The Biden administration is expected to remove Cuba from the United States’ list of state sponsors of terrorism—a decision that evokes a sense of déjà vu.
This is not the first time Cuba has been placed on, and subsequently removed from, this contentious list. The cyclical nature of US-Cuba relations underscores the intersection of international diplomacy with domestic political calculations and raises questions about whether this latest move will have any lasting impact.
The designation, first applied in 1982 during the Reagan administration, was based on allegations that Cuba supported revolutionary movements and provided refuge to fugitives. While those claims were rooted in Cold War geopolitics, the label has since been criticised as largely symbolic. For Cuba, however, its consequences have been far from symbolic—resulting in severe diplomatic isolation, economic restrictions, and compounded hardships for its citizens.
In 2015, then-President Barack Obama removed Cuba from the list as part of a broader effort to normalise relations between the two nations. This historic thaw was widely praised as a step toward pragmatic diplomacy and mutual engagement.
However, in January 2021, President Donald Trump reversed that decision, reinstating Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. His administration cited Cuba’s ties to Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro regime and alleged harbouring of US fugitives. Many critics viewed this as a politically motivated decision aimed at bolstering support among Cuban-American voters in swing states like Florida.
Now, with Biden’s expected removal of Cuba from the list, questions about the decision’s permanence loom large. As Barbados’ Ambassador to CARICOM, David Comissiong aptly observed, the timing of the decision raises significant concerns. The imminent inauguration of Trump as the 47th president creates a real possibility that these measures could once again be undone. Trump’s hardline stance toward Cuba during his first term, coupled with his nomination of Senator Marco Rubio—an outspoken critic of the Cuban government—as Secretary of State, signals the likelihood of a swift reversal.
Ambassador Comissiong also highlighted that while the removal of Cuba from the terrorism list is welcome, it is only a partial step forward. “There is still great cause for concern that the bulk of the financial and economic sanctions would still remain in place,” he noted. Indeed, while removing Cuba from the list would ease some financial and diplomatic restrictions, the decades-old US embargo—the most significant impediment to Cuba’s economic recovery—would remain intact.
The embargo, which has persisted since 1962, continues to stifle Cuba’s economic potential and its ability to engage fully with the international community. Although the removal of the terrorism label could symbolise a shift in tone, its practical implications are limited unless accompanied by broader measures to lift sanctions and normalise relations.
Critics of the Cuban government insist that the country’s human rights record and one-party political system justify continued pressure. However, decades of isolation have done little to effect meaningful change in Cuba. Constructive engagement, on the other hand, offers the potential for gradual reform through dialogue and cooperation rather than punitive policies that primarily harm ordinary Cubans.
For Caribbean nations like Barbados, which have long opposed the US embargo, the anticipated removal of Cuba from the list of states that sponsor terrorism is a welcome but insufficient development. As a longstanding advocate for Cuba at the United Nations and in regional forums, CARICOM has consistently called for the full lifting of the embargo, viewing it as a violation of international law and a cause of unjust hardship for the Cuban people.
The broader question remains: will this decision signify the beginning of sustained progress in US-Cuba relations, or will it be rendered meaningless by domestic political considerations and a rapid policy reversal? With Trump poised to retake office, the latter scenario seems all too plausible. A single signature could erase this progress.
If the United States is serious about a constructive relationship with Cuba, it must adopt a consistent and principled approach that prioritises engagement over antagonism. The region—and history—will judge whether this moment marks genuine progress or another fleeting, symbolic gesture.
The post A familiar turn in US-Cuba relations appeared first on Barbados Today.
