|
|
The
blockade has not ended
Interview with
Josefina Vidal, Ministry of Foreign Relations Director General for the
United States
Author:
Cristina Escobar |
informacion@granma.cu
February 12, 2015 18:02:55
Cristina Escobar.- Cuba and the United States are entering a new
stage of diplomatic relations. How can these relations be constructed
after so many years of confrontation, and what do the recent talks
between the two countries mean? These were the questions posed to
Josefina Vidal, Ministry of Foreign Relations (Minrex) Director General
for the United States, in an exclusive interview with Cuban television.
Josefina Vidal stated, “The President of the United States has options,
I would say unlimited, to gut the blockade of its fundamental content.”
Photo: Juvenal Balán
Josefina, there are people on the street here in Cuba, and also in
the international media saying, or asking, if the United States blockade
of Cuba has ended. Is this true?
Josefina Vidal.- No, no, the blockade has not ended; what has
happened is that the President of the United States, making use of his
executive prerogatives, which he has, announced a series of measures
modifying the implementation of some aspects of the blockade. It was
within this context that a series of regulations were issued – mandated
by him and formulated by the Departments of Treasury and Commerce – to
expand travel to Cuba, expand as well allowances for remittances, and
permit some commercial transactions, still of a limited nature, in
spheres such as telecommunications, for example.
Cristina Escobar.- When can we say that the blockade has
ended? What must happen before we can say it has ended?
Josefina Vidal.- Since the blockade was first officially declared
in February of 1962, until 1996 when the Helms-Burton law was approved,
it was the prerogative of the President; that is, just as President
Kennedy had declared the blockade in 1962, a later President could have
declared an end to this policy.
In 1996 the Helms-Burton law was approved, which codified the blockade
as law, which means it was established that, in the future, the
President could not on his own terminate the blockade policy, but rather
that it was the United States Congress which had the authority to
declare an end to the policy.
Nevertheless, it is very important to point out that the Helms-Burton
law itself, in an appendix following the codification of the blockade,
clearly establishes that the law does not deny the President his
executive prerogatives to authorize, through what is called a licensing
procedure, the majority of things related to the blockade.
If this were not the case, President Clinton, in 1998 and 1999, would
not have been able to modify some areas which allowed for the expansion
of trips to Cuba by some categories of U.S. citizens. If this had not
been the case, nor would President Clinton have been able to permit, for
example, the limited sending of remittances to our country, nor would
Obama, in 2009 and 2011, have been able to reestablish family visits to
Cuba, restore permission to send remittances to our country, or allow a
group of U.S. citizens, those within 12 categories, to visit our
country. And what Obama has done now, that is, using his Presidential
prerogatives he has broadened the transactions, the operations which can
be done within the framework of a trip, a remittance, some commercial
operations, and this means he can continue to use these [prerogatives.]”
Cristina Escobar.- Has he used them all?
Josefina Vidal.- He has not.
Cristina Escobar.- How much more does he have?
Josefina Vidal.- The President of the United States has options,
I would say unlimited, to gut the blockade of its fundamental content.
According to the attorneys who are advising us on this issue - because
it is a question which has its complexities from a legal standpoint –
there are only a few questions which the President can not modify,
because they are prohibited by law.
Beyond these questions, which are a very few, the President can
authorize, via licenses or the Departments of Treasury and Commerce, all
of the other transactions, which include commerce, services,
transportation.”
Cristina Escobar.- And what are the items he can not change?
Which ones definitively depend on the Congress?
Josefina Vidal.- To begin with, it is only Congress which can one
day say that the blockade of Cuba is over. The President can not say
this; but the President can approve a series of things, as I have
already said.
Now, excluded, among the things the President can do, are the following:
Tourism in Cuba is prohibited by law. There is a law from 2000, a law
which amended the commercial sanctions [previously] approved by Congress
which prohibits tourism - actually the same law which allowed limited
sales of food and agricultural products to Cuba. This means that the
President can not even use his authorities to change this, that is,
Obama can not allow U.S. citizens to travel freely to Cuba.”
