announcement that president trump made in miami where he directed departments and agencies to begin to address these rules so we've been expecting them for some time. in fact, i would argue that the downward tick that we've seen this week is, in fact, not very severe and i'll get into why.

but the specific changes that were announced this week with regard to travel, individuals were previously able to travel under the people, the people category and are not allowed to do so however, allowed to travel as individuals under the support for cuban people category. there's a new definition that allows for people to stay at private bed and breakfasts, eat at private restaurants and there's a requirement that individuals do a little something else to constitute a full-time itinerary under this category, but individuals can still travel to cuba, i think that's the big take away. there's also, most notably, i think, the state department list of 180 entities are a number of hotels where

individuals cannot stay, a number of stores in old havana where individuals cannot shop. a number of government entities with whom u.s. businesses cannot do business. and in the coming days and weeks, and i know that it's already happened in many respects, lawyers will be pouring over new rules to determine what are the avenues for continued engagement. it's important to note that engagement can continue and a lot of what the progress over the last three years has been preserved. we still have a u.s. embassy in havana and the cubans have an embassy in washington. americans or u.s. travelers can still travel to cuba and enjoy a lot of the flexibility that was implemented during the obama administration. general licenses, for example. everybody 0-- often times, travelers don't

have to seek permission, they can self-certify and that remains in place. dialog will continue. the u.s. and cuban governments said they would continue to dialog and areas of mutual interest. it's not by any means close to a full reversal of the engagement that we've seen over the recent years. and all of this comes at a time where there is considerable momentum. the u.s. travelers are continuing to travel to cuba. in may of this year, we already reached the mark of the number of u.s. travelers to cuba for the entire calendar year of 2016. this comes at a time when there's congressional momentum. bipartisan congressional momentum. representative rick crawford introduced a bill for the use of financing in agricultural sales and there are now 44

republicans in the house than bill. and the vote to lift the travel ban, 55 on that bill. that's a majority. i think it's important to realize there's a steady path of momentum from travelers, to congress, and also the private sector. last week we saw john deere and caterpillar sign pretty big deals at the trade fair in havana and that demonstrates that there is-- there may be some negative news and negative rhetoric coming out of the u.s. government, but it can't quite put back in the bottle what was unleashed over the last two and a half years. but there are challenges and i think we'll hear more about those in a little bit from other panelists, but the, you know, for example, there's a leadership transition in cuba coming up in february and we don't yet know what that will

bring. and also, we are operating currently at skeleton staff, the u.s. embassy in hanania -- havana and there's an ongoing investigation into those systems. and you know, the u.s. has drawn down our diplomates from havana and it's important to understand, issued a travel warning alongside it, but the travel warning in many respects is figured bureaucratically by the drawing down of our diplomates. the next step that the u.s. took to expel cuban diplomates from washington. seems to be a bit of a step too far or at least a step that begs the question why, in the

midst of an ongoing investigation, did the u.s. government ask the cuban embassy to draw down their diplomates and do so in a way where they handed a list, reportedly handed a list of 15 specific names to the cuban embassy, names that gutted the commercial section and consulate of the embassy in washington. investigation into the arguably serious symptoms by our diplomates is ongoing and we don't know yet what will turn up. i say that to note while we have taken a step back or are on the downward path of the line graph right now. it's not quite as bad as it could be. but there are some challenges on the horizon. >> terrific. thanks, emily. mike, let's go to you. >> thanks so much, good morning. thanks so much for the dialog for having me and having this

event. i was asked to focus my opening remarks on the cuban-american community, now they, we i should say, as part of it fit into the present picture of hu u.s.-cuban relations and how we are affected by some of what was mention. there are vocal voices that are behind the recent changes announced just yesterday so that begs the question, is there a consistency there that supports these efforts or are there other voices? let me just start with some context. for the past, i think, approaching 20 years, the university where i worked, has conducted a rigorous hole-- poll and it shows there's a steady trendline of shifting

opinion on matters of u.s.-cuban policy. there is strong community support in the cuban-american community for the right of all americans to travel to the islands. there's majority support for ending the embargo. there's particularly strong support, almost universal, i would say, for the right of cuban-americans to travel to the island to see family whenever they wish. so it's not surprising of the changes implemented in u.s.-cuban relations and u.s.-cuban policy since june, this is one that hasn't been touched and i don't think that that's a mistake or a coincidence. before the obama administration one of the other real restrictions in place was a severe limitation on the cuban-americans particularly to see the islands and visit their families. and the obama administration got rid of that early on before

2017. and those against engagement in miami recognize it's a political loser for them to tell constituents could go see mine. there's a way that the cuban-american community is not changed. their aeblt to travel to the island remains free and unfettered. and i think it goes to a dynam dynamic, the broader noise in u.s.-cuban relations may not resonate enough as far as they're impacted. but there are ways they're affected by recent developments. to the extent that there are less u.s.-- a flowing economy, grow of people, goods, money, may also be impacted.

