As a general rule, I do not go into the foreign policy objectives and/or implications of the sanctions regulations administered by the United States Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). Frankly, it is what it is and my goal is to represent clients before OFAC and make sure that they are being treated fairly and/or staying on the right side of the regulations. However, I recently got an email from a reader who made an interesting comment. He had asked for my advice in interpreting the new definition of “close relative” in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. In a series of emails that went back and forth on the issue, he made an observation that I found interesting. He said, “Is not the intent of the law to bring families together and not separate them by lines of marriage?”

Well……maybe. Or maybe not.

It is anyone’s guess as to what the motivations behind the recent amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations are. In my opinion, the amended regulations have more to do with the fact that the embargo has not reached its desired goal and we are now trying a different approach. While I do not believe we are going to completely dump the regulations anytime soon (barring a regime change), it is my belief that we are moving in this direction to allow more American influence to reach the island, which in turn may weaken the regime’s power base. Its essentially a democratization through exposure strategy: allow individuals to taste the freedoms of America by being exposed to more Americans and soon they will demand those same freedoms from their country. The belief is that such demands would then be the staging ground for a popular revolution that would in theory establish a pro-U.S. democratic government.

However, that is all theory and it doesn’t always work that way. For example, take the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Iran was one of America’s closest allies through the 1950s, 1960s, and most of the 1970s. However, American influence and the pro-U.S. Shah was used as a catalyst to remove the Shah and paved the way for the wresting of power by Khomeini and the Islamic movement. Obviously, we know that American exposure here did not lead to further democratization, much less a pro-U.S. government.

The situation with Cuba is different, however, in that America is not involved in supporting the state apparatus. They are only easing restrictions and thus allowing for greater flow of people, information, and ideas with the island. This is a much more subtle approach than when the CIA formulated a coup against the popularly elected Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and helped prop up the Shah with financial and military support for three decades. However, it does not to mean that the intended goal is not the same.

This begs the questions: so what? Is it bad a thing that people are more exposed to American values, ideas, and freedoms? Maybe…..or maybe not. Certainly this goes into the whole argument for (or against) globalization. The key point here is that if we are going to exert more soft power by way of easing restrictions on movement and trade between the U.S. and nations we have found to be adverse to our foreign policy agenda, we also have to be ready for the backlash that could result. Will Cuba go the way of the Islamic Republic as a result of this new “close relative” definition? Hopefully not, but it goes back to something my mom always told me: everything in moderation.

This is a subject that could be written on, and has been written on, at some length; a subject that falls outside the scope of this blog. However, what readers of this blog might be want to keep in mind is that while the effect this new definition has might be one whereby families are brought closer together, I believe that OFAC’s actions are directed more by U.S. foreign policy than by any desire to promote familial unity. OFAC is an agency whose raison d’etre is to further the foreign policy objectives of the United States. They administer trade sanctions. Those trade sanctions are implemented against countries, individuals, and/or entities that we have deemed to be rogues, criminals, or part of some larger body adverse to our foreign policy objectives. Therefore, when they are asked to carry out amendments such as the ones we have seen recently pertaining to Cuba there are certainly foreign policy considerations involved.

Thank you to all of the readers who have been writing and sending me comments. I truly appreciate it and I think they make for great blog postings.

The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in OFAC litigation. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 at 202-351-6161 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.