By John Haltiwanger
It was recently revealed that the U.S. government secretly developed a “Cuban Twitter,” in what has been described as an attempt to undermine the communist government of Cuba via social media. The project, spearheaded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), established a network that eluded Cuba’s Internet restrictions and connected users through a text-message service.
According to Politico: “The project… sought to evade Cuba’s stranglehold on the Internet with a primitive social media platform. First, the network would build a Cuban audience, mostly young people; then, the plan was to push them toward dissent.”
The program, known as ZunZuneo, lasted for over two years and drew around 68,000 subscribers. AP claims that it was financed through foreign banks and built with secret shell companies.
The program was designed to conceal that the U.S. government established it, thus users were unaware of its origins. AP received a series of documents on the project from a contractor for USAID, and one memo apparently stated, “There will be absolutely no mention of United States government involvement.”
As AP notes: “Users were neither aware it was created by a U.S. agency with ties to the State Department, nor that American contractors were gathering personal data about them, in the hope that the information might be used someday for political purposes.”
The project’s covert nature and focus on the use of technology for political ends is reminiscent of the Cold War, and some have questioned the judgment that initially led to the scheme. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy had only three words to describe the program: “Dumb, dumb, dumb.”
Accordingly, the U.S. government’s response to this issue has been somewhat mixed. The head of USAID, Rajiv Shah, defended the project before a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 8. Shah claimed that the program was not covert and was simply meant to “increase the flow of information.”
A blog post published by USAID prior to his testimony claimed:
… The AP’s story ‘makes for an interesting read, but it’s not true.’ The article went on to rebut eight of the AP’s claims, denying there was any attempt to trigger unrest and saying ZunZuneo was merely an attempt to overcome the ‘information blockade’ in Cuba.
Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, made similar remarks on the Obama administration’s behalf:
Suggestions that this was a covert program are wrong. Congress funds democracy programming for Cuba to help empower Cubans to access more information and to strengthen civil society. These appropriations are public, unlike covert action. The money invested has been debated in Congress.
Yet, Senator Leahy also claimed that the program was never adequately described to Congress.
Furthermore, according to Al Jazeera:
The Associated Press published microblogs intended for the program that seemingly poke fun at Cuba’s leaders, appearing to undermine earlier claims that no U.S.-generated political content was involved and that the social media platform was never intended to stir unrest on the island.
Ultimately, as David Sanger notes for The New York Times, the project was a failure and eventually ran out of funding: “The program ran from 2008 to 2012, when it abruptly ended, apparently because a $1.3 million contract to start up a text-messaging system ran out of money.”
Hence, there are still open questions about the nature of the program and its overall aims. Should the program have been designated as “covert” by U.S. national security law? Did the program endanger its users by keeping them in the dark about its connections with the U.S. government? Will these revelations place other USAID employees around the world in danger?
USAID is typically known for the humanitarian aid work it does, not for covert operations. Accordingly, Al Jazeera aptly notes:
At minimum, details of the program appear to muddy USAID’s longstanding claims that it does not conduct covert actions, and could undermine the agency’s mission to deliver aid to the world’s poor and vulnerable — an effort that requires the trust and cooperation of foreign governments.
This is also very relevant given a major source of tension between the U.S. and Cuban governments was the arrest of the USAID employee Alan Gross in 2009. Gross went to Cuba to deliver communications equipment and to establish Internet access for the Jewish community there. The Cuban government accused Gross of attempting to destabilize the regime and sentenced him to 15 years in prison.
While these are all valid concerns, perhaps the bigger question here is, “Why does the US government still have such a difficult relationship with Cuba?”
The Cuban government released a statement shortly after AP broke the story: “It is once again demonstrated that the government of the United States has not given up on its subversive plans against Cuba, which seek to create destabilizing situations in the country in order to provoke changes in our political order.”
While it is still debatable whether or not this was a sincere attempt to “subvert” the Cuban government, it’s true that the U.S. government has actively sought to supplant it in the past. As David Sanger states, “At first glance, the program seemed to be in the spirit of many failed efforts by the United States government, dating to the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, to destabilize the Cuban government.” Thus, the Cuban government has every right to be suspicious of the U.S. government’s intentions in their country.
The United States and Cuba have had a troubled relationship for decades, beginning with the Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro in 1959. The revolution supplanted Fulgencio Batista, a Cuban leader with long-standing U.S. ties, and effectively established a communist government in Cuba. This was at the height of the Cold War, when the United States greatly feared the spread of communism and actively sought to prevent it. The U.S. government essentially believed that if one country fell to communism, the surrounding countries would also succumb to its influences. This is known as the “Domino Theory.”
Initially, the U.S. government recognized Fidel Castro’s regime, but connections between the two countries swiftly decayed. This was largely a consequence of the nationalization of U.S. properties in Cuba by the new government. In response, by October 19, 1960, the U.S. government had prohibited basically all exports to Cuba, establishing what is now the longest embargo in modern history.
