The Castro-Reagan Paralysis

The time has come to try once again to restore between the United States and Cuba the normal diplomatic relations severed 25 years ago.

Both nations played a part in the deterioration of relations that led to the break, but it was Fidel Castro, the young revolutionary, who forced the issue and left no recourse but termination. He was paralyzed by domestic politics and ideology. Now an American President of the right, Ronald Reagan, seems similarly paralyzed by his own political commitments and ideological bent, unable to take the initiative to try to restore relations.

There is no guarantee that Castro would be open to a U.S. proposal. But it is worth the try. It is worth the try, above all, because Castro is an important factor in the process of hemispheric peacemaking. A number of scholars in the United States are convinced that he is eager for a peaceful settlement of the present disagreements over insurgency in both Nicaragua and El Salvador. The way to find out is to talk.

Reagan has refused to talk so long as Castro remains engaged in “adventurism.” That is putting the cart before the horse. Castro’s present adventurism represents a moderation of the more sinister activities of earlier years. In Angola, Nicaragua and Ethiopia he is doing what Washington does to support friendly regimes. In areas like El Salvador, where he seems to be playing an aggressive role against the established government, he is more likely to be deterred by negotiation than by broadened hostilities.

Castro has on many occasions shattered hopes for improved relations. But the latest breakdown was the fault of Washington. The initiation of the Radio Marti broadcasts last May left Castro little choice but to break the Mariel prisoner and immigration agreements negotiated only five months earlier. That breakdown left the United States with 2,700 Cuban “undesirables” or “excludables” that Castro had agreed to receive back, and it canceled the plan that would have permitted 20,000 Cubans a year to emigrate to the United States. Worse, though, it halted a process that held out the prospect of step-by-step return to normalization.

The toughness of the American President has played well in Miami among Cuban emigres, now strongly allied with the Republican right. It has pleased the right in American politics, reassuring them that Reagan is in agreement with their anti-Marxist campaign. But it has done nothing to make the hemisphere a safer place.

As the monumental differences with Moscow are negotiable at the summit, so also should be the differences with Havana.