Charleroi, Belgium
April 28, 2025
Subject: Presentation of the Strategic Framework for the TariffUp Rebalancing Operation (AURO)
Distinguished recipients,
It is my honor to respectfully submit for your consideration the strategic framework entitled "Integration of Partial Lifting of the Cuba Embargo into the Tariff-Up Rebalancing Operation (AURO)."
This document outlines a comprehensive roadmap designed to promote sustainable economic development, regional industrial revitalization, and resilient supply chain integration within the evolving context of a multipolar and interconnected global system.
Through the progressive reintegration of Cuba into hemispheric logistical and productive networks, the AURO initiative seeks to enhance regional autonomy, diversify industrial ecosystems, foster inclusive economic growth, and contribute to broader efforts toward a balanced and resilient global economy.
Grounded in principles of mutualrespect, cooperation, non-intervention, and shared prosperity, the AURO framework aspires to offer pragmatic perspectives and collaborative models that align with the collective aspirations of building a sustainable, equitable, and prosperous international environment.
It is with the utmost respect and commitment to the values of partnership, resilience, and global development that I submit this framework for your review and consideration.
Respectfully,
Dr. Horacio Jesús Téllez Oliva PhD in Physical Sciences
Email: horacio.jesus@yahoo.es
Charleroi, Belgium
I. General Introduction
Context and Objectives of the AURO Operation
Historical Ties Between Cuba and the United States
The Strategic Role of Cuba in the AURO Framework
II. Strategic Justification
1. Geographical and Logistical Advantage
2. Nearshoring Potential
3. Containment of Extra-regional Influence
4. Regional Stabilization
5. Constructive U.S. Leadership Image
6. Emerging Internal Conditions in Cuba
7. Modernization Needs of National Infrastructure
8. Agricultural-Industrial Development Potential
9. Trust-based Cooperation and Institutional Neutrality
III. Strategic Areas of AURO–Cuba Cooperation
1. Agriculture and Food
2. Biotechnology
3. Renewable Energy
4. Tourism and Services
5. Logistics and Ports
6. National Infrastructure
IV. Phases of Suggested Implementation
Phase 1: Launch and Evaluation (0–18 months)
Phase 2: Operational Deployment and Productive Partnerships (18–42 months)
Phase 3: Regional Integration and Consolidation (42–72 months)
V. Conditionality and Guarantees
Transaction Supervision and Legal Protection
Joint Audits and Oversight
Automatic Reversal Clauses
Respect for Cuba’s National Sovereignty
VI. Five-Year Impact Projections
Increase in Bilateral Trade
Reduction in Logistical Costs
Creation of Binational Employment
Improvement of the Migratory Climate
Net Fiscal Contribution
VII. Conclusion
Strategic Opportunity through Cuba’s Integration into AURO
Long-Term Vision for U.S.-Cuba Cooperation
VIII. Opportunity for BRICS and SCO Relations through Cuban Territory
Cuba as a Bridge for Triangular Economic Dialogue
Areas of Shared Action and Strategic Convergence
IX. Doctrinal PrinciplesforAURO’sSustainabilityinaMultipolar Environment
Core Principles for AURO’s Sustainability
Symmetrical Distribution of Benefits
Institutional Neutrality
Balanced Inclusion of Global Actors
X. Demographics as a Strategic Vector in the New Commercial Order
Demographics as an Internal Market
Demographics as a Productive Force
Demographics and Negotiating Power
Demographics and Technological Sovereignty
XI. Strategic Parallel: Ukraine Conflict vs. AURO Commercial Operation
Comparison of Military and Commercial Dimensions
Lessons from the Ukraine Conflict Applied to AURO
XII. Additional Strategic Considerations and Scenario Updates
Loss of Global Trust
Redistribution of Global Trade
Emergence of New Agreements
Systematic Long-Term Isolation
XIII. Final Strategic Recommendation for the Sustainable Implementation of AURO
Combining Tactical Protectionism with Economic Diplomacy
Flexibilization of Tariff Policy
Clear Separation Between Ideology and Economics
XIV. Strategic Comparison: Perestroika (USSR, 1985–1991) vs. AURO (USA, 2017–2030)
Comparison of Strategic Approaches Between Perestroika and AURO
Lessons from Perestroika for AURO
I. General Introduction
The Tariff-Up Rebalancing Operation (AURO), promoted by the Presidency of the United States, seeks to reposition the national economic and industrial framework within a rapidly consolidating multipolar architecture. In this context, the Republic of Cuba emerges as a key technical and logistical partner, capable of playing both a tactical and structural role in the strategic deployment of AURO.
Beyond the immediate present, it is crucial to remember that ties between Cuba and the United States have deep historical roots. During the American War of Independence (1776–1783), citizens in Havana collected and donated significant funds in gold and silver channeled through SpanishGeneral Bernardo deGálvez to support the Americanrevolutionaries against British rule. This little-known gesture stands as one of the earliest examples of hemispheric solidarity and proves that constructive cooperation is possible even between nations with different systems.