Cristina Escobar.- Give with one hand, take away with the
other, so to say, limited sales of agricultural products were permitted,
but tourism was prohibited.
Josefina Vidal.- That was the condition imposed, during the
negotiation of the law, by sectors which opposed granting permission for
the sale of agricultural products to Cuba.
That is the reason, at that time, in accordance with decisions
previously made by President Clinton, 12 categories of persons who could
visit Cuba were established. This is what was approved in the law, that
the President can expand travel to Cuba within these 12 categories, and
that is what Obama has just done; but he can not allow tourist travel to
our country. This is the domain of Congress; until Congress approves a
law, U.S. citizens can not freely come to Cuba as tourists.
Another thing prohibited by law is commerce with Cuba by subsidiaries of
U.S. companies in other countries.
Cristina Escobar.- But is commerce with U.S. companies
allowed?
Josefina Vidal.- Obama could tomorrow, for example, using his
prerogatives, permit a U.S. company to do business with Cuba, trade in
both directions, both export and import; but Obama can not allow the
branch, the subsidiary of this same company in another country, to trade
with Cuba.
Cristina Escobar.- This is the extraterritorial part of the
blockade.
Josefina Vidal.- Exactly, and this is contained in the 1992
Torricelli law.
Another item which is prohibited by a Congressional law, that the
President can not modify, is the prohibition on granting credit to Cuba
to purchase agricultural products. The same 2000 law, the law reforming
commercial sanctions which allowed limited sales of agricultural
products, under certain conditions, established that credit could not be
granted to Cuba for the acquisition of these products, and the only
means available to us to make a purchase was to pay in cash, in advance.
Therefore Obama can not change this; but Obama could allow other
non-agricultural products to be sold to Cuba on credit. He could use his
Presidential prerogative to authorize licenses, which is not prohibited
by Congress.
Cristina Escobar.- And this isn’t among the regulation changes
announced by the Treasury Department?
Josefina Vidal.- It is not among the regulations [announced.]
That is why we said that the measures recently announced by the
President were positive, a step in the right direction, but are still
limited to a small number of spheres, areas, and this doesn’t mean that
he has exhausted all of his prerogatives.
Recently, among the measures which the President approved is the
possibility granted to U.S. financial institutions to establish
correspondent relations with Cuban banks. Presumably we can begin using
the dollar in authorized transactions between Cuba and the United
States, of which there are not many; but for example, Cuba’s use of the
dollar in financial transactions with other countries remains
prohibited. This is something the President could allow.
Cristina Escobar.- That’s to say we can buy from the United
States with dollars, but not from any other country using dollars?
Josefina Vidal.- Exactly, according to the new regulations which
include the possibility of exporting to Cuba, for example, certain
telecommunications equipment. Presumably we are going to pay for these
commercial operations in U.S. dollars, although Cuba will continue to be
denied the option of using dollars in our transactions with other
countries.
Obama could allow trade far beyond what has been limited to the
telecommunications sphere. This is not prohibited by law. Obama could
allow the import of products from our country to the United States, the
import of services.
The President of the United States has the authority to, for example,
permit Cuba to also purchase products with more than 10% U.S. made
components in other markets, which is today prohibited. He could issue a
general license to facilitate this.
He could also permit, for example, that products from other countries,
manufactured with Cuban raw materials, be imported to the United States.
This is not included in the current regulations.
What I would like to convey with this is that there is, we could say, a
practically unlimited opportunity for the President of the United States
to eliminate a very significant part of the blockade’s content, through
the use of his powers and through the issuance of licenses, leaving to
Congress only that which is their exclusive purview, which are the
things I have mentioned, and of course, definitively burying the
blockade of Cuba, which must be done through a Congressional act.
