The Federalist

New Cuba Policy Helps Define An Emerging Trump Doctrine

President Trump does not believe the United States has enemies only because we create them, or that anything good comes from accommodating hostile regimes

By withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, rattling the North Atlantic Treaty Organization by insisting on fair dealing regarding its costs, disrupting business as usual at the United Nations, and strictly scrutinizing the Iran nuclear agreement, President Trump is signaling that U.S. action in the world will be decided first and foremost according to U.S. interests, not some vague notion of an internationally approved consensus.

This approach makes sense. After all, no country on earth is now acting or ever has acted in the world for the good of the world. All nation-states serve their interests first. If they are wise, they try to act in ways that attract allies and provide common benefits, but the chief goal is always their own interests and security. To think countries do otherwise is fantasy. . . 

Speaking of the Obama administration: Trump’s actions are a marked departure from his predecessor’s approach to the world. Steeped in the “anti-colonial” view of the world that saw first British then American leadership as the cause of the world’s ills and a justification for rogue states’ bad actions, Obama intentionally put U.S. interests last or subsumed them into some vague notion of the world’s interests. No matter how hostile, threatening, or insulting a regime was toward the United States, Obama looked for ways to accommodate them. . .

Obama spoke and behaved as though Cuba was poor, dysfunctional, and allied with our enemies because the United States had pressured and bullied Cuba. His view was that if the United States would simply normalize relations (treat Cuba like any other country in the world) and trade with it, the regime would moderate, open its economy to the world, and democratize. From that would flow peace, harmony, and development on the island.

The Obama administration did not deny that the Cuban regime was a dictatorship or was failing its people materially or in terms of freedom. The administration simply did not hold Castro’s regime responsible for all the problems it caused itself and others. Rather, Obama believed the U.S. posture toward the regime had caused the regime’s bad actions. Therefore, if the United States would change its behavior and embrace the regime, then the regime would respond in kind.

This requires an incredible amount of ignorance or willful disbelief about how dictatorships—especially Marxist-Leninist ones—think and operate. The Castro regime does not exist for the sake of the Cuban people; it exists for the sake of itself, the party, and the military that run the island. Every single action it takes is to first keep itself in power and then to enrich itself.

Not only do such regimes control political life to stay in power, they also control the economy to stay in power. Obama’s refusal to acknowledge that the regime controlled the economy as a means to holding on to power is key to understanding the fatal flaw of his “opening” policy. . .

The ball is now in Castro’s court to change his policies and actions if he wants to benefit from engagement with the richest country on earth. Moreover, Trump’s new policy requires the regime to hold free and fair elections supervised by international observers and free all political prisoners.

President Trump’s new Cuba policy provides us with the sharpest contrast to date between Trump’s understanding of foreign policy and Obama’s. Trump does not believe the United States is the cause of other countries’ bad behavior. He does not believe that we have enemies only because we create them. And he does not believe anything good comes from accommodating barbaric regimes hostile to the United States.

The Federalist