Order Code RS22742
October 23, 2007
Cuba’s Political Succession:
From Fidel to Raúl Castro
Mark P. Sullivan
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
Since Fidel Castro stepped down from power in late July 2006, Cuba’s political
succession from Fidel to Raúl Castro has been characterized by a remarkable degree of
stability. While there have not been any significant economic changes under Raúl, there
are signs that some changes could be coming. In a July 26, 2007 speech, Raúl
maintained that structural changes were needed in the Cuban economy in order to
increase efficiency and production. Moreover, expectations for economic change are
increasing in Cuba. Cuba’s stable political succession from one communist leader to
another raises questions about the future direction of U.S. policy, which currently
presumes a democratic transition after the departure of Fidel. This report will not be
updated. For developments in U.S. policy toward Cuba, see CRS Report RL33819,
Cuba: Issues for the 110th Congress; and CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions
on Travel and Remittances. For background and analysis in the aftermath of Fidel
Castro’s stepping down from power in July 2006, see CRS Report RL33622, Cuba’s
Future Political Scenarios and U.S. Policy Approaches.
Cuban Developments
Stable Succession. It has now been more than a year since Fidel Castro ceded
provisional control of the government and the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) to his
brother Raúl on July 31, 2006 because of poor health. While initially many observers
forecast Raúl’s assumption of power as temporary, it soon became clear that a permanent
succession of political power had occurred. Fidel’s health improved in 2007, and he
allegedly has authored numerous essays in Cuba’s state-run press, but his condition has
remained weak, and most observers contend that he will not resume his previous duties
in the Cuban government.
Whether Fidel will retain his titular positions as head of state and government and
leader of the party remains unclear. Cuba has already begun the process for municipal
and provincial elections that will ultimately lead to legislative elections for the National
Assembly of People’s Power in early 2008, potentially in March. An important question

---

CRS-2
in the legislative elections is whether Fidel Castro will be nominated to be a deputy in the
Assembly, as he has since its inception in 1975. Since that time, the Assembly has
selected Fidel as President of the Council of State, making him head of state and
government. Other key figures in the Cuban government, including Raúl Castro, also are
deputies in the National Assembly.
Even before Fidel stepped down from power in July 2006, a communist successor
government under Raúl was viewed as the most likely political scenario for Cuba’s
government after Fidel. As First Vice President of the Council of State, Raúl has been
the officially designated successor pursuant to Article 94 of the Cuban Constitution, and
in the past, Fidel publicly endorsed Raúl as his successor as head of the PCC. Moreover,
Raúl’s position as head of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), which essentially
controls Cuba’s security apparatus, made him the most likely candidate to succeed Fidel.
What is notable about Cuba’s political succession from Fidel to Raúl is that it has
been characterized by political stability. There has been no apparent evidence of rivalry
or schisms within the ruling elite that have posed a threat to Raúl’s new position. In the
aftermath of Fidel stepping down, Raúl mobilized thousands of reservists and military
troops to quell a potential U.S. invasion. He also reportedly dispatched undercover
security to likely trouble spots in the capital to deal with any unrest, but the streets
remained calm with a sense of normalcy in day-to-day Cuba.1
Prospects for Change. As Raúl stepped into his new role as head of
government, a number of observers predicted that he would be more open to economic
reform than Fidel, pointing to his past support for opening up farmers’ markets in Cuba
and the role of the Cuban military in successfully operating economic enterprises. Many
have speculated that Cuba under Raúl might follow a Chinese or Vietnamese economic
model. After more than a year in power, however, there have not been any significant
economic changes to indicate that Cuba is moving in the direction of a Chinese model.
Moreover, Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage, known for orchestrating Cuba’s limited
economic reforms in the 1990s, reportedly said in late August 2007 that Cuba would not
follow the same economic path of other communist nations such as China and Vietnam.2
Nevertheless, with several minor economic policy changes undertaken by Raúl, there
are some signs that more substantial economic changes could be coming. Raúl’s
leadership style is far different than that of Fidel, with observers maintaining that Raúl is
more pragmatic with a consultative decision-making style. He is not prone to excessive
political rhetoric, and he has only given a few public speeches since he assumed power.
Among the smaller economic changes under Raúl, the Cuban government has paid off its
debts to small farmers and raised prices that the state pays producers for milk and meat;
customs regulations have been relaxed to allow the importation of home appliances, DVD
1 Brian Latell, “Raúl Castro: Confronting Fidel’s Legacy in Cuba,” The Washington Quarterly,
Summer 2007, p. 55.
2 Marc Frank, “Cuban Official Nixes Russian and Chinese Reforms,” Reuters News, August 30,
2007.