Cristina Escobar.- One of the issues most discussed during the
talks which took place recently between the United States and Cuba was
the Cuban Adjustment Act, Cuba’s insistence that it be eliminated, and
the U.S. delegation’s opinion that the government has no intention of
doing so. And, one of the issues specifically mentioned by the Assistant
Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs was that the “wet
foot/dry foot” policy was a law, a sovereign decision of the United
States. Is it a law?
Josefina Vidal.- No, no it is not a law. There are two questions
here. We have tried for years in our rounds of migration talks with the
U.S. government to emphasize our opinion that migratory movement between
the two countries must be normalized. Because it is not in Cuba’s
interest, or in the interest of the United States, that a pattern of
irregular migration continue, an illegal maritime flow, or irregular
entries into U.S. territory from third countries by Cubans who leave the
country in a legal fashion, and this occurs as a result of the
combination of two factors. That is why we say this is the principle
incentive to illegal emigration and trafficking in persons from Cuba.
These two factors are the Cuban Adjustment Act and the “wet foot/dry
foot” policy.
The Cuban Adjustment Act was approved by the U.S. Congress in 1966 to
regularize the migratory situation in which many Cubans found
themselves, those who had left the country since the triumph of the
Revolution in 1959, and had not legalized their immigration status in
the United States, taking into account that many aspired to return to
Cuba with the help of the United States. This situation continued over
some time, and the U.S. government arrived at the conclusion that this
immigration limbo, in which thousands of Cubans in the U.S. found
themselves, should be eliminated, and the Cuban Adjustment Act was
approved. The Cuban Adjustment Act is very simple, it is one paragraph
which says that the U.S. Attorney General, who heads the Justice
Department in this country, has the discretional authority to adjust the
status of Cubans who at the time are in the United States; but this law
does not say that this discretional authority must be automatically used
in the case of every Cuban present in U.S. territory, regardless of the
way they got there. And what has happened is that, over the years, the
law’s stipulations have been applied in an automatic manner to all
Cubans who arrive in the United States, regardless of the ways and means
used to arrive there. Therefore, there is an executive power, in the
hands of the executive branch of the United States government, to
implement the Cuban Adjustment Law as the law states, in a discretional,
non-automatic, manner.
To this is added the “wet foot/dry foot” policy, a policy which has
existed in the U.S. since the beginning of the 1990s. It is not
associated, as some media erroneously report, with the departure of
illegal immigrants from Cuba. Its antecedents lie in other migration
flows, above all from Haiti to the United States, and it is a policy
which is governmental, not a Congressional law. It is a policy according
to which a person intercepted at sea is returned to his or her country
of origin, while those who manage to arrive in the United States are
allowed to remain in the country. It is a policy, as you can understand,
which also encourages illegal emigration. Not only this, it also
encourages trafficking in emigrants and puts the lives of people in a
very dangerous situation at sea, and exposes them to the activities of
criminal groups involved in the trafficking of emigrants, that is, it
generates a series of additional problems, and more recently has
produced phenomena related to migration document fraud, considering that
today it is useful for other nationalities to acquire some Cuban
document, given the exclusive, preferential treatment Cuban citizens
receive.
To summarize, this is the principal stimulus to illegal emigration,
which we have reiterated to the United States as essential to address
and focus on, with a view toward normalizing migratory movement between
our two countries, and avoiding situations which put the lives of people
in danger, dangerous situations during their attempts to reach that
country.
Cristina Escobar.- Could we state then that it is impossible
to have normal migratory relations with the United States as long as the
Cuban Adjustment Act remains in effect?
Josefina Vidal.- Of course we could state that. In fact, the
Cuban Adjustment Act and the “wet foot/dry foot” policy are instruments
which apply exclusively to Cuba, similar laws for other countries do not
exist, on the contrary, we are seeing the uncontrolled, massive arrival
of emigrants from the entire world, as part of the natural tendency
which has always existed in the world, for centuries, that some persons
attempt to move, tend to move from countries with lower levels of
development to those with more development.
