♪ This program is brought to you by the members of WCNY.

Thank you.

With Pomeroy Markers, history is based on the facts interpreted by professional historians.

Over 3,000 installed nationwide, from Maine to Florida, to California, to Minnesota, to Texas, and Alaska.

Since 2006, our markers have helped people celebrate community history.

Marker grant program information available at wgpfoundation.org.

It takes time to craft a piece of furniture and to craft a 125-year legacy.

It takes patience to execute every detail the right way, and it takes family working to bring out the best in each other over generations.

This is Stickley, the furniture that serves generations of family.

Maturing with time, rewarding patience, and celebrating every detail.

This is what excellence means to us.

♪ ♪ KATKO: Welcome, America, to Balancing Act, the show that aims to tame the political circus of two-party politics.

I'm John Katko.

This week: Cuba.

How far should the U.S.

go?

In the center ring, we'll speak with University of Miami historian and Cuba expert Michael J. Bustamante.

And on the trapeze, Representatives Jim McGovern and Carlos Giménez take swings at the issue.

Then, I'll give you my take.

Plus, in Did You Know, the little-known JFK footnote to the embargo.

But first, let's walk the tightrope.

In the late 1950s, Havana was a bright lights, big city.

There were nightclubs, casinos, American tourists, music, money, and of course, movie stars.

But in the shadow of those glimmering lights lurked a darker reality.

There was corruption, inequality, organized crime, and the increasingly brutal rule of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista.

Outside of the flashy city, many rural Cubans lived in deep poverty with limited schools, medical care, and political power.

So, when a young lawyer named Fidel Castro promised land reform, dignity, and an end to Batista's corruption, his message reached those who had been left in the dark.

At first, he did not present himself under the banner of communism.

Instead, he framed his revolution as nationalist, anti-corruption, and pro-Cuban sovereignty.

After a failed uprising in 1953, followed by prison, exile, and a guerrilla campaign with his brother Raúl and the infamous Che Guevara, Castro toppled Batista on January 1st, 1959.

The revolution brought some spots that were brighter than others, especially in education and healthcare.

Cuba's literacy rate is nearly universal.

But Cubans learned to read in a country that also controlled what they could say, what they could publish, and what they could openly debate.

Cuba's relationship with the United States quickly faded.

In 1961, a U.S.-backed force of Cuban exiles invaded at the Bay of Pigs, and they failed spectacularly.

This strengthened Castro and pushed Cuba closer to Moscow.

A year later, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the very brink of nuclear war.

And for decades, Cuba became both a Cold War flashpoint and a country caught between revolutionary pride and daily scarcity.

Havana, once marked as a glamorous playground, became known for crumbling buildings, faded mansions, and vintage cars that were kept alive purely by necessity.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba lost its most important patron, bringing severe shortages of food, fuel, power, medicine, and transportation.

Fidel Castro handed power to his brother Raúl in 2008.

Miguel Díaz-Canel became president in 2018 and later the head of the Communist Party.

The Castro family was no longer in power, but the system remained.

President Obama tried opening relations.

It helped some families and businesses, but it did not transform Cuba as hoped.

Cuba is also a major issue in American politics, especially in the swing state of Florida, where the Cuban-American community has helped shape U.S.

policy for decades.

For many presidents and candidates, any move toward normalization has carried very serious political risks.

Not to mention the security concerns for America, given Havana's ties to Russia, Venezuela, China, and Iran.

Today, it's lights out for Cuba - literally - as it suffers severe blackouts, shortages, repression, migration, and renewed U.S.

pressure, including restrictions on oil shipments from their benefactor, or former benefactor, Venezuela.

So after 60 years of sanctions, diplomacy, pressure, and confrontation, the question is: How far should the U.S.

go?

Should we continue negotiations?

Should we pursue regime change?

Should we even consider military action?

We're trying to shed light on those questions as we step into the center ring.