---

CRS-3
players, VCRs, game consoles, auto parts, and televisions; and private taxis have been
allowed to operate without police interference.3
In a speech on Cuba’s July 26, 2007 revolutionary anniversary (commemorating the
1953 attack on a military facility in Santiago, Cuba), Raúl Castro acknowledged that
Cuban salaries were insufficient to satisfy basic needs, and maintained that structural and
conceptual changes were necessary in order to increase efficiency and production. He
also called for increased foreign investment. For some, Raúl’s call for structural changes
was significant, and could foreshadow future economic reforms such as allowing more
private enterprise and a shift away from state ownership in some sectors.4 A contrary
view is that Raúl’s speech offered nothing concrete that would open the Cuban economy,
but instead emphasized that the key to economic improvement was greater discipline and
productivity.5
Whatever the case, it seems clear that Raúl’s speech has increased expectations for
change within Cuba. In the aftermath of the speech, thousands of officially-sanctioned
meetings have been held in workplaces and local Communist Party branches around the
country where Cubans have been encouraged to air their views and discuss the future
direction of the country. Complaints have focused on low salaries and housing and
transportation problems, and some participants have advocated legalization of more
private businesses.6 Raised expectations for economic change in Cuba could increase the
chance that government actually will adopt some policy changes. Doing nothing would
run the risk of increased public frustration and a potential for social unrest.
Several factors, however, could restrain the magnitude of economic policy change
in Cuba. A number of observers believe that as long as Fidel Castro is around, it will be
difficult for the government to move forward with any major initiatives that are viewed
as deviating from Fidel’s orthodox policies. Other observers point to the significant oil
subsidies and investment that Cuba now receives from Venezuela that have helped spur
Cuba’s high economic growth levels over the past several years, and maintain that such
support lessens the government’s impetus for economic reforms. Another factor that
bodes against rapid economic policy reform is the fear that it could spur the momentum
for political change. Given that one of the highest priorities for Cuba’s government has
been maintaining social and political stability, any economic policy changes are likely to
be smaller changes introduced over time that do not threaten the state’s control.
While some degree of economic change under Raúl Castro is likely over the next
year, few expect there will be any change to the government’s tight control over the
3 James C. McKinley Jr, “Cuba’s Revolution Lurches Forward Under Two Masters,” New York
Times, July 27, 2007; Anita Snow, “Interim Ruler Raúl Castro Takes Small Steps to Improve
Cubans’ Lives, But Are They Enough,” Associated Press Newswires, September 11, 2007.
4 Philip Peters, “Will Raúl Castro Reform Cuba’s Economy?” Cuba Policy Report, Lexington
Institute, September 25. 2007; “Cuba: Raúl Hints at Economic Liberalisation,” Oxford Analytica,
August 3, 2007.
5 Jaime Suchlicki, “Cuba Without Fidel,” Cuba Transition Project, Institute for Cuban and
Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami, Focus on Cuba, Issue 87, July 31, 2007.
6 Frances Robles, “Cubans Urged to Vent Views,” Miami Herald, October 2, 2007.