Cristina Escobar.- There is a perception, Josefina, when U.S.
diplomats are heard referring to this issue, and in the international
media as well, that, if the U.S. is criticized, it is because they have
conceded without Cuba conceding, as if Cuba was obliged to do things to
meet the interests of the United States, if we are to have diplomatic
relations with them. Is this the case? In diplomatic terms, what is your
opinion about this? Is Cuba obliged to do things to please the United
States?
Josefina Vidal.- Relations between Cuba and the United States
have historically been asymmetrical. Therefore, a focus can not be
applied, as it is called in diplomacy, of quid pro quo - I give you
something, and you give me something - can not automatically be applied,
taking into consideration that there are many more things to dismantle
on the U.S. side than on the Cuban side. Because we don’t have sanctions
in Cuba against U.S. companies or citizens; nor do we hold occupied
territory in the United States which we could exchange for the territory
occupied by the Guantánamo Naval Base; we don’t have programs financed
by Cuba intent upon influencing the situation within the United States
or promoting changes in the internal order of the United States; we
don’t have radio or television broadcasts, specially conceived in Cuba
and directed toward the United States, but the opposite exists.
Thus, there is a greater group of policies and measures which must be
changed on the U.S. side than on the Cuban side. Of course, as in all
diplomatic negotiation processes, in some areas it is possible to
encounter points at which we can say: Well, I would be willing to give
this, and I would be willing to give that, even if it may be
asymmetrical, with a view toward moving closer to a solution to many
problems. What is happening is that there is confusion, and the press,
to a certain degree the international press feeds this confusion, in the
sense that there are people who think, aspire, or intend that, as a part
of this negotiation process, Cuba puts on the table issues which are
totally internal to Cuba, and are issues of Cuban sovereignty. This will
not occur.
We have reiterated, including in interviews with the U.S. press, that
these questions of an internal nature are not negotiable, as they are
not negotiable for any other country.
Cristina Escobar.- Those in the U.S. itself, for example.
Josefina Vidal.- Not theirs or those in any other country; these
questions are the purview solely and exclusively of the Cuban people,
which in sovereign referendum has decided the direction of this country,
and it will always be the Cuban people who decide.
Therefore, questions of an internal nature or questions directed toward
promoting changes in our internal order will never be put on the table
during this process of negotiation, to resolve pending issues. And I
think it is important that this be clear. That is why, when they asked
me last week in a press conference, I said: It cannot be expected that
in order to improve relations with the United States, or to advance in
this long, complex process toward normalization which we have before us,
that Cuba is going to negotiate questions of an internal nature, in
exchange for a policy change on the part of the United States, when they
themselves recognize that it has failed. Nor are we going to negotiate
questions of an internal nature, of Cuban sovereignty, in exchange for
the lifting of the blockade. Beyond this, during the negotiation
process, anything which does not compromise state sovereignty,
everything else can be part of the negotiation process. If this were not
the case, we would not have had the results of this past December 17,
after 18 months of negotiation between the two countries. We were able
to identify, on the basis of absolute respect for sovereign equality and
the independence of our countries, very important questions in which we
share common interests and which we could resolve.
These are always complex processes, processes which I would describe as
prolonged and arduous, but we demonstrated that even on sensitive
issues, a solution can be found, when there is good will, and this is
the good will we have shown as part of these talks, and of this process
which we are beginning. And we have reiterated to the United States
government that we are approaching these talks in a constructive spirit,
completely willing to seek solutions to the problems which have
accumulated over 54 years, and also to identify areas - which are many -
in which we have common interests, and on which our two countries can
cooperate for mutual benefit."
Cristina Escobar.- You sat across the table from the U.S.
delegation, what about their willingness?