To make matters worse, in 1961, the U.S. government attempted to overthrow Castro using C.I.A. trained Cuban exiles at the infamous Bay of Pigs Invasion. This endeavor failed miserably, and President John F. Kennedy was forced to publicly admit his role in the embarrassing operation. Understandably, the incident also made the government in Cuba even more suspicious of the U.S. government.
In February 1962, the U.S. continued to pressure Cuba economically by banning imports on basically all Cuban goods.
US-Cuban relations reached a dismal low in October 1962, when the U.S. government discovered that the Soviet Union was constructing missile sites in Cuba based on a secret agreement that was made following the Bay of Pigs Invasion. The events following this discovery became known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, which almost culminated with a US invasion of Cuba. Such an invasion could have led to nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the Unite States. Accordingly, this has often been characterized as the tensest moment of the Cold War, and one in which the world came closest to full-out nuclear conflict. Luckily a nuclear holocaust was ultimately avoided, but there have still been reverberating consequences for Cuba.
Today, the United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Cuba and it is very difficult for people to travel between the two countries as a consequence of the embargo. Cuba also remains on the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, “a designation first assigned in 1982 in light of Fidel Castro’s training of rebels in Central America.”
Despite the fact that the Cold War is now over and the Soviet Union no longer exists, the U.S. continues to perpetuate a policy that is a product of an era long-gone.
In essence, communism is not a threat to the U.S., and as President Obama once said to Mitt Romney during a presidential debate, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Perhaps President Obama should follow his own advice in regards to Cuba.
Despite the fact that the U.S. treats Cuba like an enemy, in reality it is not a substantial threat whatsoever. The military and economic might of the United States far surpasses that of Cuba.
The present relationship between the U.S. and Cuba is a product of an anachronistic worldview and the refusal of certain politicians, primarily a small group of Cuban exiles, to admit that the embargo has failed. These exiles, among others, have an understandable right to feel disgusted by the Castro regime, given its many crimes and human rights violations, but it is apparent that the embargo has now failed in bringing about its demise. Moreover, the embargo now negatively impacts generations of Cubans that had nothing to do with the events of 1961-62 and arguably makes the U.S. look like a bully, rather than a beacon of democracy.
Both the United Nations and Amnesty International, among others, have denounced the embargo and called for the U.S. to lift it. As the Council on Foreign Relation notes, there is global support for engagement with Cuba, and a majority are against the U.S. embargo.
Although, it is notable that the Obama administration has taken positive steps from previous administrations on this issue. As noted by the Washington Post in 2009:
The White House announced that it is abandoning longstanding restrictions on family travel, remittances and gifts to Cuba, and is also taking steps to open up telecommunications with the island, a significant shift in policy that fulfills a promise President Obama made during his election campaign.
Yet, one still wonders why the government hasn’t lifted the embargo altogether. President Obama does not have the power to lift the embargo without the support of Congress, and there is opposition in both parties to such an action.
Still, it is somewhat baffling that the U.S. government continues to engage in dubious activities, like this recent social media scheme, to further its interests in Cuba. Why not engage the Cuban government directly? DeWayne Whitney captures this notion quite succinctly for USA Today:
The irony here is that Cuba has been moving toward more openness in recent years without an assist from USAID. It has liberalized its travel laws, outlawed workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians and slowly, but surely, become more accepting of dissent… Though the USAID seems oblivious to such signs of progress, the White House should be more discerning. Obama ought to shut down U.S. efforts to topple Cuba’s government and seek ways to spur a more open society there by earnestly engaging it.
This is precisely why Senator Leahy argued that if U.S. companies were allowed to operate in Cuba, this would undoubtedly lead to the use of Twitter, and a secretive program like ZunZuneo wouldn’t even be necessary.
Furthermore, as Daniel Griswold, from the Cato Institute think tank, puts it:
As a foreign policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castro’s standing by giving him a handy excuse for the failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism… If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms… If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.
Therefore, it is time for the US government to seriously consider lifting this outdated embargo, and to cease engaging in questionable activities against the Cuban government. It is readily apparent that it’s in the interests of both countries to resume open dialogue and economic relations. In fact, polls show that a majority of Americans would like to reestablish normal relations with Cuba. Democracy, coming from the Greek words for people (demos) and rule (kratos), literally means “rule of the people.” Both the American people and the wider world have spoken, and it’s time for the U.S. government to listen – lift the embargo, and say goodbye to a bygone era in which we came to the brink of nuclear destruction.
About the author: John Haltiwanger is the Editor-in-Chief of One World, Many Voices – A Global Conversation. John is 25-years-old and grew up in the Washington DC area. He earned a BA in History from St. Mary’s College of Maryland. In Dec. 2013, John completed an MSc in International Relations at the University of Glasgow. At present, John works as a Communications and Project Support Officer for the Scottish Global Forum, an independent research institute. John aims to research and write in the areas of international politics, human rights, social justice, defense and security, conflict resolution, and war and media studies. He enjoys traveling, writing, football (soccer), music, and film.
One World, Many Voices - A Global Conversation 