---

CRS-4
political system, which is backed up by a strong security apparatus. Some observers point
to the reduced number of political prisoners in the past year, from 283 at the end of 2006
to about 244 in mid-2007 as evidence of a lessening of repression, but dissidents maintain
that the overall situation has not improved. For example, in late September 2007, the
government detained dozens of human rights activists on their way to a demonstration in
support of political prisoners. Of the 75 activists imprisoned in March 2003, 59 remain
jailed. Other observers contend that as the new government of Raúl Castro becomes more
secure of ensuring social stability and does not feel threatened, it could move to soften its
hard repression of dissidents.
Beyond Raúl. Since Raúl Castro’s advanced age – he turned 76 in June 2007 –
makes him a transitional political figure, it is important to look at other political figures
who could eventually succeed him. Vice President of the Council of State Carlos Lage,
who turned 56 in October 2007, is often described as a centrist or reformer, was
responsible for Cuba’s limited economic reforms in the 1990s, and was tapped by Fidel
to take over the energy portfolio. Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, often described
as an orthodox hardliner, turned 42 in March 2007 and is the youngest member of the
Political Bureau (Politburo) of the Communist Party. A third potential successor is
Ricardo Alarcón, the president of Cuba’s legislative branch, the National Assembly of
Peoples Power – who turned 70 in May 2007– and has often been described as a centrist.

While so-called hardliners, centrists, and reformers all support the continued political
dominance of the PCC, they differ in their openness to market-based solutions that could
help resolve some of the country’s economic problems. Hardliners would be the most
opposed to economic liberalization while reformers would be the most open to economic
change, and potentially might support some type of political liberalization, albeit within
the context of the communist government maintaining political power. The prospects of
a political opening in the long-term could depend on whether reformers will predominate.
U.S. Policy Implications
Cuba’s peaceful political succession from one communist leader to another raises
questions about the future direction of U.S. policy. Current U.S. policy can be described
as a dual-track policy of isolating Cuba through comprehensive economic sanctions,
including restrictions on trade and financial transactions, while providing support to the
Cuban people through such measures as funding for democracy and human rights projects
and U.S.-government sponsored broadcasting to Cuba. The Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-114) sets forth a number of conditions for
the suspension of the embargo, including that a transition Cuban government: does not
include Fidel or Raúl Castro; has legalized all political activity; has released all political
prisoners; has ceased interference with Radio and TV Martí broadcasts; and, is making
progress in establishing an independent judiciary and in respecting internationally
recognized human rights. The actual termination of the embargo would require additional
conditions, including that an elected civilian government is in power. The dilemma for
U.S. policy is that the legislative conditions could keep the United States from having any
leverage or influence as events unfold in a post-Fidel Cuba and as Cuba moves toward a
post-Raúl Cuba.
The Bush Administration has made substantial efforts to prepare for a political
transition in Cuba. In 2004 and 2006, the Administration’s Commission for Assistance

---

CRS-5
to a Free Cuba prepared two reports detailing how the United States could provide support
to a Cuban transition government to help it respond to humanitarian needs, conduct free
and fair elections, and move toward a market-based economy. A criticism of the reports,
however, is that they presuppose that Cuba will undergo a rapid democratic transition, and
do not entertain the possibility of reform or economic change under a communist
government. On the basis of these reports, the United States may be unprepared to deal
with alternative scenarios of Cuba’s political transition.
Over the past several years Congress has often debated policy toward Cuba, with one
or both houses at times approving legislative provisions that would ease U.S. sanctions
on Cuba. President Bush has regularly threatened to veto various appropriations bills if
they contained provisions weakening the embargo, and ultimately these provisions have
been stripped out of final enacted measures. With the party turnover of the 110th Congress
and the stable political succession in Cuba from Fidel to Raúl, some observers predicted
that efforts in Congress to ease Cuba sanctions would intensify. The lack of any
significant policy changes in Cuba under Raúl, however, has appeared to diminish the
impetus in Congress for any major change in policy toward Cuba.
Raúl’s Overtures. Since assuming power, Raúl Castro has made several public
offers to engage in dialogue with the United States that have been rebuffed by U.S.
officials who maintain that change in Cuba must precede a change in U.S. policy. In an
August 2006 interview, Raúl asserted that Cuba has “always been disposed to normalize
relations on an equal plane,” but at the same time he expressed strong opposition to
current U.S. policy toward Cuba, which he described as “arrogant and interventionist.”7
In response, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas
Shannon reiterated a U.S. offer to Cuba, first articulated by President Bush in May 2002,
that the Administration was willing to work with Congress to lift U.S. economic sanctions
if Cuba were to begin a political opening and a transition to democracy. According to
Shannon, the Bush Administration remains prepared to work with Congress for ways to
lift the embargo if Cuba is prepared to free political prisoners, respect human rights,
permit the creation of independent organizations, and create a mechanism and pathway
toward free and fair elections.8
Raúl Castro reiterated an offer to negotiate with the United States in a December
2006 speech. He said that “we are willing to resolve at the negotiating table the
longstanding dispute between the United States and Cuba, of course, provided they
accept, as we have previously said, our condition as a country that will not tolerate any
blemishes on its independence, and as long as said resolution is based on the principles
of equality, reciprocity, non-interference, and mutual respect.”9 More recently, in his July
26, 2007 speech, Raúl reiterated for the third time an offer to engage in dialogue with the
United States, and strongly criticized U.S. trade and economic sanctions on Cuba. This
time, Raúl pointed to the future of relations with the next U.S. Administration, and stated
7 “No Enemy Can Defeat Us,” interview of Raúl Castro by Laszar Barredo Medina, Diario
Granma, August 18, 2006.
8 U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Policy Toward Cuba,” Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary
for Western Hemisphere Affairs, August 23, 2006.
9 “English Transcript of Raul Castro’s Speech,” Miami Herald, December 2, 2006.