Josefina Vidal.- Well, after our Presidents simultaneously
announced the decision to first reestablish diplomatic relations, and
secondly, advance in a process toward normalization, I think willingness
exists on both sides.
Cristina Escobar.- But beyond the reestablishment of
relations, has there been a change of objectives in U.S. policy toward
Cuba?
Josefina Vidal.- I can not say there has been a change in the
objectives. I would say, a new stage has begun, a new stage in the
relations between Cuba and the United States. The previous stage, we
shall say, existed until December 14, 2014; it was a stage
characterized, marked, by confrontation. I would say that we have now
moved beyond the stage of open confrontation, with aggressive, hostile
policies, to a stage in which we have decided that we are going to
reestablish relations to seek solutions to some of these hostile
policies which persist, and which must change, in this new phase we have
begun, and a stage in which the contradictions are not going to
disappear; political differences between Cuba and the United States,
which are deep, are not going to disappear; the different conceptions
are not going to disappear, therefore the frictions are not going to
disappear, the problems. But yes, it is expected that we are going to
move to a period when we reestablish relations, we are going to provide
ourselves with mechanisms which have not existed - which do not yet
exist, but which we expect to construct - to address these problems,
with these difficulties, with these frictions, in a civilized manner, to
seek a solution in a joint fashion, even when the differences do not
disappear.
I do not believe that the U.S. policy objectives toward Cuba have
changed, in fact
Ms. Roberta Jacobson, who visited us last week at the head of the U.S.
delegation, said so: the United States has not modified its strategic
objectives in Cuba, what is changing is the way, the tactics. But, well,
we are ready to enter this phase of interacting in a new way.
Not all countries of the world agree on their approaches and
conceptions, and there are countries which interact with each other
despite contrary objectives, but it can be shown that, despite contrary
objectives, we can seek a better, more civilized manner of interacting,
without renouncing what either side believes, but, as I have said, using
instruments and mechanisms to settle the problems, the differences, and
at the same time, seek points of contact which exist, and points of
common interest to advance in a relation of civilized and peaceful
co-existence between our countries - a difficult co-existence, but I
believe it is possible.
Cristina Escobar.- In the event that by the end of this year,
Josefina, the U.S. blockade remains in effect, as can be presumed since
Congress will not soon make a clearer decision on this, will Cuba again
present a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly condemning
the blockade? If this is the case, can you imagine that the United
States would vote against its own government? How do you see this
situation?
Josefina Vidal.- I do not know how the U.S. would vote, that's
something they will have to decide, discuss and settle. As for Cuba, of
course, as long as the blockade is maintained, and the blockade is being
maintained, as President Obama himself recognizes, and President Obama
himself has already been saying that he will get personally involved in
a Congressional debate with the goal of ending the blockade. On a recent
date, the same week he insisted, called upon the United States Congress,
in his State of the Union address, to lift the blockade. Therefore, the
blockade is in place, present, it is maintained; the very government of
the United States recognizes it as such, and as long as this situation
persists, of course Cuba is going to continue in calling for its
lifting, because it is an obsolete policy; it is a policy which has
damaged the interests of the United States, but it damages the Cuban
people, as the President himself recognized this past December 17.
Therefore, it is a battle, and something we will continue to do as long
as this policy is not definitively eliminated.
Cristina Escobar.- We will have to wait, then, to see with
whom they will vote - with the administration, with the world or with
Congress.
Josefina Vidal.- That remains to be seen.
Cristina Escobar.- That remains to be seen... Roberta
Jacobson, in her press conference, emphasized the situation of U.S.
diplomats in Havana and their request to be able to travel throughout
the country, but she did not mention the situation of Cuban diplomats in
the United States, both at the United Nations headquarters in New York
and the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C. What is their
current situation? Is it expected that the situation will improve?