cuban-americans that travel to the island don't only go to hug mom, they go to bring cash. on the order of several billion dollars a year in remittances that these folks support their loved ones. if you have a rich, trans national economy, a sector by suitcase and also the black market. when people are bringing stuff on planes that they do, if we see u.s. airlines cutting back on flights, if we see less this, versus impacting the small business sector. that might slow some of that motion in so far as it's connected to particularly the tourist sector. the most important consequence that i would argue that the cuban-american community is going to feel, is a reflection in the reduction of staff both

at the u.s. embassy in havana and here in washington. the end of the wet foot-dry foot policy the wanes days of the obama administration was a tough pill to swallow for cuba in general although everybody saw it coming. this was kind of a self-fulfilling process. and the cubans were eventually to pave the way. so, cubans began to leave the island in really record numbers, highest in 30 years, sort of the attitude was, if you're going to go, you've got to go now and that of course, only accelerated the speech in which it would come to an end. if that's a bitter pill to swallow, cubans had a tough time beau understanding where it's coming from.

what's happening now with the u.s. at embassy and no conflict there, that closes yet another avenue of outmigration and not just out migration, but travel, the number of visitors veez is as they were getting to come to the united states was not unsubstantial and businesses were left in limbo. i think i read the u.s. concord in half van na had the largest number of visa applications, maybe something like 100,000. and now it's totally uncheer what's going to happen there. the state department said that visas moved to bogota, colombia, not a practical solution. for many reasons, for reasons that the cubans need to get to

colombia and enough money in the bank. when you apply you don't necessarily get a decision right away. what is the cuban supposed to do, go back to havana and then go back. i think this is going to lead you sharply of the amount of kuhn bans coming to the united states and this has implications what is between the u.s. and cuban governments dating back to the '90s, and there was an issue of 20,000 travel documents for people to travel and i have a hard time figuring out how viable with that they're going to meet that mark. they've also still not made clear whether there's going to be any process for issuing visitor's visas and slows down this kind of transnational flow. so, this does have serious impacts, this is an area i would say of kind of political

vulnerability for representatives from miami who are defending this policy change, but these constituents are really suffering these practical effects. in miami, it's completely possible to be a member of any political party, to have voted for the current president or not. and still believe that you want to bring your sister over to come live with you. and so, i think to the extent that this drags on, this is going to be a real problem and i hope that constituents will tell their representatives about ...

>> everybody regardless of your citizenship status. and those are u.s. citizens have the right to vote. i've often thought that as much effort and resources are put into support for engagement in washington, i'd like to see folks do a voter registration drive. i think that would help the cause. i think as i said already humans are not single issue voters. it's possible to voted for trump and not support his cuba policy. i would also say this electoral time may be changing. 20 team will be interesting in miami. for many of you know the longtime representative ileana ros-lehtinen is retiring and that race is quickly shaping up to be a rather dynamic one, one democrats think they can flip. the field is incredibly crowded.

hard to predict where that's going to end up but if that seat flips, that could have significant consequences for u.s. policy. i would agree, last thought, the rollback which seemed under the trump administration is significant and it was a real effects but it also nothing close to a complete cancellation of the deal quote-unquote. so i think for those of us who believe in the value of engagement there's still space to work and to continue to push and advocate for that agenda. >> thanks, mike. >> i'm delighted to be back at the inter-american dialogue once again to chat about a topic that is successfully the mother in many ways. the conversations of the sort have been going on for a very long time. i thought in molise idea was

particularly helpful in that sense -- emily's i did. the way i would like to use my remarks, perhaps not my usual mode but i think it's helpful. how can the president's policies advance the presidents goals? and so my own views will i hope be clear to you along the way but it seems to me that's a good way to frame it because this is the president of the united states and we are thinking about the president's goals and the president's policies. to begin with the things he has said including over the last few days that he cares about the value, the utility, the importance and the rights of the u.s. base near the cuban city of one tolerable.

whether the role of the base -- guantánamo -- will or will not expand is unclear to me but it would almost continue as a prison for some indefinite period of time. and for that purpose beginning with bush 41 and continuing under clinton, bush 43 and obama and continuing now, there has been an effective cooperation between the u.s. and cuba armed forces, and the reason for that is all sides have a similar interests. the u.s. doesn't want the prisoners to get after the cubans don't want the prisoners to get in and, therefore, to advance the president's goals with regard to guantánamo it makes sense to sustain the policies of the president inherited. take a different topic, what is a signature questions during the trump presidential campaign on which is continue to emphasize over the last several months of the first year of his

administration is migration. and as you have heard, therefore, the agreements signed in january 2017 fits perfectly with the presidents migration goals and, therefore, the continuation of those inherited policies fixed admirably well with the president's goals. the easiest way to put it is cubans would be treated in the same way as everybody else under u.s. immigration law when they seek to enter the united states. the more important point is that they are bilateral agreement indicating that the joint interest and the joint consent of the two governments that include not only treating cubans in that way but also for the use to return cubans who have attempted to enter the united states without proper documentations to cuba. whether they're crossing the

straits of florida whether they're crossing the u.s.-mexican border and cuba would agree to accept. that is a better agreement than united states has with any other country in the world. it is a lot more effective. it is much more for a chattel treatment for the u.s. coast guard and for other u.s. migration personnel involved in this issue. so to advance the president's goals, policies of the president inherited on this issue area work very well also. law enforcement, with regard to a variety of topics, certainly violent crime but drug trafficking, the president has made it clear during his campaign and at various times during the first year of his presidency that he cares about the basket of issues that one would associate with regard to law enforcement. cuba and the united states begin to cooperate informally but

