Jack Matlock Jr., who was a young U.S. foreign service officer stationed in Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and then ambassador there 20 years later under the Reagan Administration, joined a seasoned panel of national security specialists, scholars, and journalists last week to discuss Oct. 27, 1962 — the most militarily fraught day of the crisis before back channel talks between Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and U.S. President John F. Kennedy produced an agreement and averted nuclear war.
Matlock, who has been quite vocal about the diplomatic mistakes made by the U.S. after the fall of the Soviet Union — including NATO expansion — said he was worried that events today in Ukraine have gone well beyond control, with both sides raising the specter of nuclear war again, but this time with no talking. "It’s hard to see how we get out of this,” he said, shaking his head.
He was joined for the event (co-sponsored by the American Committee for U.S.-Russia Accord and the Quincy Institute) by moderator Katrina vanden Heuvel (ACURA/The Nation), Svetlana Savranskaya (National Security Archive, George Washington University), and Tom Blanton (director, National Security Archive).
Blanton, who has done extensive research into declassified materials relating to the Cuban Missile Crisis timeline, warned that like 1962, “events are in the saddle and riding mankind. The lessons are that nukes are a fundamentally destabilizing dark alley where none of us should go.”
Please listen to the entire event, here (opening remarks by me):
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute.
60th Anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis event, Tabard Inn, Washington, on Oct. 27, 2022. From left, Svetlana Savranskaya, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and Jack Matlock Jr. (Photo by Khody Akhavi)
On Monday Israel’s parliamentary body known as the Knesset passedtwo laws banning the United Nations’ Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA) from operating in Israel, and in regions under Israel’s control.
This comes months after Israel claimed that members of UNRWA were either in Hamas or had Hamas connections, even asserting that some participated in the Oct. 7 attacks of last year. An independent review found that claims of widespread Hamas infiltration had no basis, but that some members did hold sympathies for Hamas, even as the organization pushed heavily for neutrality. These claims led the United States and other donor countries to pause funding to the organization back in January of 2024. Some of those countries have since reinstated funding.
For its part, UNRWA is a vital aid service for Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. The organization estimates that there are over 1.7 million Palestinian refugees across its areas of service. It provides social safety net assistance, maintaining Palestinian records, and seeking refugee empowerment. The organization says that 233 of its personnel have been killed in Gaza since the recent war with Hamas began.
American as well as UNRWA spokespeople have criticized the new Israeli laws.“The vote by the Israeli parliament against UNRWA this evening is unprecedented and sets a dangerous precedent,” said Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA’s commissioner-general. “It opposes the UN Charter and violates the State of Israel’s obligations under international law."
Echoing his concern, U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller told reporters that UNRWA “plays an irreplaceable role in Gaza… there’s nobody who can replace them right now in the middle of the crisis.” He urged Israel to pause the implementation of this legislation.
The United States is undertaking a major effort to reinforce the imperial model that it has used to dominate Asia and the Pacific since the end of World War II.
Focusing on its hub-and-spoke model, which it has used to keep itself positioned as the dominant hub of the Pacific, the United States is engaging in simultaneous efforts to facilitate cooperation among its spokes, particularly its allies and partners. U.S. officials are seeking greater multilateral coordination with the spokes, primarily by strengthening regional groupings such as the Quad and fortifying regional alliances such as its trilateral alliance with Japan and South Korea.
U.S. efforts are aimed at building out the hub-and-spoke model in a way that strengthens U.S. dominance of the Indo-Pacific and clears a pathway for the creation of an Asian NATO.
“Our hub-and-spoke model of security in the Indo-Pacific has become integrated so those individual spokes now cooperate and collaborate in a more systemic way,” State Department official Richard Verma explained in remarks to the Hudson Institute in September.
The Hub-and-Spoke Model
Since the end of World War II, the United States has dominated Asia and the Pacific with a hub-and-spoke model. Under the model, the United States has functioned as a dominant hub that has projected its power through several spokes.
According to U.S. officials, the spokes consist of U.S. treaty allies and partners. They include five U.S. treaty allies, which are Japan, Thailand, Australia, South Korea, and the Philippines. They also include leading U.S. partners, which the Biden administration identifies as Taiwan, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Mongolia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands.
Reinforcing the model are additional extensions of U.S. power, such as U.S. states, U.S. territories, U.S. military bases, and the compact states. A critical component of U.S. power is Hawaii, which is home to the headquarters of the Indo-Pacific Command. This military headquarters currently oversees 375,000 military and civilian personnel, who are spread out across the region.
The hub-and-spoke model is the basis for an “informal empire” in Asia, as former U.S. official Victor Cha described it in his 2016 book Powerplay. Although Cha identified growing challenges to the model, particularly from China and its efforts to build China-centered regional structures, he insisted that the model remained the basis for U.S. regional power. He called it a “thread” that holds the regional architecture together.