Join me now is University of Miami historian and Cuba expert Michael Bustamante.

Welcome, Michael, and first question right off the bat: How would you describe the situation inside Cuba today?

How is it different, if at all, from earlier periods of crisis?

BUSTAMANTE: Thanks for having me.

Cuba is in a very difficult way.

The Cuban people, I should say, are suffering their worst economic crisis in more than 30 years.

The point of comparison that everybody makes is to the early 1990s, when Cuba's GDP tanked by about a third in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

On a percentage basis, the decline in GDP is something like 15% over the past five or six years, so it might not seem as bad.

The problem is that the Cuban economy never recovered to where it was even in 1989.

So this crisis feels very, very deep and sort of without any seeming light at the end of the tunnel for most folks.

KATKO: Can you give us a glimpse of what daily life is like today in Cuba in terms of food, medicine, and freedom?

BUSTAMANTE: On all scores, there's not enough of it.

In terms of daily life, imagine that the power has been out for 12 hours or more.

It comes on at 2 in the morning and you have no choice but to get up and start cooking the meals for the next day because you don't know if you're going to have power.

So that's the kind of situation in which folks are living.

They're trying to get by day to day, sometimes hour to hour.

And honestly, that kind of level of economic precarity - I think it's an open question as to what extent people have the time or the headspace to think about political concerns.

Certainly, demands for political change are high, but I think most people are just struggling to get by day to day.

KATKO: Let's talk about those demands for political change.

At least the desire.

Are they being expressed in any way?

If they are, are they being suppressed?

BUSTAMANTE: Yeah, on both scores.

Cuba is a very different place in some ways than it was a little bit over a decade ago, and that's thanks to the arrival of the internet.

One of the outcomes of the Obama rapprochement policy, which had strong supporters and strong detractors, was a commitment from the Cuban government to give its people greater access to the internet.

They did that largely through Chinese technology, but through VPNs and other mechanisms, Cubans are online.

And they are speaking their mind.

The monopoly of state media on the flow of information is really over.

So Cubans are definitely perhaps choosing their words carefully in some circumstances because a social media post can get you in trouble, and it has gotten some folks in trouble.

But I think people have lost a little bit of the mantle of fear to express how they're feeling.

That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that there's a clear vision of where they'd like to see the society go.

KATKO: Okay, so President Obama, as you mentioned, took a little bit more of a rapprochement with Cuba.

And of course, President Trump and his cabinet have taken a much more hardline stance, especially in the wake of what happened in Venezuela.

So what's the effect of each on the Cuban people, and is one better than the other?

>> I think no one's figured out THE silver bullet, so to speak, TO bring Cuba to a better future.

And ultimately, I think that's going to be on the Cuban people themselves.

I think the question for U.S.

policymakers is what kind of policies create better conditions for the Cuban people themselves to press for change.

The theory of the case of the Obama administration was that 60-plus years of sanctions hadn't really ever worked.

The executive branch can't simply get rid of the sanctions regime on its own because it's been codified under law since the 1990s, but can poke some holes in it.

And so the strategy of the Obama administration was: let's encourage contact, let's take the United States out of the picture as the perennial internal boogeyman in Cuban politics.

Let's take away the ability of the Cuban government to blame everything that's happening on the ground on us.

And really, what I saw in Cuba at that time was just an incredible amount of hope and excitement.

Many people I knew weren't sure where this was going.

They weren't sure it was going to lead to perhaps the political change they wanted to seek, but there was economic opening.

I would argue that there was a wider space for political discussion, and it was an exciting time.

Since then, the tables have turned.

Proponents of sanctions would argue that it's about denying resources to the Cuban government to repress its citizens.

It's about creating a situation in which the Cuban government is forced to the negotiating table or forced to make political and economic concessions.

They haven't really ever wanted to do that.

It's, I think, an open question whether the gravity of this crisis might change their calculus, but I don't see strong indications of that so far.

