Cuba faces acute challenges including food security, energy shortages, rising disease rates and ongoing economic contraction. Creating conditions that encourage citizens to remain and contribute to national recovery is critical. Cuba’s private sector and agricultural community both are seeking avenues for economic advancement and self-determination — principles supported by the United States. U.S. agriculture can play a pivotal role by supporting Cuba’s private sector and farm cooperatives.
The framework to support the Cuban people and ensure food security is already in place. U.S. law has permitted agricultural exports to Cuba for 25 years, yet there are significant opportunities for expansion if executive support is forthcoming. Over the past four years, Cuba has changed its import purchases from the government to its private sector, which today buys an estimated 70% of food imports. Despite this shift, U.S. exports including rice, wheat, pork, beef, soybeans, milk, animal feed, fertilizer and farm equipment remain limited.
To address this imbalance and to help alleviate food security, it is recommended to approve U.S. Treasury licenses for investment in Cuban private businesses and agriculture, contingent upon reciprocal measures from the Cuban government. Such steps would enhance the autonomy and productive capacity of Cuba’s private sector, including farm cooperatives, many of which have the title to their land. Facilitating investment in these entities would foster mutually beneficial trade, thereby improving the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural exports by increasing their purchasing power.
Further, collaboration between agricultural producers, researchers and scientists should be promoted. Increased joint research is necessary to control common pests and diseases and safeguard shared natural resources. Importantly, Cuban farmers, researchers and scientists represent civil society actors whose contributions benefit both countries.
To achieve meaningful change in Cuba, it is essential to begin with shared priorities: ensuring food security and economic stability, with a dynamic private sector playing a key role.
Facilitating agricultural investment, promoting scientific collaboration and broadening bilateral trade would address pressing concerns, while encouraging Cuban citizens to remain and actively participate in the nation’s recovery.
— Paul Johnson, chair, U.S. Agriculture Coalition for Cuba, and partner, Focus-Cuba
Neutral on murderous policy
Foreign affairs columnist Daniel DePetris continues to do a disservice educating Tribune readers on America’s illegal, immoral and criminal foreign policies that have degraded and destroyed numerous countries.
Case in point is his commentary “What kind of deal is the US looking for in Cuba?” (Feb. 3).
For DePetris, it’s all about U.S. foreign policy interests without any mention of their illegality and immorality.
He references how America’s murderous Venezuelan policy, killing over 200 in the boat bombings and capturing sitting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, is a “a force-multiplier for the administration’s Cuba policy, which centers on increasing economic pressure on the island until its aging rulers either wither away or negotiate their own demise.”
It may be a “force-multiplier,” but it’s in service of another notch on America’s murderous regime-change belt that toppled regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Venezuela; the hope is that Cuba and Iran will follow. DePetris writes in such neutral, clinical terms that the uneducated would have nary a clue of how degrading, indeed murderous, U.S. policy truly is on hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
Only at the end does DePetris point out “normalizing the U.S.-Cuba relationship would be the most effective and least costly policy proposal on the table.” Most effective and least costly for whom? The United States, of course, not the Cuban people, who may suffer another 66 years unless sensible commentators push back. That certainly does not include DePetris.
DePetris inadvertently refutes 66 years of America’s shameful Cuban policy by stating the obvious, which applies to the aforementioned five regimes America toppled: “Cuba isn’t a real national security threat to the United States anyway (and) can’t possibly compete with U.S. primacy.”
Sadly, the Tribune Editorial Board seldom editorializes on U.S. foreign policy, the most critical existential issue facing Americans. Instead, it has outsourced foreign affairs to DePetris, a proponent of U.S. exceptionalism, who will never challenge America’s annual trillion-dollar war machine wreaking havoc worldwide.
— Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn
Getting Trump to back down
Columnist Elizabeth Shackelford (“What history tells us about fighting the repression we are seeing here,” Feb. 6) is correct in characterizing some of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s methods as abusive and oppressive.
To be sure, arresting undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes is a worthy goal. Yet, in trying to achieve this goal, ICE has been unnecessarily oppressive at times, and these actions deserve intensive and focused protests. If the federal agents’ methods are not challenged, President Donald Trump will allow the abuse to escalate.
The good news is that Trump can be made to back down. In the face of protests over his resistance to the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, Trump capitulated. After it received severe backlash, Trump played down his statement that the U.S. would “take over” the Gaza strip. Public outrage has already resulted in the reduction of federal agents in Minnesota.
Large and coordinated protests are the way to go. Trump’s ego can take only so much criticism.
— Terry Takash, Western Springs
Problems with classification
Few Americans realize that immigration enforcement operates under a legal fiction created in the 1890s. It is classified as “civil,” even though the government uses criminal‑style power — detention, raids and property seizure — without the constitutional protections required in criminal cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this arrangement, not because it is just but because the law calls it “civil.”
This loophole has produced a parallel justice system with fewer rights and less oversight. It is structurally unsound, constitutionally incoherent and dangerous to leave in place.
I’ve drafted the Due Process in Civil Enforcement Act (DPCEA) to correct this. It would restore judicial warrants, guarantee counsel and ensure that due process applies whenever the government restricts a person’s liberty or livelihood. It also would supersede the outdated statutes and court cases that created this problem.
A constitutional democracy cannot tolerate two systems of justice. It’s time to bring immigration enforcement back under the rule of law.
— Richard Garling, Grayslake
Blame game over immigration
Members of the current administration continually refer to the influx of undocumented immigrants as something that occurred during the Joe Biden administration. President Donald Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and others continually frame the immigration issue as something caused by the prior administration. If this were true, then how is it that so many of the immigrants who are being brutally detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents have resided in the country for more than five years?
Since 1981, Republican and Democratic presidents have deported millions of people, showing that the issue is not just from the prior administration.
It is time to stop blaming a prior administration and do something about improving the way that immigration is addressed. There needs to be a way for immigrants who have been productive members of our society to become citizens.
— Raul Saleme, Naperville
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