Likewise, domestic initiatives such as the so-called “Escambray Operation of the Jewels,” where Cubanfamilies voluntarilycontributed valuablesto nationalreconstruction, highlight the moral and symbolic power of civic mobilization around large-scale national efforts.
In today’s multipolar world, where countries shift alliances based on structural interests, a solid and fair U.S. proposal toward Cuba could generate not only bilateral benefits but also international trust. Sucha step would be closely watched byglobal actors as a test ofthe United States’ willingness to lead through cooperation and mutual respect. A cathedral is not built in two days: the success of AURO will require vision, diplomacy, and long-term strategic engagement.
II. Strategic Justification
1. Geographical and logistical advantage:
Cuba’sphysicalproximitytotheU.S. mainlandallowsfor immediatereductionsof30% to 50% in maritime transit times and logistical costs. This makes it a strategic option for relocating logistical hubs from Asia to the Caribbean.
2. Nearshoring potential:
Cuba possesses a highly qualified workforce in sectors such as healthcare, engineering, and education. Combined with operating costs up to 40% lower than in Asia, it offers an immediate alternative for relocating industrial supplychains. Over 1.5 million active Cuban workers are available for technical training to meet international standards.
3. Containment of extra-regional influence:
The growing presence of China and Russia in strategic sectors in Cuba such as telecommunications, infrastructure, and defense can be counterbalanced through a productive economic cooperation framework with the U.S., based on mutual benefits and greater transparency.
4. Regional stabilization:
U.S. investment in Cuba’s productive sectors could increase Cuban GDP by 3% to 5% annually, helping reduce irregular migration flows to the U.S. and strengthening regional governance. Initial investments of $1.5 to $2 billion are estimated to generate a 2.5x multiplier effect on local employment.
5. Constructive U.S. leadership image:
By leading a transformation based on investment, mutual respect, and tangible outcomes, theU.S.would position itselfasthe hemispheric benchmark, contrastingwith centralized, and statist proposals from global competitors.
6. Emerging internal conditions in Cuba:
Since 2021, the Cuban government has legalized and promoted the creation of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MIPYMES), opening unprecedented space for the private sector. Over 8,000 MIPYMES now operate in key areas like food production, technology, services, and light manufacturing. This transformation brings in new economic actors able to interact more efficiently with international partners, including American firms. Furthermore, partial liberalization of dollar use and the development of new mixed-ownership models enhance Cuba's economic integration potential.
7. Modernization needs of national infrastructure:
Cuba’s transportation, road, rail, and digital infrastructure show accumulated deficiencies that hinder the development of a robust nationwide logistics system. This opens clear opportunities for U.S. investment in high-impact sectors such as highway rehabilitation, port infrastructure expansion, public transport, and telecom modernization. Required investments may exceed $4 billion over six years, with expected returns via engineering contracts, equipment supply, and medium-term logistics concessions.
8. Agricultural-industrial development potential:
Cuba has approximately 6.3 million hectares of arable land, much of which remains underutilized. With investment in infrastructure andtechnology, this land could become a medium-scale agri-industrial export platform. Mechanization, precision agriculture, and adapted logistics networks would enable integrated food production hubs to serve both domestic and regional/U.S. markets, contributing to food security and rural job creation.
9. Trust-based cooperation and institutional neutrality:
The long-term success of AURO’s strategic partnership with Cuba must begin on a foundation of mutual trust. It is essential to avoid the involvement of organizations widely perceived in the region as instruments of external control such as the Organization of American States (OAS) which many Latin American countries view as symbols of interventionism. This cooperation should be built on sovereign bilateral
III. Strategic Areas of AURO–Cuba Cooperation
1. Agriculture and Food
a. U.S. Interest: Expansion of agricultural exports.
b. Cuban Capacity: Annual deficit of approximately USD $2.1 billion in agri-food imports.
2. Biotechnology
a. U.S. Interest: Joint innovation in healthcare and public-private partnerships.
b. Cuban Capacity: Three patented vaccines and internationallyrecognized leadership in tropical biotechnology.
3. Renewable Energy
a. U.S. Interest: Strategic replacement of fossil fuels and diversification of energy sources.
b. Cuban Capacity: More than 2,100 MW of identified solar and wind energy potential yet to be developed.
4. Tourism and Services
a. U.S. Interest: Expansion of hotel networks and development of sustainable destinations.
b. Cuban Capacity: Qualified human resources and established coastal ecosystems.
5. Logistics and Ports
a. U.S. Interest: Creation of a hemispheric distribution hub.
b. Cuban Capacity: Active expansion of infrastructure such as the ports of Mariel and Santiago de Cuba.
6. National Infrastructure
a. U.S. Interest: Investment in transport, telecommunications, and digital connectivity.
b. Cuban Capacity: High need for structural renewal and external technical cooperation.