steadily on law enforcement issues through the 1990s, and last summer of 2016. they formalized and agreement to make sure that security forces in both countries could be especially effective. for anyone who reads through u.s. government reports with regard to whether other governments in other countries do or do not cooperate and advance the policies with regard to truck traffic interdiction and punishment of criminals associated with that line of work, cuba shows up amazingly well. it's not just the commitment of the cuban government but to the effectiveness of the cuban government at doing exactly what president trump's goals indicate cuban government policy and cuban government goals are to be. so in this issue area as well,

affirming the inherited policies of the trump administration has received served best the president's goals. onto a different topic. president as indicated at various times that he thinks with regard to international trade, u.s. should enjoy surplus. and if you apply that to cuba, beginning at the start of the 21st century, early in the bush administration, authorized by congress the united states became an agricultural exporter to cuba. and that created a, , but almost any calculation of percentage standards, a sensational, albeit in terms of monetary worth, only a few billion dollars. but a sensational trade surplus for the united states.

those policies of agriculture exports continued under the obama presidency, have continued in 2017 under the trump administration. the numbers, the amount for calendar 2016 was in the neighborhood of $245 million. the civil aviation agreement negotiated during the obama administration also fits well with the presidents preference for a symmetric agreement that advance the economic interest of the united states. the agreement on paper looks like any normal civil aviation agreement where there is the rights established for both sides. in practice cuba has only one airline, and it does not apply to united states. so all the traffic between the united states and cuba necessarily adds to the one-sided economic advantage of the united states. and even the regulations that

went into effect yesterday as you look through it, the closer you get to a u.s. business interest, unless adversely they are affected. it's important to bear in mind that even this help of a symmetric economic relations has to consent of cuban government. because for the cuban government, this is not an optimal deal but it is a a much better deal than that having this. because it is what makes it possible to increase the number of visitors as emily indicated. it is what makes it possible to develop other areas of economic activity in a country where the best functioning, one of the two best functioning economic sectors happens to be tourism. the other one is the -- [inaudible] but that also tells you is that all of the issues that i am

touching, they cuban government may not like some of the new regulations that have gone into effect. although the words that accompany the regulations but it doesn't have a better -- [inaudible] what is interesting that the cuban government response beginning early in 2017 but particularly, how remarkably came it is. how remarkably moderate it is. because it does not have that response and this is what makes the continuation of these policies possible. president indicated in his remarks in june that he also cared about fostering market economy openings in cuba. and there are various ways in which there may or may not be a u.s. relationship with the cuban market economy. but for pillars of our visitors, flights, remittances, and

permitting the kind of economic activities such as airbnb to which u.s. visitors may go. one of the things that is noteworthy about the regulations that went into effect yesterday is they affirm all for. you heard first from emily and then from michael. visitors can visit. flights may may continue. remittances may be set, and people are being steered into private bed-and-breakfast agreements, whether manage or not by airbnb does not matter in this case. they cuban private economy particularly in the city of havana thrives under these arrangements, will function better under these arrangements. add to the extent that the president truly does believe in the goal he has articulated to support a market economy in

cuba, then the policies that yesterdays regulations reaffirmed advances the president's goals as well. bear in mind the cuban government may be somewhat unhappy about elements about its private sector economy may have been growing. there is some public evidence of that, but they cuban government does not have a better alternative to grow its economy than to permit these activities. so once again in this area it can sense to the evolution. worth remembering not an yesterdays regulations but worth remembering that the president's budget proposal for the congress, it may be dead on arrival because havana has not -- ileana ros-lehtinen has not yet stepped step down but theye to to zero at the $20 million and usaid money out of it and that is entirely consistent with the preferences of the cuban government.

political changes, they been alluded to already. the president falls by his words and his actions and the secretary of state, by being even more explicit in his words to career foreign service personnel at the state department have indicated that a regime change is not a top priority, in general, although foreign-policy and the united states. the secretary of state in particular has described it quite clear. with regard to cuba that seems to be different here what is interesting is if one follows the logic of the remarks of the president and the secretary of state it is because there's not that much at stake in u.s. cuban relations. that the administration believes that can afford to pursue a policy that have occurring components of regime change. but it is even in that context not pushing it enough to undermine or even to undercut

the other presidential goals and policies that i have summarized. but to the extent that monitoring the presidential succession scheduled to take place in cuba at the end of the month of february, it does make sense to continue diplomatic relations as the trump administration continues to affirm, to monitor a process of succession. that may include that only president raul castro but, of course, many of the members of leadership. it includes affirming cuban-american travel. it includes affirming study abroad programs of the like, all because there are among the relatively to instruments that the united states has to try to facilitate, to encourage, to motivate possibilities of political change in cuba, as does that segment of the presidents remarks in june of 2017 were president trump indicated that he would like to continue to negotiate with cuba,

in particular with regard to fugitives of justice but more generally in regard of providing a variety of motivations of topics to be confirmed. the issue then with the regulations advanced yesterday, nearly all of which were anticipated by the president's remarks last june, could be put in the following way. the political news from yesterday, as opposed to the regulatory news from yesterday, political news from yesterday is how much of the inherited policies has been reaffirmed. down to the credit cards that you and i know we can, in fact, use, but they were part of the old regulations and have remained in the new regulations. it is noteworthy that some of michael's representatives in congress found the decisions

