MIAMI, United States. – US officials are considering sending small amounts of fuel to Cuba – gas for cooking and diesel to keep water infrastructure running – with the aim of avoiding a humanitarian crisis, according to publication The Economist last week.
The British magazine recalls that on January 29, Washington imposed an effective embargo on shipments of foreign oil to Cuba, approving the application of tariffs to any country that sent fuel.
The measure caused the Cuban Government to will notify the airlines that fly to the Island that aviation fuel was about to run out. Among other measures, the regime implemented a four-day work week and reduced school hours.
In this context, the article suggests that Rubio – 54 years old and of Cuban origin – has become a key figure within Trump’s cabinet: he is not only secretary of state but also acting national security advisor, functions that put him on par with one of the most famous American politicians, Henry Kissinger.
The magazine frames the Cuban situation as a political dilemma inside and outside of South Florida. On the one hand, he quotes Ricardo Herrero, from the Cuba Study Group, who said: “For Marco Rubio there is no better time.” On the other hand, he affirms that, unlike Herrero, many of the 2.5 million Cuban-Americans would be “tough” and that, among them, are the three congressmen of Cuban origin from South Florida, who are pushing for more severe measures, such as prohibiting family remittances and stopping all flights to the Island by airlines based in the United States.
However, The Economist points out that the White House does not seem willing to go that far and, instead, hopes that the fuel shortage will force the Cuban government to sit down and negotiate. Until now, Cuban officials have rejected the idea that there is any substantive progress and have indicated that the talks have been preliminary. They have also reiterated that, although they are open to dialogue, they will not modify their communist one-party system.
The article warns that if the Cuban regime stands firm, Rubio would face increasing pressure to adopt a more aggressive stance, with political and humanitarian risks.
The text also relativizes the parallels between Venezuela and Cuba. He describes the Cuban regime as ideological and homogeneous, in contrast to the Venezuelan one under Maduro, which he presents as fragmented into factions and guided by self-interest. At that point, he quotes Chris Sabatini, from Chatham House, who stated that the Cuban security forces would be “more indoctrinated” than the Venezuelan ones. Furthermore, the article maintains that Venezuela has abundant mineral wealth that would attract Trump, while Cuba “has little.”
In conclusion, The Economist suggests that Rubio could choose to prolong the pressure and keep Cuba “on tenterhooks” while he weighs costs and benefits, adding that that idea could soon become literal if Washington finally approves limited fuel shipments, particularly for cooking and supporting basic services.
