Barack Obama's Cuba policy: where's the ball exactly?

The Obama administration, ever since April, when it eliminated the travel and remittance restrictions imposed by George W. Bush in 2004--says the ball is on the Cuban side. But to the rest of the world, it remains very much on the U.S. side.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a few days after the summit in Port of Spain, could not have said it better: "We're facing an almost united front against the United States regarding Cuba."

Yet those same officials don't seem to care. From Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to Rahm Emanuel, from Undersecretary of State James Steinberg to advisor Dan Restrepo and Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, the wording and tone of every single statement concerning Cuba have been essentially the same.

All are pushing "the type of society that we all know could improve the opportunities for the Cuban people" (Clinton); a policy "to determine the best way to foster democratic change in Cuba and improve the lives of the Cuban people" (Geithner).

Washington hopes to implement a "policy that will result in a change in Cuba that could bring about a democratic society" (Davidow), while "the Cubans can work on the kind of grass-roots democracy that is necessary to move Cuba to a better future" (Restrepo).

"We have changed our policy in ways that we believe will advance liberty and opportunity for the Cuban people" (Steinberg), and everything that's being done and will be done is "to extend a hand to the Cuban people."

This wording looks, sounds and smells just like the infamous "regime change" formulated by George W. Bush. Besides, none of the initiatives hinted at in Obama's speech--such as telecom ventures--can be implemented by "extending a hand to the Cuban people." They must come via direct, serious negotiations with the existing Cuban authorities, in an atmosphere of normalization.

After the Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, the approach and actions by Obama's foreign-policy team have taken a turn for the worse. Clinton said at congressional hearing that the Castro regime is in a terminal phase, about to crumble sooner than later.

"We want to see the Cuban government's reciprocity," said State Department spokesman Robert Wood. "We have some serious concerns about the lack of democracy in Cuba. And we want to see steps taken to improve the situation there."

Is the wording "we want" part of the new diplomatic lexicon or is it part of Teddy Roosevelt's legacy? Constructive engagement or simply bullying?

Last month, the State Department once again called Cuba a "terrorist state." This accusation is ridiculous. Not one single government in the Western Hemisphere or Western Europe agrees with Washington, and in fact, many of them have praised Cuba's role in trying to peacefully resolve regional conflicts.

But there's much more here. Keeping Cuba on that terrorist blacklist (along with Sudan, Syria and Iran) is--by every standard--a hostile action aimed at blocking other initiatives to improve relations with Cuba by either Congress or the executive branch.

Can U.S. citizens really travel as tourists to a terrorist state? Can the United States improve trade, financial relations, communications and transportation links with a terrorist state? Obviously not.

If the White House wants to come to terms with this "united front," one special broker could help: Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Lula has repeatedly hammered away at his three recommendations on Cuba: unconditional repeal of the U.S. embargo, no preconditions to start bilateral talks, and an understanding that Cuba has great symbolic value throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

Why does Obama engage in this collision course with Havana, while following an entirely different approach when it comes to other adversaries? Why, when it comes to Cuba, is he not ready to turn the page? Is Cuba especially hostile to his administration? Does it present a nuclear or biological-weapons threat to the United States?

Of course not. The reason is simple: Florida's 27 electoral votes and Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress. Cuba remains a "hostage topic" in U.S. foreign policy, despite the many setbacks this policy has brought to Democrats and Republicans alike.

Within such a context, the ball was, is and will remain in Washington's court for a long time to come.

Obama, who often praises Abraham Lincoln as his role model, should remember one of the 16th president's most famous quotes: "The past is the cause of the present, and the present will be the cause of the future."