yesterday not to have gone so far as they would've liked, and if you follow the line of argument i have been trying to present to you, it is because this more modest version of the regulations injures less the president stated goal. that is my take on the regulations. regulations yesterday for the most part advanced none of the president's goals. they get in the way of market opening activities. they make it more difficult to advance the kinds of practical objectives that are an element of the component of a presidential statement in june about fostering entrepreneurship in cuba in the private sector. they offer the most part -- they are for the most part annoying. the impact on the cuban government will require some relatively modest readjustments at the margins. more annoying they will be to

u.s. travelers and to student groups or universities and colleges that wish to establish. what is most adverse for the president's goals, what is truly counterproductive to almost any view of presidents goals as he has articulated, and at this point i end, is shredding the consulates in havana and in washington. people need to move. to accomplish the kind of objectives that the president has articulated, preventing the issuance of these is a gross mistake. the sooner it is corrected, the better. but i think we're better off if we try to think through and argue the kinds of lines that i've tried to sketch to you.

for those who like me, may disagree with regulations that went into effect yesterday, formulate in a way that tells the administration we do understand a lot of what you were doing and a lot of what you are not doing. stop there. >> terrific. i do so much. so we've got a rich set of issues on the table. i'll take the prerogative to throw the first question to all of you. if we take emily's line graph metaphor and try to extend that up into the future, i think i heard from all of you that we are certainly on a downward slope at the moment, that the relationship at the moment are going through a rocky period. but i also heard reasons for perhaps cautious optimism, some factors that point to underlying

strength or resilience in the relationship, whether emily's references to congressional support for trade and travel, whether mike's discussion of the attitudes of the cuban-american community especially as it pertains to strong operating consulates in both countries that allow the movement of people that the committee has become accustomed to, or jorge i think very salient discussion of narrowly interpreted just interest and how does her best advantage in many cases by policy of continuity rather than one of change from the prior administration. so i guess being a little provocative, does that mean that you are all optimistic that a couple of years from now we will look back at this as sort of a low point and that these underlying factors will, over time, put us in a better place

in the bilateral relationship, or do say continuing kind of deepening of this current freeze? and if i could ask all of you in answering to make reference to what's happening in cuba, especially the leadership change. i think many of us saw the video of vice president circulated recently pointing to certainly no immediate change and seven more cut of hard-line policies on the cuban government. if you could reflect on the way in which events in cuba itself may sort of shape this timeline is expensive now, say, 24 months. let's start maybe with jorge this time and work backwards. >> let me take where your question-comment just ended. so if you dial back to president obama's visit to havana, in

retrospect it was too successful. it scared the cuban leadership. and beginning with the casters last public act of defiance he publicly criticized his brother for how the obama invitation was handled. and that led to a time which had not ended by the time of the u.s. presidential election, and that has continued since that time. that has constrained what might've been further consequences of opening of u.s.-cuba relations in terms of cuba domestic politics and freedom of expression, , the kis of concerns that vice president diaz-canel articulated in that set of remarks in the video.

there is a cuban election coming up, not just a presidential succession that has been scheduled. cuban elections have not received a vast amount of attention from the international press because the national assembly elections, as i suspect all of you know, it is an ideal electoral law, if you're a politician. the number of seats is equal to the number of candidates, and so you will win. the interesting feature, less well-known about cuban electoral law, is that it is nevertheless, retained three rights for the voter. i'm not counting abstentions. these people show up to vote. one is, you can vote blank. second one is you can i know your ballot. and the third is you can vote selectively for reasons that i've never understood the cuban

government decided, cluster candidates pixel in any district you are electing between two and five people to the national assembly. and so you can vote for candidate a and not for candidate b even though you know both will become numbers of the national assembly. but nevertheless, it is also clear that what the cuban communist party and the mass organizations want you, dear voter, to do, is to vote for the united slate. so you can sum those three votes blank, no and selected and call them, they are not dissident but you can call them nonconforming. and in the 2013 national assembly election, between one-fifth and a quarter of the votes were nonconforming votes. 1.8 million cubans choosing to vote in ways that are at odds with the preferences of the

established political organizations. that's not a small matter. it was not a tiny number. it is one of the reasons why the municipal election process that is now underway, the government is much more alarmed about who might be candidates that might be their case. suppose the cuban electoral law said something such as this, in a district with two to five candidates, the candidate with the fewest votes would be defeated. what a radical idea. five candidates, for get elected, one loses. if the rule had been applied in the 2013 national assembly elections, one-third of the political bureau would've been defeated. that's part of the political process. not just a change of pace.

if i were a vice president trying to become president of cuba, i would do what politicians in any country do. i assume that those who would like an opening already forming. the ones who i like, , whom i nd to win because that's where the meeting voter and the selector or so, 1000 people are so who have an opinion may be in the team of the next president of cuba. those are the ones who are afraid of the opening, and so if i were advising diaz-canel, which i should ought not, , i would advise to do exactly what he did. >> thanks. mike. >> i'm not particularly optimistic at the moment about this dip just being a temporary thing. i guess expense of how we define

temporary, but certainly over the course of this administration, i don't see any real strong incentive for this administration to try to figure out the consort issue in particular -- console her. i think there's an element of the administration that would just as soon not be issue as my pieces to everybody, to be frank. and so there's an element of this that kind of results whatever we think about the measures that were taken to reduce the personal and whether they're justified or not. the result is sort of even more consistent with the policy on immigration than -- [inaudible] so i don't think that's particularly encouraging. i would also say that in terms

