322. Editorial Note
Henry Owen, Chairman of the Policy Planning Council, obtained Ruskʼs approval in May 1967, to review U.S. policy toward Cuba. Rusk agreed that a National Policy Paper (NPP) offered the best framework for such a study (see Document 314). The study did not get started until September 1967. During the spring of 1968, the ideas of the second draft of the NPP were still being debated within the Department of State (see Document 320).
The Policy Planning Councilʼs final draft National Policy Paper on Cuba, dated July 15, 1968, described the present U.S. policy as “passive containment,” consisting of three conceptual elements—1) protecting other countries from Cuban subversion; 2) applying “diplomatic isolation and economic denial policies” aimed at both hindering Castroʼs capacity to export subversion and at maximizing his internal problems and vulnerabilities; and 3) “hoping and waiting for ‘breaks’” that might improve the situation. It described the present policy as the easiest one to follow at the time, but stated that the “capacity of the U.S. to isolate Cuba, exert pressure on Castro and exploit vulnerabilities is declining.” “The ability of ‘passive containment’ to meet U.S. objectives may therefore with time have to depend increasingly upon the pure containment aspect, i.e., simply countering Castroʼs probes at target sites, rather than on measures having direct impact on Cuba itself.”
The paper stated that the only apparent hope “that Castro and/or the Cuban power structure” would change their policy rested “on their becoming convinced that it is unproductive.” “Present U.S. policy, however, does not promise to be the most effective way to achieve this kind of long-term improvement.” It predicted that the effectiveness of economic denials would decline over the next few years and that the political cost of U.S. policy would grow greatly. “Present policy in sum is a negative and reactive one which offers limited promise of effecting desirable change.”
[Page 754]The paper advocated replacing “passive containment” with “positive containment,” which it described as “a series of initiatives, parallel steps, concrete actions and understandings concerning limited things, all acted on their own merits at the time, the cumulative effect of which over time would be de facto changes.” It described “positive containment” as a strategy containing the elements of containment (keeping Castro from successfully subverting other countries), pressure (continued application of isolation/denial measures), psychological context (a change in the basic U.S. policy attitude of implacable hostility and threatening intentions), and “a variety of alternative probes to improve the situation.”
It would be important in the psychological context “largely to ignore Castro in public stances and proclamations” and to project “patience and friendliness toward the Cuban people.” In this respect, the paper advocated “encouraging more legitimate and responsible scholarship.”
The paper illustrated how a scenario of incremental “parallel” steps might unfold, without actually recommending the specific quids and pros. As an example, the paper notes that a Castro quid of continued repatriation of American citizens could be matched by a U.S. pro of granting licenses for commercial shipment of pharmaceuticals “on a more lenient basis.”
The paper concluded with a long series of courses of actions and contingencies. It restated basic U.S. Latin American policy ideas such as support for the Alliance for Progress, OAS regional cooperation, and intelligence surveillance, but also advocated steps to create a new atmosphere and new initiatives. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, S/P Files: Lot 72 D 139, Cuba, 1967–68)
This change in policy, however, was never approved, much less implemented. Instead, the present policy continued. In an August 28 memorandum to ARA/IRG Staff Director William D. Broderick, Director of the Office of Inter-American Political Affairs John W. Ford noted that his office agreed “with CCA that this is not the most propitious moment to embark on such a program, as Cubaʼs present economic straits and the signs of growing discontent would indicate that the pinch of isolation is having a real effect and that we should therefore maintain the full pressure of the isolation policy.” He noted, furthermore, “that any U.S. actions or concessions must fit within the OAS criteria to which we are a party and must avoid if possible the impression of unilateral U.S. policy making. (Ibid., ARA/CCA Files: Lot 71 D 201, POL 3.4 OAS) In an October 29 briefing paper FitzGerald wrote that this draft national policy paper “was never formally processed for approval because it was decided that it should be considered by the new administration.” (Ibid., Lot 73 D 191, Misc. Correspondence, FitzGerald, Oct–Dec 1968)