KATKO: As the U.S.

debates whether to increase pressure, re-engage diplomatically, or take a more assertive approach, What are the risks and realities policymakers should understand?

Basically, what I'm getting at is: if you really put the screws to Cuba economically, in the hopes that people would finally say, "I've had enough" and rise up, is that a rational policy?

BUSTAMANTE: I tend to think it's not, certainly beyond a certain point.

It's also a policy that makes the Cuban people sort of the guinea pigs in a grand social experiment.

And that's not something morally or ethically that I can be entirely comfortable with.

And I think we should have some serious dialogue about that.

I think from the United States' point of view - and this is where I think some of the tensions are coming out in the current administration's approach - they are clearly wielding unprecedented economic coercion.

Since the ouster of Nicolás Maduro, with the sanctions on oil supplies, the Cuban economy is in very dire straits.

But if you press too hard, could you provoke a true humanitarian collapse that then has blowback on United States interests or things like mass migration?

For this administration, a mass migration from Cuba would certainly be politically not elpful and, in some respects, their nightmare.

So I think that's where you're seeing this administration do two things at once.

They are both exercising unprecedented pressure, but we also have strong indications that they're engaging in some kind of diplomatic track, including talking to some of Raúl Castro's own family members.

Which is a striking thing for a Secretary of State who's Cuban-American to be engaged in doing, given that the position of the Cuban-American community for so long has been that to talk to the Cuban government is tantamount to legitimizing it.

KATKO: Quickly, if you could, please: what about Cuba's ties to some of our adversaries?

Obviously, Russia was a major player until the Soviet Union fell apart, but still has influence - in China and Iran and Venezuela before we went in there and took out Maduro.

So what influence are those countries still having on Cuba?

BUSTAMANTE: Both Russia and China are important trade partners and geopolitical allies for Cuba.

There's a robust debate, let's say, about the extent of things like intelligence cooperation and to what extent that represents a threat to the United States.

But on the economic front, what I think is also salient is that both countries have told the Cuban government that they need to get their own house in order.

They are willing to supply aid and assistance, as we've actually been seeing in recent weeks.

The Chinese, for example, are helping the Cubans build out their solar capacity.

But they're not, from my point of view, willing to completely bail out the Cuban economy.

KATKO: Okay, because we have about 30 seconds left, and that's the perfect last question.

Take away all the outside influences.

Has the Cuban system of governing really worked over the last 60 years?

BUSTAMANTE: No, but it's also more complicated than that.

I think Cuban people have very different memories of different periods of their life.

For some, the revolution represented deliverance in a way that was important.

They might have changed their view over time.

What's true right now, though, is that there is an overwhelming consensus of the need for change - strong change, political change, economic change.

Exactly what contours it takes is something that the Cuban people need to have the space to debate, and it's not something that I think can be imposed from the United States.

KATKO: Michael Bustamante, University of Miami.

Thanks so much.

Great conversation.

BUSTAMANTE: Thank you.

KATKO: Join me now on the trapeze are Jim McGovern from Massachusetts and Carlos Giménez from Florida.

Gentlemen, I served with you both, and it's good to see you both, and I welcome you to the show.

And let me get right into it with Congressman McGovern.

Assuming that you'll agree that change needs to be happening in Cuba, what does that change look like to you, in your opinion?

REP McGOVERN: Well, I want to improve the quality of human rights for the Cuban people, and I want to see the Cuban people be able to live a life where there aren't shortages and they're able to pursue their dreams.

And for that reason, I believe we need to change our policy.

I've been advocating that for decades.

I think our policy for the last 60 years has been a disaster.

It has done nothing for the Cuban people.

And I want to open things up.

KATKO: Stay there for a moment, Congressman McGovern.

When you say "open them up," does that, in your mind, include allowing the Cuban regime to continue the communist regime?

McGOVERN: What I believe is that the best way to achieve change in Cuba is not through the military and not through threats or heated rhetoric.