of cuba's internal dynamic, i mean, i think so but jorge is just described predates the trump administration coming in. there was a way in which, the manner in which the obama opening was framed at times really wrangled the other side. politically it had to be framed here i think as an argument of, well, if the old policy didn't work, let's try something else. the problem is work to what end? and that, republican or democrat, is not one the cuban government really liked. and still feels that way. so the notion that a nicer u.s. policy would be a kind of a trojan horse, that's something that was in the rhetoric, , and the cuban authorities have begun to react to. so maybe counterintuitively, a policy even if it's mostly rhetorically aggressive and most engagement has remained, or

there still a lot of avenues for that, the harshest rhetoric will be easier to deal with i think on the other side. i think it might be an element of cuban and political society that knows how to deal with this. this. i would say there's another, but the is a new variable, and that variable, or several new variables. cuba's economy is not doing great. they have not been able to meet the projected targets for growth. there was some positive news this past week about foreign investment, but the demographic problem is real. the sort of stalling of the integral of economic agenda, things haven't moved, right, august there was a freezing of issuing a new licenses for small business people. these are things i think reactions to some of things happening under obama, and don't help the scenario going forward.

so i don't really know what the relationship is between the internal and external. it's a complicated question, but i'm not, i've got to be honest, i'm not particularly optimistic. i think there are important avenues to keep engaging to keep some of the traveler going. this will not be like falling off a cliff. certainly in the next year or two i think we may be in for some inertia. >> emily? >> i think over 18 year. the trendline will continue to be positive. over two years i don't know -- ten year time period as articulate in my remarks, there's been a lot of momentum on travel, on business ties, on government dialogue. that will i think will continue, but as with all mentioned, cuba is getting ready to it into a leadership transition. we right now are acutely aware

that during leadership transitions there's a lot of rhetoric. there is a lot of uncertainty. there's a lot of posturing, and it's unclear how that will affect the bilateral relationship. but i think i'll focus for a second on congress because i think it's really remarkable that despite the negative rhetoric from the trump administration and despite the june announcement and despite the departments and agencies spending the last several months drafting new rules to restrict trade and travel, that there has been a concerted effort in congress to gather cosponsors the bills to either lift the embargo entirely or to erode elements of the embargo. and among republicans, and i think that's really worth mentioning, because some of the folks, and it's not just senator

flake who has positioned himself publicly at odds with the administration, but some in the house who were among the first supporters of candidate trump during the primary are the leaders on these bills to promote engagement. and they are the ones you are advocating to their colleagues they need to change our policy, and they have, over the last six months, gathered more republican cosponsors and i think that bodes well for a continued positive trendline. >> perfect. okay. that was a great introductory session. we are ready for your questions and comments. we will take three at a time, and then hopefully have time for a few rounds. i see a couple hands here. start with you. >> thank you. dan erickson with star strategy. i want to come back to the point of cuban entrepreneurs.

it's possible listen to the counter to with this as possibly being good for cuba's automobile sector because it will push more of the visitors into that sector -- entrepreneur sector. i want to know what have you seen or heard entrepreneurs on the ground. how the interpreting this? just the second question, cuban society and what's the society reaction to this? >> thanks. right here. >> good morning. alex sanchez, i'm a defense analyst. one question for emily. you talked about, you think worst-case scenario -- [inaudible] going back to intersection, or is just a red line, cannot happen or something that could happen after new counsel comes into power? another question really quickly. i think michael can talk about

it. you talked about business cannot go to in cuba. can you talk at which ones they are? imaging airbnb, like restaurants and stores, they can get -- they cannot go to and how is this enforced? thank you. >> a question of here. >> former foreign service officer, 31 years. on the cuban desk in 1968, -- [inaudible] number two in the intersection, 79 and 80. so doing a great job. i'd like to ask a leadership question. raul castro is a great guy that opened up cuba in the 20th century. in my day, old days, he was a bad guy. he didn't give eight hour speeches, but he ran the army,

the intelligence service, and the police. he protected his brother from the bad guys, probably killed -- sent on great missions out of the country to keep him away, sent into angola, olivia, how ridiculous. so he's a bad guy and use company, which we been talking about to make money for the army, the police and intelligence service pixel in my book, and i'm old-fashioned, he's a bad guy. so, you know, is he -- >> question. >> easy changed? is he going to heaven? >> what happened to him? >> we don't get a lot of easy

going to heaven questions around here, so that's good. emily, let's start with you. >> i was in havana in june during the president announcement, and i was on, my itinerary was to meet with a number of cuban entrepreneurs to get their assessment of the u.s. policy debate and advancement announcement. i happened to be there when the announcement was made. president trump in his remarks said that his policy towards cuba was designed to support the cuban private sector and it was designed to divert funds away from government, certain government coffers and into the cuban private sector. and the folks i was meeting with were pretty clear that that was not, they did not think that the policy would have that effect. and a month later we brought a number of them up to washington so that they could make their voices heard in the d.c. debate.

