The strategy currently being considered by the Trump administration for Cuba presents a complex situation that may initially seem puzzling.
While Washington is intensifying efforts to instigate substantial changes on the island, it is also seeking out officials within the Cuban regime who might be open to collaborating during a transitional period.
These objectives are not inherently contradictory.
According to an investigation by The New York Times, the approach can be summed up by the phrase "more regime alteration than regime change." This suggests a transformation or adjustment of the regime rather than a complete overhaul.
This distinction is crucial.
In political science, the terms government change, leadership change, and regime change denote different concepts. Replacing a president doesn't necessarily alter the fundamental rules governing power. Even when a significant portion of the ruling elite is replaced, institutional frameworks, economic relationships, security forces, and control mechanisms can remain intact.
A genuine regime change involves altering those foundational rules: determining who can vie for power, how power is accessed, what institutions limit it, and what political rights are truly available to citizens.
However, between these extremes lies a vast space for hybrid processes. It's within this space that the U.S. strategy, as outlined by the Times, seems to be operating.
Analyzing the U.S. Strategy
Washington's plan does not necessarily start with demolishing all existing structures in Cuba.
The Trump administration has tasked its intelligence agencies with identifying current or former regime officials who might assume leadership roles and collaborate with the U.S. should American pressure lead to a fracture within the ruling elite.
The reference model is Venezuela.
After the U.S. forces detained Nicolás Maduro in January, Delcy Rodríguez was appointed interim president. Washington viewed her, as reported by the Times, as a pragmatic figure capable of maintaining institutional continuity while working closely with the U.S.
The Venezuelan state apparatus did not vanish with Maduro's removal. Many officials, institutions, military personnel, police, judges, and administrators remained unchanged.
Initially, only the power center and its relationship with Washington shifted. This type of process helps clarify the concept of "regime alteration" utilized by the publication.
Challenges of Political Transition
Instead of dismantling the system entirely before constructing a new one, the strategy involves gradually modifying its operation using existing structures.
This approach addresses one of the essential questions in any political transition: what happens the day after?
Tearing down a power structure can be much faster than creating institutions to replace it.
Authoritarian states are not solely comprised of their leaders. Beneath the leadership lies a network of ministries, provincial and municipal administrations, public enterprises, banks, courts, police forces, military units, intelligence services, and thousands of officials responsible for the country's daily operations.
Cuba, after nearly seven decades of socialism, adds another layer of complexity. The boundaries between the State, Communist Party, Armed Forces, Interior Ministry, and military-controlled economic conglomerates are deeply intertwined.
Dismantling all these structures simultaneously could lead to a power and institutional vacuum that is difficult to manage. Political transitions rarely start from scratch. Even when a regime disappears, a significant portion of the state often persists.
Identifying Potential Leaders
A crucial question, then, is which institutions should be temporarily maintained, which need reform, which should be abolished, and which actors from the old system can participate in the transition.
The Times reports that Lázaro Alberto Álvarez Casas, the Interior Minister, might be seen as acceptable to U.S. officials. The Trump administration could also consider Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, "El Cangrejo," Raúl Castro's grandson.
The report does not claim they have been chosen to govern Cuba or that the U.S. has made any decisions.
However, managing a transition from within can mitigate the risk of state collapse, but it does not inherently guarantee a democratic transition. Replacing one elite with another from the same system may simply lead to an authoritarian reshuffle.
By seeking pragmatic individuals within the Cuban elite, the Trump administration appears to be contemplating not only how to ramp up pressure on Havana but also addressing a more intricate issue: who would govern Cuba the following day and with which institutions?
Understanding U.S. Policy Towards Cuba
What is the main goal of Washington's strategy for Cuba?
The primary aim is to bring about changes within the Cuban regime by identifying and working with officials who can facilitate a transition, rather than dismantling the regime entirely.
How does the U.S. strategy for Cuba compare to its approach in Venezuela?
The strategy is similar in that it seeks to maintain institutional continuity while shifting the power dynamics and establishing a working relationship with pragmatic figures within the regime.
Why is the term "regime alteration" significant?
"Regime alteration" signifies a focus on transforming the regime's function without completely overthrowing it, allowing for gradual change and stability.