U.S. officials have long valued the hub-and-spoke model for securing U.S. dominance of the Pacific, but they have never viewed it as an equal to NATO. Whereas NATO provides the United States with the ability to coordinate actions across the North Atlantic region, the hub-and-spoke model impedes multilateral cooperation across the Pacific, as it is built around bilateral relationships with allies and partners that do not always share common interests.
“We would like to see a good deal more cooperation among our allies and security partners—more multilateral ties in addition to hubs and spokes,” Robert Gates said in 2009, when he was secretary of defense in the Obama administration.
With the goal of building more multilateral ties, U.S. officials have been working to bring the spokes into multilateral groupings that embrace multilateral cooperation. Comparing the hub-and-spoke model to the wheel of a bicycle, they have said that they are trying to build a tire around the spokes in a way that holds everything together under U.S. leadership.
“We need to network better our alliances,” Cha advised Congress in 2017. “We need to build a tire around that hub and spokes.”
The Biden Administration’s Efforts
The Biden administration has accelerated U.S. efforts to complete the tire. Not only has it been putting major emphasis on the importance of U.S. allies and partners, but it has been leading multiple efforts to facilitate cooperation among the spokes.
One of the administration’s key moves has been to fortify a trilateral alliance among Japan, South Korea, and the United States. With both Japan and South Korea hosting tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers, the move enables the United States to more effectively coordinate its military activities across Northeast Asia.
“Japan and the ROK are two of our strongest and closest allies in their own right, but when we work together trilaterally, we are even stronger,” State Department official Daniel Kritenbrink explained last year.
In another major move, the Biden administration has elevated the Quad, a regional grouping that includes Japan, India, Australia, and the United States. All four countries are significant for having “big hammers in the militaries,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin noted earlier this year. The Quad also extends U.S. reach to India, stretching U.S. influence across a vast region that ranges “from Hollywood to Bollywood,” as Vice Admiral Andrew Tiongson recently described it.
The highest-level officials in the Biden administration have repeatedly acknowledged they are working to build out the hub-and-spoke model. In May, Austin gave a major address in which he boasted that the United States is making progress in facilitating regional cooperation among the spokes. He marveled at what he called a “new convergence” that is “producing a stronger, more resilient, and more capable network of partnerships.”
In August, Austin collaborated with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on an op-ed in the Washington Post in which they explained that they had “upgraded” the hub-and-spoke model to create a new regional system that featured “an integrated, interconnected network of partnerships.” They presented their approach as a major improvement over the previously existing model, which had relied on individual partnerships. “Much like the hub and the spokes of a wheel, those individual partnerships didn’t overlap,” they explained.
Laying the Foundation for an Asian NATO
As U.S. officials have worked to foster multilateral partnerships, some Asian leaders have taken things a step further, calling for the creation of an Asian NATO. Although the Biden administration has dismissed such proposals, knowing they could lead to pushback from China, Russia, and nonaligned countries, its actions indicate that it is laying the foundation for the creation of some kind of multilateral alliance system.
By developing several regional groups that overlap and interconnect, the Biden administration is putting the United States into a position to eventually merge regional groupings into a single organization comparable to NATO.
When Verma described U.S. efforts at the Hudson Institute in September, he boasted that the Biden administration is making significant progress in combining the spokes. The Quad “actually takes the individual spokes, ties four of them together,” Verma said. There are “a number of other examples where we are much more integrated.”
Indeed, the Biden administration is confident that it is making progress in building out the hub-and-spoke model. Even with its focus on strengthening regional groupings, the administration is developing a network of overlapping partnerships that could lead to multilateral coordination among all the spokes.
What the Biden administration is doing, in short, is pushing ahead with a longstanding effort to complete an imperial model that has long been at the heart of the American empire in the Pacific and may one day bring NATO-style domination to the entire area.
From the early 1980s until President Barack Obama announced his intention to normalize U.S.-Cuban relations ten years ago on December 17, 2014, Cuban American voters in South Florida held a virtual veto over U.S. policy toward Cuba.
Well organized and amply funded, the Cuba lobby could deliver a significant bloc of voters in a strategic swing state, voters who would cast their ballots for or against a candidate based on their position on Cuba. Presidential candidates of both parties felt compelled to seek their support—or at least avoid antagonizing them. That leverage, however, is waning.
Last week, Florida International University’s Cuba Research Center released the fifteenth in its series of surveys of Cuban Americans in South Florida, providing an invaluable record of how the community’s views have evolved over time. It largely confirmed the results of the last several FIU polls. “There were no surprises,” co-author Guillermo Grenier said in his presentation of the results.
A majority of Cuban American voters in South Florida are Republican partisans, outnumbering registered Democrats three-to-one, a gap that has grown since 2022. 59% describe themselves as conservative, only 25% as liberal. There are variations in attitudes depending on the respondent’s age, when they arrived in the United States, or were born in the United States, but not as much variation as FIU’s prior surveys found.