they met with state department come with commerce, with a number of members of congress, and presented some policy recommendations as to how u.s. policy can best support the cuban private sector. but in that month interim between the announcement and the advocacy, they had all experienced a number of cancellations. their overarching sentiment was that negative rhetoric and ambiguity in our policy deters travel and deters engagement. and in the short term had seen the impact of that. and now fast-forward to present day in the wake of the travel warning, they had seen a for the reduction in cancellations. they cuban private sector, it's not all hospitality focus. we had a couple of folks on the advocacy delegation who served cuban clients, but the cuban clients who they serve are, many

of them come in the hospitality sector and have extra resources because of the increased travel primarily of u.s. travelers, increased resources to be able to contract an event planner to plan their wedding, or to post ads in a private magazine or two higher a fancy photographer to come and do some ads for the hospitality business. the hospitality sector had experienced acutely the short-term impact of the ambiguity of the policy and the negative rhetoric. the secondary market, i'll call it that, was starting to feel the impact and i fear that's going to be felt more in the coming months. that said, i've also heard from the travel industry that there's a sense of relief that the rules have finally come out.

what was really hurting the travel industry from the perspective was a months long drafting process and the fear of what was coming and the uncertainty and the rules that stated if you bought your ticket before the announcement or was it before the implementation of the rules, or was it, you know, before present trump was elected, what were the different goalposts. and the average traveler from the united states would just as soon wait until the dust settles before traveling. and i think from the travel industries perspective, yesterday the dust began to settle and there will be a clearer view on the path, on the ways to travel still to cuba legally and that will have an

impact supporting the cuba private sector down the road. >> i don't have much to add to emily's response on the small business side. i will just say what of the weird regulatory things that we had to figure out i think the travel industry want to figure out is if individual people, people travel is not possible and have to go to a big group again, this expanded definition of support for the cuban people, which looked a lot like what people to people was. whether there is enough momentum to sort of final people into that and convince people it's okay or people can get on board the train, i i think that's toe seen. in addition to the fear of leading up to the regulations, the other thing that may impact things going for it is just this negative noose around this. i think people often are not as into the weeds reading regulations as i was just her

and they just year i can't go anymore, and that's the end of it and they decide to go somewhere else. there may be further ends, small business sector certainly i've interacted with and a concerned about her idol show increasing the overall numbers of u.s. travelers, i think as confusion, helps that sector. so to the question on enforcement, it's a good question. the list of banned enterprises i think is 180-ish. most of that list is comprised of various hotels that are joint ventures between, not all but many are joint ventures between a foreign company and another branch of the cuban or state company that is linked or is at least accuse of being linked to the cuban armed forces. but there's also some really strange things. you can't engage with i think a

preserve the soda but it doesn't list another branch of soda that is also made. so we're not in the business of telling americans which brands of soda they can drink. rahm, too. there are some rum brands listed but not others. so as far as getting rid of if the mantra visit administration is stripping away useless regulations, this seems to fly in the face of that. but enforcement is a keeping. cuba's economy is basically a cash economy especially from a tourist perspective or least the u.s. taurus perspective. so how to figure out, how to audit the receipt of which brand of coke i drink utterly know if that's -- also don't know, i think the point is just to create sort of regulatory mark to diss incentivize people from potentially going for a doctorate of any dramatic increase budget. i would like to think that more

important things to worry about will have to see if there's any really enforcement follow-through, greater auditing. i do think the enforcement peace might fall disproportionately on some kinds of folks. there's new wording i'm still trying to parse and forgot about educational travel, about study abroad programs. jorge i know as express would you do with the bureaucracy of n those matters, and i think u.s. university study abroad programs may be an easily identifiable and conspicuous target. in terms of society, and i will end with this, that's a loaded term as a know and it's a complicated one. what i was it if there is a sector of civil society that's to medical onboard with the trump administration policies, i don't think, they don't speak for the vast majority. i would include society quote-unquote just everyday people, and this is not being seen favorably. i think there's an incredible, the normalization process had

its ups and downs. i think they were overinflated expectations of what it would bring or how quickly an average cubans perspective. there were some clear winners in the process, others not so much. but the idea that we go back even if just, still get back on track tenures later, that that is just an incredibly disappointing thing, particularly for young people who have made a conscious decision to stay with some of had the opportunity leave and it seen most of the friends up in the upper i live in miami or elsewhere. and so did not be going back to this kind of old story i think it's a tough pill to swallow. i hope it doesn't last long. >> jorge, do you want to take on the question of legacy? >> very much so. it's a very good question and you're quite right to ask this. there is, it's noteworthy that there are many and have long been many biographies of fidel

castro but not one good one of raul castro. but moreover, it is analytically important still today, given that run will remain esters sector of the cuban communist party after the february presidential transition, remains pertinent to think about it. first point is the contrast, if one takes a long time span of raul castro slice, he first appears -- life -- in the public arena in 1958 when troops under his command, rebel troops under his command kidnap a whole bunch of your citizens. and subsequently available archival information made it clear that at the time his brother fidel castro thought that raul was an extremist and nearly crazy. and so there was a real difference of opinion between the two brothers. jump forward to the mid-1960s,

it is ministry that is responsible for and it is him as minister who most races ending the program known as the -- [inaudible] military units for production which were in effect of course labor camps were a variety of people were sent, most notably thousands of those accused to be homosexual. it is raul castro who invites -- to havana. his daughter is advocate of confirming that being gay is not a crime under laws of the republic of cuba and adopting a number of practical policies including police returning to make sure that this is affirmed. in 1968, cuba's main miniversia

