When friends and foes of America were busy condemning the yanking of President Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela, President Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, unabashedly justified the action with a Trumpian mantra: “We live in a world, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power…these are the iron laws of the world…we’re a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.” Watch out, world. It is going to get messy.
True to Miller’s declaration, the U.S. is once again targeting Cuba. It should come as no surprise, though. Hostilities between the U.S. and Cuba date back more than fifty years. Some prominent historical events, deeply ingrained in the collective memory, explain why the U.S. seeks to remove the regime in Cuba.
In 1952, Fulgencio Batista seized power in a coup, overthrowing the government of Carlos Prío Socarrás. While he was corrupt and drew intense criticism from Cubans, the U.S. nonetheless supported him. Batista was a staunch anti-communist and a friend of American interests. U.S. companies were heavily invested in Cuba during his rule; they owned about 40% of Cuban sugar production, close to 90% of the utilities and almost the entire oil industry. The Americans also had a substantial stake in casinos and resorts run by organised crime leaders.
In 1959, Fidel Castro assumed power, and with it came drastic transformations in Cuba. He made changes to all things American. For example, Cuba shifted from a democracy to a communist state, delivering an ideological blow. Large companies and sectors in which Americans held major stakes were nationalised. He also aligned with the Soviet Union to deter U.S. hegemony. However, the U.S. persisted in restoring its old glory in Cuba.
In 1960, President Eisenhower approved a CIA plan to train a group of exiled Cubans for an invasion of their motherland. The group, Brigade 2506, hoped that the Cuban people, too, would join them to overthrow the Castro government; they received guerrilla training at a camp in Guatemala organised by the Agency.
In February 1961, President Kennedy authorised the invasion plot. On April 15, eight U.S. bombers flew from Nicaragua to hit the Cuban airfields. They missed the primary targets, and news of the attacks became public. Kennedy postponed the planned second round of strikes. On April 17, Brigade 2506 landed at the Bay of Pigs, where the Cuban army quickly defeated them. About 1,200 members of the invasion force surrendered, and nearly 100 were killed. It was one of the most humiliating foreign operations for the U.S.
In October 1962, an American U-2 spy plane uncovered Soviet nuclear missile sites in Cuba. As a result, Kennedy imposed a naval blockade and demanded that the Soviets withdraw the nuclear missiles from there. In response, the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, asked for a guarantee that the U.S. would not invade Cuba again and called for the removal of U.S. nuclear missiles from Turkey. Both sides honored each other’s demands; for their prudent decision, a nuclear confrontation, known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, was avoided.
Since the Missile Crisis, the U.S.-Cuba relationship has remained complex. President Reagan called Cuba a terrorist state and a repressive regime. Obama restored diplomatic ties. Trump 1.0 reversed many of Obama’s normalisation efforts. Biden eased some restrictions, and then Trump 2.0 has been openly threatening Cuba.
Accordingly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has long aimed to change the regime in Cuba. After Maduro’s removal, a window of opportunity opened for him to realise the goal. The theory he intends to apply to accomplish the mission is that if Venezuela cuts off oil, gas, and financial support to Cuba, the Cuban economy will eventually collapse. This collapse could trigger a popular uprising and bring down the regime. Regime change through economic coercion, however, is a slow, complex process. While Rubio’s theory seems plausible, it still warrants careful consideration of a couple of other factors.
Due to numerous sanctions and embargoes, the Cuban economy has remained stagnant for decades. As a result, over 1 million Cubans under 50 have left the country in the recent past. This demographic shift is consequential. History shows that in large mass uprisings, people in this age group tend to lead; without them, organising and mobilising street movements becomes challenging. This could be a credible stumbling block for the U.S.
Furthermore, the Cubans have become resilient in the face of their economic downturn. They have endured the worst times in the past. For instance, during the ‘Special Period,’ from late 1989 to early 1990, at the end of the Cold War, when the former Soviet Union withdrew its financial support, Cuba adapted and survived. This shows that Cuba’s government can withstand economic pressures.
Regime change is an audacious enterprise. It raises hopes. People expect tangible improvements in their daily lives compared to what they experienced under the previous regime. Americans faced widespread public resentment in Afghanistan and Iraq because the new regimes installed there did not fulfill their promises. Rubio should consider these points.
The implications of a regime change in Cuba will be transformative, though. Nations across the Western Hemisphere will encounter constant pressure to cater to American interests. As Stephen Miller warned, the U.S. will apply iron laws to maintain its influence in the region. Any defiance or dissent against U.S. wishes will likely generate geopolitical tensions and lead to unnecessary confrontations. Therefore, Latin America is facing bleak times ahead.
The writer is a Doctoral Researcher, International Relations, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)