Josefina Vidal.- You see, Cristina, when the Interest Sections
were opened in September of 1977, this was done with total freedom of
movement for the diplomats from the two countries within the respective
capitals, in fact the U.S. government decided as well to approve freedom
of movement for Cuban diplomatic personnel at the United Nations. Later,
with the years, as a result of the policies toward Cuba which different
administrations followed, restrictions were introduced on the movement
of our diplomats on the part of the United States, It was President
Reagan who again imposed limitations on New York - I say again because
New York already had their movement limited in the early 1970s - and
implemented the first restrictions on our staff in Washington.
President Clinton eased these restrictions, but these restrictions were
made much greater at the time of the George W. Bush presidency.
Therefore, we are today at a moment when there are restrictions on the
movement of Cuban and U.S. functionaries in both countries. At this
time, in order to leave Havana, and Washington, permission must be
requested.
For the last two years we have been proposing to the U.S. government an
intermediate situation, let's say, eliminate a few of these restrictions
in the sense of implementing what is called travel notification, not
totally eliminating the restrictions, but having a slightly more
flexible framework for movement. But the U.S. government has not agreed
to this.
At this time, the U.S. government is saying that freedom of movement is
important to the opening of embassies. We have told them that we are
open to holding discussions to move in this direction, but it is very
important that U.S. diplomats change their behavior in Havana, and in
particular we are saying that the manner is which these diplomats behave
must change with regards to stimulating, organizing, supplying and
financing elements within our country which take action against the
interests of our state, against the interests of the Cuban government
and people. And we have said this because the Vienna Convention, which
must be the foundation upon which the new embassies function stipulates
very clearly that the laws of a receiving country must be respected, and
we are emphasizing this very strongly, and we are doing so because our
diplomats in Washington have maintained impeccable conduct and would
never take any action which could be interpreted by the U.S. government
as interference in their domestic affairs. This is the same thing we are
saying here in these talks, that the analysis of the issue, that is, the
subject of freedom of movement, and what the U.S. side is saying, is
associated with a change in the behavior of their diplomatic mission and
their functionaries, here in Havana.
Cristina Escobar.- There is a concern expressed by various
people here in Cuba as well, about the possibility that, when the Obama
administration ends, what has happened could be reversed. What has been
done has been at the President's discretion. If, for example, a
Republican President should win, or even a female or male Democratic
President, this could come to an end. Is that possible?
Josefina Vidal.- It is possible. It must be taken into
consideration, as I have said, that President Obama has taken action by
using his executive powers. This means that, just as he has made some
decisions, a subsequent president, the president who succeeds him, could
make the same decisions in the opposite direction. However, of course,
these decisions would come as a result of an analysis of the political
context, and in order for these decisions to be totally irreversible, I
think they must be accompanied by some laws approved by the United
States Congress, and even so, nothing is irreversible. Because, just as
a Congress can take action in a certain direction, a subsequent
legislature can do so in the opposite direction, but all this would
depend on the political context, and I would ask myself if it would be
more or less costly, more costly for a president who succeeds the
current U.S. President, President Obama, to reverse some of the measures
which could be of benefit to many sectors within the United States, and
I am speaking of business sectors, but also of Cubans resident in the
United States, of academics, universities which are going to benefit now
from the modifications the President has made in the travel to Cuba
policy, to allow for greater interaction between our countries, cultural
exchanges. That is, such a reversal would always, I would imagine, be
subject to a cost-benefit analysis, in the political sense. But, yes, it
can be reversed, of course, because means to do so exist, and a
President has the authority to make these decisions.
Cristina Escobar.- Josefina, there are high expectations on
the street here. First, enthusiasm around the December 17 announcements,
the return of our three heroes, the joy of seeing a new stage beginning
with the reestablishment of relations between Cuba and the U.S. - but
also, sometimes this enthusiasm can lead to confusing certain things.