From 1991 to 2016, the polls told a consistent story. The community’s deep anti-communist sympathies and vehement opposition to any U.S. engagement with Cuba gradually mellowed. As the generation of political refugees that left Cuba in the 1960s, when Fidel Castro declared the revolution socialist, gave way to a younger generation of more recent arrivals and U.S.-born citizens of Cuban heritage, the polls showed a steady increase in support for selling food and medicine to Cuba, traveling and sending remittances to family on the island, and even lifting the embargo.
Even the Cuban American National Foundation, the group most identified lobbying for a hardline U.S. policy, moderated its positions to favor U.S. policies that fostered family ties across the Florida Strait.
President Barack Obama recognized these changes and based his initial Cuba policy on family engagement, lifting all restrictions on family travel and remittances. By the time he and Raúl Castro announced the restoration of diplomatic relations, Obama was able to count on support from half the Cuban American community.
But then the story took an unexpected turn. Donald Trump was able to re-energize the Cuban American right by promising to finally overthrow the Cuban government. He followed through with a policy of “maximum pressure,” the most intensive set of economic sanctions since the start of the embargo.
Early signs of change in the Cuban American community were visible in the 2018 FIU poll, which for the first time reported some retreat from engagement, with support for ending the embargo falling back below 50%. The Democrats’ share of registered Cuban American voters was also slipping and in the 2018 mid-term elections, Cuban Americans preferred Republican candidates for governor, U.S. Senate, and House of Representatives by 70 to 30%.
Yet this Republican landslide was not entirely attributable to Trump’s Cuba policies. In a list of ten major issues of concern mentioned in the FIU poll, Cuba ranked last. The top issues were the economy, healthcare, and gun control.
The 2020 and 2022 FIU polls confirmed what the 2018 poll foreshadowed. Support for the embargo rose to over 60%, but Cuba still ranked no better than fourth among people’s priority issues. Both polls showed that Cuban American support for Trump and dislike of Biden were not issue-specific, but extended across the full range of policies.
In the 2020 poll, approval of Trump’s handling of a variety of domestic and foreign policy issues was never below 62%. In 2022, Biden’s approval rating on similar questions never rose above 38 %. Notably, 72% of respondents disapproved of Biden’s Cuba policy even though it was not very different than Trump’s. In both 2020 and 2022, domestic issues topped the list of respondents’ major concerns, while Cuba policy was last out of six in 2020 and sixth out of nine in 2022.
The most recent FIU poll underscores this new reality. Between 60% and 70% of Cuban Americans disapproved of every Biden policy, from Cuba to Gaza, China, Russia, and Ukraine. When asked, 68% of them said they would vote for Trump, rising to 94% among Republicans. Yet the issue of Cuba policy again ranked sixth out of nine in importance. And once again, the issues that concerned Cuban Americans most were the same ones that concern all Americans: the economy, health care, and immigration.
The four FIU polls since 2018, have important implications for the domestic political calculations that have so long dominated U.S. policy toward Cuba.
A solid majority of Cuban Americans identify as Republican partisans and they vote overwhelmingly along party lines, just like other partisans. Partisanship in Miami has become almost tribal, just as it has in so much of the United States. The Republican Party has come to be seen as the party of Cuban Americans, just as the Democratic Party is seen as the party of African Americans.
A candidate’s position on Cuba is no longer the driving factor behind Cuban American voting. The salience of the Cuba issue has faded and it now ranks relatively low compared to domestic concerns. The issues that Cuban Americans cite as important to them are the same issues other voters cite.
Conventional wisdom among Democratic politicians has been that if they mimic Republicans on Cuba, other issues more favorable to Democrats would come to the fore and win them a larger slice of the Cuban American electorate. Bill Clinton’s relative success among Cuban Americans in 1992 and 1996 seemed to confirm this strategy. Yet as those issues have come to the fore, Cuban Americans have voted Republican anyway — just like other registered Republicans.
Even then, if Florida were still a swing state, it might make sense for a Democratic candidate to try to make small gains among this solidly Republican Cuban American electorate, just as both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are currently trying to break off small pieces of their opponent’s coalition in states where the race will be decided by a fraction of a percentage point. Florida, however, is no longer a swing state and Cuban Americans are not a swing constituency.
That’s why neither Harris nor Trump has spent time campaigning there and why Cuba has not been an issue in the campaign. Cuban Americans have become such loyal Republicans that they have lost their leverage with Democrats. The Democratic National Convention offered the most graphic evidence. While delegates from the swing states sat right in front of the stage, the Florida contingent was relegated to the very back of the hall.
If Kamala Harris wins the election, she will owe no political debt to Cuban Americans in Miami and will not need to compromise her foreign policy toward Cuba to keep them happy. To be sure, there are prominent Cuban American Democrats who deserve a seat at the table because they can be valuable partners in fashioning a Cuba policy that serves the national interest of the United States rather than the parochial interests of Little Havana.
But the majority of Cuban Americans have picked their side and, as President Obama said, elections have consequences.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.