---

CRS-6
that “the new administration will have to decide whether it will keep the absurd, illegal,
and failed policies against Cuba, or accept the olive branch that we extended.” He
asserted that “if the new U.S. authorities put aside arrogance and decide to talk in a
civilized manner, they will be welcome. If not, we are willing to deal with their hostile
policies, even for another 50 years if necessary.”10 A U.S. State Department spokesman
responded that “the only real dialogue that’s needed is with the Cuban people.”11
U.S. Policy Approaches. In the context of Raúl Castro’s succession, there are
two broad policy approaches to contend with political change in Cuba: a stay the course
or status-quo approach that would maintain the policy of isolating the Cuban government
with comprehensive economic sanctions; and an approach aimed at influencing Cuban
government and society through an easing of sanctions and increased contact and
engagement.
Advocates of continued sanctions argue that the Cuban government under Raúl
Castro has not demonstrated any willingness to ease repression or initiate any political or
economic openings. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez asserts that “the succession
from Fidel to Raúl is a preservation of dictatorship” and that “the regime needs to have
a dialogue with the Cuban people before it has one with the United States.”12 Other
supporters of current policy maintain that easing economic sanctions would prolong the
communist regime by increasing money flowing into its state-controlled enterprises, while
continued sanctions would keep up the pressure to enact deeper economic reforms.13
Those advocating an easing of sanctions argue that the United States needs to take
advantage of Cuba’s political succession to abandon its long-standing sanctions-based
policy that has had no practical effect in changing the policies of the Cuban government.
They argue that continuing the status quo would only serve to guarantee many more years
of hostility between Cuba and the United States, and reduce the chances for positive
change in Cuba by slowing the pace of liberalization and reform.14 Others argue that the
United States should work toward engaging and negotiating with Cuba in order to bring
incremental change because even the smallest reforms can help spur popular expectations
for additional change.15
10 “Raúl Castro Presides Over Rebellion Day Ceremony,” Open Source Center [Cubavisión], July
26, 2007.
11 Frances Robles, “Raúl Again Offers ‘Olive Branch’ to U.S.,” Miami Herald, July 27, 2007;
“U.S. Government Rejects Dialogue with Cuba,” EFE, July 27, 2007,
12 Department of Commerce, “Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez Remarks at the Heritage
Foundation, Washington, D.C.,” September 17, 2007.
13 Jason Poblete and Jamie Suchlicki, “When Should the U.S. Change Policy Toward Cuba,”
Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami, Cuba Brief, August 13,
2007.
14 Julia E. Sweig, “Fidel’s Final Victory,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2007.
15 Mario Loyola, “After Fidel,” The Weekly Standard, October 15, 2007.

---