cultural revolution called the revolutionary offensive, raul castro publicly affirms we did not make a revolution to protect the right to trade, the ex-appropriation of these clearly salient activities like barbershops in beauty salons and hot dog stands and plumbers, all of which now become state enterprises. it is the same raul castro who in 2010, fall of 2010 announces what comes we know it as a policy to the cuban economy. that opens up a significant growth for all of these small private business activity. two very different kinds of behavior. the first time i noticed a split between the two brothers is in the early 1990s. in the middle of a severe economic crisis when raul castro publicly gives an interview, he had his favorite journal is give

him a planted question, what is the greatest threat to cuban national security today? and raul castro answered -- beings. cubans have to eat and it is only after that that you have fidel castro authorizing policy changes to the private sector. -- beans. so the interesting question is today raul castro is used, always his views which he had suppressed them just as other people are known to suppress their sincere views at a moment in time. i don't think so. and that's why i mention the 1958 decision to kidnap a bunch of u.s. citizens. i think that this is a man who generally learns, learning meaning he changes substantive views on important questions. he changes substantive views not just from degrading but because the world has changed and he, unlike his brother, was prepared

to adjust to these changes. and that might not get him into heaven but at least into purgatory. [laughing] >> what i've heard so far is what the u.s. reaction to trump is going to be, have u.s. may or may not perform what kind of relationship. they cubans have a role in this, i presume. they have to make choices about the reaction to the new policy agenda of the trump administration. we see some countries have gotten angry. some politicians in latin america get angry at the united states, call for resistance, and others, perhaps the wide majority are ready to

accommodate the trump presidency and try to find ways of continuing. is there any debate, discussion about how government ought to respond on trump policies, let's say? >> let's go to the gentleman here and then finish up with mark. >> wally crenshaw, howard university. my question is really revolving around the macrolevel. as policies continue to shift there was a conversation about a limiting the 10% tax on u.s. dollars at the exchange level. how is it impacting will continue to impact moving forward? secondly, the question around the currency, and how is that going to impact on moving things

forward? and then lastly, three, four, five months ago there was a dialogue on both sides of doubt, democrat and republican, about a real serious discussion about the elimination of the blockade. has that die completely or to receive some of that continue to happen behind the scenes and expects him to happen in the future without? >> mark schneider. >> mark schneider, csis. this goes to the question, jorge, of your linking trump goals and policy decision. and to some degree it also question of where raul is. this relates to venezuela. and from the standpoint of the trump administration, venezuela is one of the few areas latin american policy we've been very outspoken, and clearly opposed to the direction of events in venezuela towards a more dictatorial regime. and in that context obviously

one of the few nations seems have some influence in venezuela is cuba. so the question is, does a recent policy decisions, one come have any effect on cuba's willingness to play a useful role? or is it simply unrelated and is unlikely to be any shift in cuban policy with respect to venezuela? >> thanks, mark. let's start there, jorge, if you want to take the question and we will move backwards. >> so to peters question, i would say the cuban government has, by its actions, and more recently by its words, signaled very clearly how it is thinking about this. it is prepared to continue go down the list, guantánamo,

migration, civil aviation and the like, cuban government is all set with that. the response to whether it was the response to the new regulations or the response to the speech in june, the self-discipline with which cuban government officials have responded is noteworthy at a minimum, to put it very mildly. this is a highly professional team, long in office from raul castro all the way down, and this is their view. i think honestly the reason is they do not have a better alternative. it is not better for them to tear up some of these things to retaliate against the united states. and my assumption is, as much as they dislike having to

accommodate and adjust to the trump administration, that they have, and they will likely continue to do so. mark, to your question on venezuela, i'll leave your very good questions, although let me just say my first conversation about in just a few months we will have exchange rate unification with a 1997 with a big economy administer who thought that this was the way to go. this is a 20 anniversary of the conversation, so i remember it. but on venezuela, i have thought for some time that cuban government would be willing to be part of some international arrangement with regard to venezuela. i don't think this takes an

enormous amount of mental effort. the cubans who come back from service in venezuela, the tens of thousands who have done so, you know, to keep saying this is not a competent government. moreover,, it's also not a revolutionary government. they may not then take the logical step, what the heck are we doing here? but it is not, and this incumbent president, unlike the predecessor, lacks an additional array of skills, not just competent. so it's not inconceivable to see cuba say our main partnership is -- this particular incumbent is an obstacle. would the trump administration be prepared to engage with the cubans as administration in the past were prepared to engaged

with to leave in cologne over negotiations? it's not unreasonable to do that, but that remains to be seen. even in the context of what would be, are there any cuban additional signals come let me rephrase it that way, not specific on venezuela, suggests i cuba willingness to say to the trump administration if you move a little bit, we are prepared to move a a little bit. cuban foreign minister responds to the president trump's june speech, was you want to negotiate over fugitives? let's negotiate over fugitives. it didn't go any further because there was a subsequent response from the u.s., but it was not saying no. the sonic attacks, there's more than both governments could do, but one thing that they cuban government did what you did not done for of the sensuous invite the fbi to come repeatedly.