There are people who expect everything to be settled. There are people
who hope for an easing of the economic persecution which the U.S.
blockade of Cuba implies, and that this will lead to an improvement in
our quality of life. That is to say, there are high hopes on this issue,
after 55 years of such a hostile policy. What is your message to these
people who are watching, and have so many expectations in terms of Cuba-U.S.
relations?
Josefina Vidal.- Well, we have decided to reestablish diplomatic
relations and begin talks to move toward normalization of these
relations, but this is a process, that is, everything will not be
resolved in the short term. The first step, or the initial step, we must
take is the formalization of diplomatic relations, and this is what we
are negotiating at this time. But once we have concluded this step, then
we can get into a much longer, more complex process, which is the
process of what we are calling normalization. This is going to be in the
longer term, because it requires that we find solutions to many problems
which have accumulated over 56 years, if we count from the very
beginning of the triumph of the Revolution.
Therefore, I believe there is no reason to be either pessimistic or
optimistic. This is a process, and all processes involve time frames,
involve arduous periods of negotiation. There are issues to be resolved
which are very complicated, for example, the lifting of the blockade,
and a solution will only be found to these economic difficulties
affecting us, the day the blockade is entirely eliminated, although I
reiterate, the President has executive powers and prerogatives to go
much farther beyond what he has done to date, and eliminate a great many
restrictions which today are part of the blockade policy. But, to
summarize, it is a process, it is going to require time, it is going to
require effort, it is going to require much work on the part of Cuba and
on the part of the United States, as well. Solutions to complicated
issues must be negotiated, but, at the same time, parallelly, because we
can not think of this as a process which requires that one thing be
finished before beginning to address another. Many conversations can
take place at the same time, to try and find solutions to problems which
may take some time, while at the same time, begin to make progress in
other areas which are not as complex, which would allow us, for example,
to strengthen cooperation between Cuban and U.S. entities, to improve
communication between our countries, scientific-technical collaboration,
exchanges of a cultural nature, interaction between Cuban and U.S.
society. That is, this process can develop along parallel lines, which I
believe, in and of itself, has its own dynamic, and can create favorable
conditions to help advance the other part of the process which is more
complex, that of resolving pending issues.
Therefore, I believe we have before us, I would say, an interesting
stage for Cuba and the United States, Interesting in the sense of
beginning to construct a relationship of a different nature, while many
opinions and visions of the two countries do not change, because they
are not going to change. I believe we can construct a different period
in our bilateral relationship. We are conscious of the challenges, of
the difficulties which we must resolve; but at the same time, we believe
there are opportunities to develop areas for a better relationship
between Cuba and the United States. That is why it is a combined focus,
and we are ready and willing.
We have initiated this process and are approaching it with a
constructive focus, again, conscious that it is complex, requires work,
effort, energy; but at the same time conscious that it is possible, to
the benefit of Cuba and the United States, that we find - at least find
- a better co-existence, as I say, coexistence upon a foundation of
respect, while knowing that our conceptions - which are very strong, and
very firm above many other things - are not going to change.
Cristina Escobar.- Are you an optimist or pessimist?
Josefina Vidal.- I am, I would say, at an intermediate point; I
can not say that I am totally an optimist, because there are things
which are beyond my control. The Cuban side can not control everything.
There are two countries, and on the U.S. side there is not only a
government. There is an administration; there is a Congress; there is a
society; there is a political context, thus, everything is not under our
control. But neither can I say I am a pessimist; on the contrary, we
would not have reached this point, where we now find ourselves. But I
believe we are being fairly realistic in our focus and in our
appreciation of the circumstances, to attempt to advance as much as
possible in the resolution of problems, and at the same time, attempt to
take advantage, in the best possible fashion, of opportunities which may
emerge for us.
Cristina Escobar.- Thank you very much, Josefina, it has been
a real pleasure to listen to you.
Josefina Vidal.- Thanks to you, Cristina, the pleasure has been
mine.
Thank you
http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2015-02-12/the-blockade-has-not-ended
|
|
|