We should lift the embargo.

Let U.S.

businesses do their thing in Cuba.

Let tourists go to Cuba.

Let academics and students be able to study in Cuba.

That's the way you can open things up in a way that allows the Cuban people to ultimately determine who governs them.

But again, the policy we've been pursuing for the last six decades is a disaster.

It's an embarrassment, quite frankly.

KATKO: Congressman Giménez, I take it you have a little different view of that.

CARLOS GIMÉNEZ: Oh yeah.

As the only member of Congress actually born in Cuba and who actually had a couple of years where my parents could see communism up close, and we left Here are the facts.

The embargo does not embargo food or medicine or basic necessities.

It only embargoes things beyond that.

The reason that Cubans don't have those things is because they don't have the money to pay for it.

And the reason they don't have the money to pay for it is because communism does not work.

And the only thing that these folks want - the regime - is t0 same power so they can line their pockets, which is what they've been doing for the last 67 years.

Now, as a counterpoint to my friend on the other side, we tried this thing with Communist China about opening it up and letting them become an economic power.

And all we've seen in China is more repression for the people.

So what we should be is champions of democracy and freedom.

The people of Cuba have not seen an election in 67 years.

All the Cuban regime has to do is allow for free elections, free their political prisoners, allow for freedom of expression, allow for freedom of religion, and the embargo will be lifted.

I don't know which one of those issues my esteemed colleague on the other side is against.

He should be asking the Cuban regime to say, "Hey, we need democracy," and that's the fastest way to resolve the problem for the Cuban people.

KATKO: Congressman McGovern, your take?

McGOVERN: Well, I want democracy in Cuba.

I want democracy in the United States and all around the world, quite frankly.

And I'm the co-chair of the Human Rights Commission.

But I think when President Trump threatens military action in Cuba and says, "Cuba, you're next," that doesn't seem to me about respecting what the Cuban people want.

That's about doing something that this president wants.

And ultimately, I think the future of Cuba ought to be decided by the people who live on the island, not people here in the United States - certainly not this administration.

And I also find it a little bit ironic that as Trump has increased economic hardships in Cuba, ICE arrests of Cubans who have come to the United States are at an all-time high.

So we're creating misery - even more misery - people are leaving, and we're arresting them.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

KATKO: Congressman McGovern, just a quick follow-up - 30-second response, if you will.

If you say you want democracy in Cuba and all over the world, which is of course what all Americans want, how can they achieve that in Cuba when you have a regime that suppresses democracy and elections?

McGOVERN: I was there with President Obama when he began to open things up, and I was there shortly after that as well.

The political space that developed as a result of that engagement - you could see it, you could feel it.

Cubans were excited about the future.

And then it all got shut down again.

Again, the way you set the stage for the elections that my colleague is talking about, the way you set the stage for a democratic future, is not through continuing what doesn't work.

It's by opening things up.

And I'm a big believer that the American people and American businesses can do more to help promote democracy than all the politicians in Washington.

KATKO: Congressman Giménez, what about that?

What about the fact that we've tried sanctions for 60 years, we've tried pressure, and it's kind of seen us push Cuba somewhat into the arms of the bad actors of the world like China and Iran and Russia and North Korea?

What about what McGovern is saying with respect to letting the people stand up for themselves?

GIMÉNEZ: One thing that Mr.

McGovern misses is that the Cuban people want freedom.

When they went out in 2021 and they were shouting - they weren't shouting for food and they weren't shouting for medicine.

They were shouting "Libertad."

You know what that means?

Freedom.

But the Cuban government won't give them freedom.

As a matter of fact, what example does anybody here have of us trying to work with a communist regime that ever changed a communist regime?

I'll tell you what: zero.

We tried - actually, the biggest blunder of the 20th century was thinking that somehow if we opened up China, democracy would come to China.

They've actually become more repressive.

These regimes do not respond to that.

They only respond to force.

