Expectations that Cuba might genuinely open up and start reforms in earnest have heightened after a recent string of historic events: diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba were re-established after 60 some years and the US Embassy was reopened in Havana last December; the Pope visited in February and then President Obama went to Havana late March. Piroska Nagy-Mohacsi, Programme Director and researcher at LSE IGA, participated in an international conference in Miami, which aimed to assess reform progress against the backdrop of the historic visits, the 7th Party Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba (CPC) in April right after President Obama’s visit, as well as a massive external shock from crisis-ridden Venezuela’s decision to cut cheap energy supplies to Cuba, on which it desperately depends. The conference was organised by the Washington-based Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE), with participation by mainly US universities well as some 20 academics and journalists from Cuba itself.
Cuba had started some partial reforms under Raul Castro, the brother of ailing Fidel and officially in charge since 2008, and these where hoped to be ratcheted up after these historic developments. Reforms included allowing for some private sector activity and entrepreneurship particularly in tourism, small trade and farming; re-opening of the housing market and allowing non-residential purchases; abolition of compulsory sale of major agricultural products to the state at (low cost) administrative prices while introducing wholesale markets; inviting foreign investment; limited fiscal and monetary policy improvements; and easing travel requirements for Cubans – but no overall real easing of the one party and state control.
The main findings of the conference was that high expectations on a rebound in economic reforms, US-Cuba relations and trade and opening up so far have failed to materialise. The rhetoric and decisions of the 7th CPC congress have disappointed: (i) speeches and congress documents (as convoluted as they come) stressed the importance of taking back state control over emerging private activities; (ii) US as the main enemy returned in party rhetoric; (iii) foreign trade has not picked up and in fact US exports to Cuba declined, mainly to “political decisions in Cuba” despite huge trade potentials, according to a new report on the impact of the US trade embargo and its potential lifting; and (iv) there seems a continued backlash against dissidents.
Yet many at the conference thought that there was an increasing disconnect between party and society. The CPC itself seems split between moderate reformers and those favouring full return to the old state-controlled model. Moreover, change maybe catalysed by a pending energy crisis following the loss of cheap Venezuelan oil; and as no-one expects China to step in and subsidise Cuba (though it is now Cuba’s second largest trading partner after Venezuela).
Lessons from central Europe’s transformations in economics, politics and social-cultural approach to change maybe useful to aide Cuba's challenges. This in turn will necessitate high quality research in Cuba itself, for which demand should increase and where European universities including LSE maybe well positioned to provide independent support.