again, one could imagine undertaking additional activities on both sides, but it's not as if the cuban government has just simply found its hands and bend grumpy. it's sustaining the agreements and it's indicating a willingness to pick up the conversation, but it requires both sides. >> want to build on jorge's answer to peter's question. there are, i would agree with jorge that the response from the cuban government has been quite measured throughout the sort of lead up, particularly on the sonic attacks issue. although i would note that i think more recently the tone has notched up a little bit. i sense a kind of degree of annoyance that some of those perhaps signals that you just -- [inaudible] >> exactly. the author hasn't been taken up,

so to speak. so we will see whether continued or is a momentary thing -- the offer. i think there are things they cuban government can do to respond directly to some of the inconvenience and hindrances that a going to be the results of whether the announcements the other day or the reduction of diplomatic personnel. i mention cuba's embassies left with one consular officer that has to process a difficult amount of paperwork. the cubans, it's an worth noting, if you're bored more ie want to go visit, you cannot enter with a passport of another country would have been naturalized. you need to go with the cuban passport or i cuba issued a a a if you love before 1970. there's a lot of paperwork. the cuban passport is valid for six 60 but it has to be renovated or renewed every two years. it's an expensive proposition. they cuban government did recently taken important steps

in getting rid of something called the -- of the passport which i guess the best way to translate is sort of an activation of the passport although i would say that the issue you a passport why is it an active? that a bureaucratic thing. there's other things one could do. this renewed every two years thing. get rid of that. you reduce the workload and maybe help more cuban americans continue to come were easily more quickly. that seems be really in their interest to do that. but on the other hand, there's a way in which i kind of hope that the cuban government, whether on matters of the economy or politics or society, won't base its decisions entirely on the dynamic bilaterally. cuba's future does not depend only on its relationship with the united states, as much as those times are singular intimacy and always will be probably. there are issues at stake in terms of the function of the con

interlude in terms of the political system, conversations have been going on in teams to cite the ups downs of regular much to do with the bilateral dynamic. what i worry about is the sort of downturn in tone of the bilateral dynamic can of shaving that of the conversation or inhibiting it. and so in a a way i hope the cn government kind of keeps tending to its business, the basis of its people. obviously in a context bilaterally that is more complicated and folk obstacles but that many of the pin issues and conversations that are not about that and i hope whether it's the currency thing, many others, i hope they keep their eyes on the prize, so to speak. >> emily, final word. >> i will address first your question about conversations to end the embargo between republicans and democrats. what we've we seen recently isf a constituent driven effort to advocate for the end of the

embargo, and it's common in the last use when business of travel data cuban discovered what opportunities they have when there's been more opportunity for travel more opportunity for education exchanges, the farmers can all but taste the increase in their sales if the u.s. government were to allow for the financing and agricultural sales. .. they will continue apace despite the current chill in the bilateral relations. i neglected to answer your question about the mc closing. i think it's important to bear in mind the process behind the

order departure we are in right now. my understanding is that no order departure can last longer than 180 days. when that clock started is a bit unclear but i think we are coming up, be it february or the months following on an up or down decision by the state department, whether or not to reinstate artist mats. i do not think the down will be the closing of the embassy. i can't speak for certain on that but again my understanding is that we are the department to determine that it is safe to send our diplomats back. he would return to status quo and have diplomats and families back. were they to determine they are still a risk to our diplomats and that the departure must remain in place then the post would work back to unaccompanied which means no family members

could move back down and that staffing levels could remain as is at skeletal levels or could gradually pick back up but i think that's an important decision point and in conversations with the state department i tried to tease out what the criteria are that are being used to make these determinations about whether it is safe to send her deponents back and that is a conversation that we had in the next several months. i do not anticipate and if i had to make a bet i do not anticipate they would revert back. >> this is been incredibly rich and informative discussion on the table and a lot of things we will be tracking at this dynamic time in us cuba relations. i want to thank emily and michael for -- [applause]

and thank you for sharing your thoughts and warning to us. thank you all for being here with your excellent questions and i hope to see you again after the dialogue. [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> it is veterans day and members of congress are sending out thanks that this from for that congressman.

not only is today veterans day but it is also the 242nd anniversary of the marine corps. marine corps commandant general robert commemorates the birth at the world war ii memorial. >> [inaudible] >> the national archives has a new remembering vietnam exhibit and is hosting today three events on the vietnam war. live coverage begins at 12:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. or online at c-span .org or on the free c-span radio app. saturday marks the 64th year of national observance of veterans day. vice president mike pence has the wreath laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier and will speak after at the

memorial in theater. live coverage from arlington national cemetery begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. online at the .org or on the free c-span radio app. >> fifty years ago the united states was at war in vietnam and this veterans day weekend american history tv on c-span3 looks back at 48 hours of coverage starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. we are life of the national archives among the backdrop of the vietnam era helicopters to talk with veterans who them. then from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. were taking your phone calls and live with historians about the war in 1957. at 1:00 p.m. from washington dc vietnam veterans memorial a ceremony featuring remarks by former defense secretary chuck hagel and memorial designer maya. on sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on real america in 1967 cbs news vietnam war special report. >> the president due to the clever tactics of the enemy or the bad lighting conditions the weather or the terrain it seems

clear that the american military along the dmc has bogged down like the marines in the mud. >> then at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts will turn the national archives exhibit remembering vietnam and at eight on the presidency the 1967 president lyndon johnson vietnam war press conference. >> made our statement to the world of what we would do if we had common immigration in the world 94. we said we would stand with those people in the face of common danger and the time came when we had to put up or shut up and we put up. >> watch the vietnam war, years later. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. >> this morning washington journal went to the washington