Opponents of the 47-year-old U.S. embargo against Cuba paint it as anachronistic and counterproductive. Supporters argue that it remains an important bargaining chip and a vital tool for promoting Cuban democracy. Now Pres. Barack Obama has reinvigorated the embargo debate, expressing his desire for “a new beginning with Cuba” and loosening various sanctions, including restrictions on family travel and remittances to the island.
As the debate proceeds, several questions should be at the forefront. For starters: Who is really calling the shots in Havana? During a long, rambling speech in Venezuela on April 16, Cuban president Raúl Castro said his government was prepared to discuss “everything” with the United States, including “human rights,” “freedom of the press,” and “political prisoners.” Obama said these remarks were “a sign of progress.” Then, before things got too chummy, Fidel Castro intervened. He wrote that Obama had “misinterpreted Raúl’s declarations.” The elder Castro demanded that Obama immediately lift the whole embargo, suggesting that Cuba would not make any concessions in return for the recent U.S. policy changes. Raúl got the message. On April 29, he told a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement that “it is not Cuba who has to make gestures.” As the Associated Press reported, Raúl indicated that “the Communist government is not willing to appease Washington by embracing small political and social reforms on the island.”
Brian Latell, a former Cuba analyst at the CIA and author of the 2005 book After Fidel, says the younger Castro was “chastened” and “humiliated” by Fidel’s rebuke. “There could be an emerging crisis in the Cuban leadership,” he adds, now that “Fidel is back making all key foreign-policy decisions.” Indeed, Latell predicts that the Cuban leadership could be headed for its worst instability since 1989, when a popular, highly decorated general named Arnaldo Ochoa was executed for treason.