And so they will not allow the people of Cuba to be free because all they want to do is remain in power.

I don't see how many examples we need - North Korea, China, all of these oppressive regimes will not change by themselves.

The people themselves have to rise up against them or there has to be some external force to force them out.

And the people of Cuba deserve freedom.

This regime will not give it to them.

And this whole thing that somehow there was hope after the Obama opening - it failed miserably.

Look at 2021.

The people went out in the streets.

They asked for freedom.

You know what they got?

They got beaten over the head and they were put in prison.

That's what they got because there is no freedom of expression.

KATKO: I'm sorry, I'm going to give some equal time here.

Congressman McGovern, he mentioned the use of force.

I take it you're against that?

McGOVERN: Yeah, look, I'm tired of old men in Washington dreaming of new wars to put American forces at risk.

And look what's going on in Iran right now.

Every time somebody says these military interventions are easy and can be done in a couple of days - look at how complicated this is.

And look at what it's resulting in: strengthening the Iranian regime, which is the exact opposite of what we want to do.

So no, I do not want military action against Cuba.

I think that is a mistake.

And I think most of the people in this country do not want that.

That is not what we should be thinking about.

KATKO: Congressman McGovern just said yes or no answer here - I take it you're for change.

It's just your idea of the change is different than Congressman Giménez's, is that correct?

McGOVERN: Correct.

KATKO: Congressman Giménez, you've got about 40 seconds left here, so you have the last word.

GIMÉNEZ: Well, I didn't say there should be American force.

I said these regimes only change with force, and usually with an internal uprising.

The problem that we have with Cuba is that these folks are not going to release their hold on power.

There has to be an internal revolution.

And then us trying to prop up this regime is the last thing we should be doing.

We should be doing everything in our power to make them weaker so in fact the people of Cuba can rise up like they did in 2021 and demand freedom.

KATKO: All right.

Congressman Giménez and Congressman McGovern, thank you both very much for a great conversation.

And I wish you both well.

Like I said before, I miss good people like you in Congress, but I don't miss the job.

McGOVERN: Well, we miss you.

KATKO: Thank you very much, guys.

Take care.

Cuba has been a serious national security concern for the United States ever since the 1959 revolution.

And those concerns have been warranted, especially as Havana has repeatedly aligned itself with America's biggest adversaries, including Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela.

So it is right to hope for an end to both a Communist regime and a security threat on our southern doorstep.

That would make America safer and the hemisphere more secure.

Diplomacy simply has not worked with this regime, which seems more interested in self-preservation than improving the economic and political well-being of the Cuban people.

But military action is not the answer right now.

Increasing economic pressure is working.

It may ultimately help bring down the regime without putting American troops in harm's way.

Of course, if another Cuban Missile Crisis-type scenario emerges, military force would have to remain on the table.

America needs a safer, freer southern neighbor in Cuba.

And we can pursue that goal by flexing our economic strength while keeping our vaunted military power in the background - unless or until circumstances demand otherwise.

And that's my take.

♪.

♪.

KATKO: Did you know that just before President John F. Kennedy banned Cuban imports, he reportedly made one last very personal request?

According to Kennedy's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, the president asked him to find 1,000 Cuban cigars by the next morning.

Not just any Cuban cigars, by the way - Petit Upmanns, the president's favorite cigar.

Salinger went out, searched Washington tobacconists, and came back with 1,200 of his beloved cigars.

Kennedy smiled, opened his desk drawer, and signed the order to make Cuban cigars illegal to import into the United States.

That was a potent power play for presidential power - and a drag for the rest of us.

And now, you do know.

♪.

♪.

That's all for this week, folks.

To send in your comments for the show, or to see Balancing Act extras and exclusives, follow us on social media or visit balancingactwithjohnkatko.com.

Thank you for joining us.

And remember, in the circus of politics, there's always a balancing act.

I'm John Katko.

We'll see you next week, America.

♪ ♪