There are good reasons to suppose that, at present, most of the U.S. ruling class wishes that the Cuban revolutionary process initiated on January 1, 1959, ends in the worst possible way, with a generalized violent confrontation among Cubans themselves, which could be followed by a military intervention with more or less international legality. To claim otherwise would reflect, at best, a dangerous illusion based on a lack of analytical rigor. Since the Second World War, the worldviews of U.S. politicians and officials on international issues have traditionally been identified with one of the three predominant schools of thought in the United States: political realism, liberal internationalism, and neoconservatism. Since the end of the Cold War, under the conditions of unipolarity of the international system, a trend has been gaining prominence and visibility based on a sort of explosive alliance between neoconservatives and interventionist liberals, either for reasons of convenience or ideological affinity, which was intellectually responsible for the “endless wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other policies of “regime change” applied to Libya, Ukraine and Syria, just to mention the most notable examples. In the real world, U.S. foreign policy is never the result of the postulates and recommendations coming from any of these currents of thought in a pure state but tends to reflect, at each historical moment, an eclectic positioning based on a complex process of debate between the representatives of the different ideological currents, whose respective relative capacities of influence vary in the successive administrations in office. Despite its notable peculiarities, the foreign policy of Donald Trump’s administration was no exception, although it is worth highlighting, due to its relevance for the analysis of Cuba policy, its propensity to avoid new military interventions abroad and, instead, to make intensive use of economic sanctions. During the 175 days of Biden’s administration, some formulations and positions can be identified in his foreign policy that seems to be taken up, to a large extent, from the Clinton administration, rather than from the Obama administration, of which Biden was vice president, although any assessment on this issue is inevitably very preliminary. With regard strictly to Cuba policy, the objective fact is that the Biden administration, so far, has evidenced stupefying immobility concerning the avalanche of new sanctions against Cuba established during the Trump administration, although announcements about their upcoming review have been reiterated. From the perspective of any of the aforementioned currents of thought, the Cuban Revolution represents a bad example that has already lasted too long and should be eradicated, although for different reasons in each case. From the worldview of political realism, the independent foreign policy maintained by Cuba since January 1, 1959, is an aberration that undermines or contradicts one of its fundamental postulates, according to which the pattern of behavior of a nation in its relationship with other nations is determined by its relative power. In other words, in a somewhat simplified form, the more powerful nations impose their will on the less powerful nations, and the latter, for their own good, have no choice but to accept this harsh reality. For realists, this is a truism validated by historical evidence known since the Ancient World and will remain immutable as long as nations exist. That is why they find the experience and survival of the Cuban Revolution so incomprehensible and disturbing. On the other hand, realists are quite indifferent to questions concerning the internal characteristics of the political or economic systems of other nations, or to issues such as democracy and human rights. For many of them, while these are very important issues for a citizen in their daily lives within each nation, they should not determine or compromise the conduct by statesmen of a judicious and prudent foreign policy focused on the pursuit of national interests and national security. From the liberal internationalist paradigm, the Cuban Revolution is also usually anathematized, although, in this case, its supporters attach particular relevance to aspects that are not important -or not so important- for political realism. In this sense, they find unacceptable such issues as the existence of a single-party political system, which is called “communist” – and of a largely state-owned economic system with strong restrictions on the private sector. Following the logic of internationalist liberalism, the United States policy towards Cuba has a mission to fulfill, whether by hook or by crook, especially since it is an experience so close geographically and so politically sensitive for the Cuban population living in the United States, mainly in the State of Florida, which behaves in a swinging and often decisive way in the electoral processes of that country. Neoconservatism combines the reasons of realists and liberals. Therefore, it represents the current of thought that tends to advocate the most aggressive policy towards Cuba. According to this worldview, as a hegemonic, preponderant, or “leading” state at the world level, the United States is obliged to subjugate Cuba. And the Cuban government would do well to accept such subjugation, both as a logic of power and because of the universally demonstrated superiority of societies with political systems of representative and multiparty democracy and free-market economic systems. The above descriptions are inevitably schematic and generalizing, perhaps excessively so, but I was interested in highlighting the essentials of each of these three currents of thought. From them should not be inferred the supposed impossibility of the U.S. ruling class being able to generate and implement a mutually beneficial policy towards Cuba, one that is conducive to a civilized political dialogue and respectful of international law. As of December 17, 2014, the Obama administration demonstrated that such a policy is perfectly possible and that it has broad majority support within U.S. society. Those politicians, officials, or ordinary citizens who, for petty reasons, deny or hinder the possibility of such a path and advocate violence, vandalism, and a relentless blockade in the midst of the global pandemic, will forever bear the historical responsibility should events in Cuba evolve towards a tragic outcome or produce an irremediably destructive effect on relations between the two countries. Although at this moment in the United States there do not seem to be favorable conditions to undertake new military adventures abroad, this could change very quickly if destabilizing events and processes were to occur that would cause irreversible deterioration of the situation in Cuba.
source Pag 12Red en Defensa de la Humanidad – Cuba