IV. Phases of Suggested Implementation
Phase 1 – Launch and Evaluation (0–18 months):
a. Issuance of an executive order authorizing agricultural, pharmaceutical, and energy exports to Cuba.
b. Signing of framework agreements for logistical, financial, and health cooperation.
c. Deployment of bilateral technical missions to assess the condition of critical infrastructure and define the first logistical corridors.
d. Initial investment estimate: USD $500 million, focused on feasibility studies, agricultural technology, and port connectivity.
e. Estimated job creation: Approximately 5,000 direct and indirect jobs in both the U.S. and Cuba.
Phase 2– Operational Deployment and Productive Partnerships (18–42 months):
a. Installation of joint ventures in biotechnology, renewable energy, and light manufacturing.
b. Participation of U.S. companies in the rehabilitation of highways, rail hubs, and the electrical grid.
c. Development of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) with mutual incentives.
d. Cumulative Investment estimate: USD $2.5 billion.
e. Potential job creation: Between 15,000 and 20,000 positions across technical, operational, skilled labor, and logistics sectors.
Phase 3 – Regional Integration and Consolidation (42–72 months):
a. Gradual integration of Cuba into North American supply chains.
b. Direct connectivity with ports in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida.
c. Incorporation of financial services under U.S. Treasury regulations.
d. Promotionof medicaland scientific tourism linked to biotechnologyand tropical health.
e. Projected additional investment: USD $1.5 billion.
f. Consolidation of commercial networks with an estimated export value of USD $4–5 billion annually.
V. Conditionality’ and Guarantees
1. All transactions shall be conducted in U.S. dollars (USD), under the supervisionofthe U.S. Department oftheTreasury, reinforcingtheroleofthedollar asaglobalstandard of trade and financial stability.
2. Legal protection for U.S. investments shall be ensured through bilateral investment treaties (BITs) that include international arbitration mechanisms, designed to resolve commercial disputes under neutral jurisdiction and with binding outcomes.
3. Joint audits shall be carried out by binational technical commissions, with rotating representation and oversight, to guarantee transparency in the use of public-private resources and the implementation of standards.
4. Automatic reversal clauses shall be included in case of Cuba’s active participation in hostile military alliances, including the deployment of military infrastructure or weapons systems on the island by nations considered strategic adversaries of the United States.
5. The entire cooperation framework shall be based on strict respect for Cuba’s national sovereignty, with principles of mutual cooperation and non-intervention as nonnegotiable foundations of the bilateral relationship.
VI. Five-Year Impact Projections
1. Increase in bilateral trade: A cumulative volume exceeding USD $12 billion is projected, primarily in sectors such as agricultural exports, medical technology, industrial goods, and tourism services. This figure reflects both the demand potential in Cuba and the capacityofU.S. companies to respond efficiently with competitive supply chains.
2. Reduction in logistical costs: A 30% to 40% decrease in transportation and supply costs is expected for U.S. companies relocating operations from Asia to Cuba. The proximity of Cuban ports to the U.S. mainland reduces maritime transit times and fuel costs, while enabling just-in-time delivery logistics for key industries.
3. Generation of binational employment: The cooperation plan could create more than 25,000 direct and indirect jobs, spanning sectors such as manufacturing, logistics, construction, engineering, services, and legal consultancy. It includes jobs both on U.S. soil (in export logistics and business services) and in Cuba (in operations, technical support, and infrastructure projects).
4. Improvement of the migratory climate: A more dynamic and inclusive economic environment in Cuba could lead to a 25% reduction in irregular migration flows to theUnitedStates.Economic stabilityand jobcreationareexpectedto serveasdeterrents to migration, reducing pressure on U.S. border and immigration systems.
5. Net fiscal contribution: An increase in federal tax revenue is anticipated through corporate taxation, customs duties, and service tariffs arising from increased trade, investment flows, and the expansion of export-oriented U.S. companies.
VII. Conclusion.
The case ofCuba represents a unique windowofopportunityfor the United Statesto implement a hemispheric trade rebalancing strategy under the guiding principles of the Tariff-Up Rebalancing Operation (AURO). This is not a concession, but rather a pragmatic response to the challenges of a multipolar global economy.
A selective and structured cooperation with a neighboring country historically linked and now open to new formulas would allow the U.S. to reposition itself as a leading economic power without resorting to isolation or confrontation.
Cuba should no longer be viewed solely through the lens of traditional bilateral politics, but instead as a viable and strategic geoeconomic node, capable of supporting the consolidation of production networks, technology, energy, and regional services.
The partial and conditional integration of Cuba into the AURO framework could mark the beginning ofa new hemispheric cycle one where sovereignty, development, and leadership converge through a constructive vision led by the United States.
VIII. Opportunity for BRICS and SCO Relations through Cuban Territory.
The current multipolar international landscape cannot be ignored. Cuba already maintains active and established relations with countries from the BRICS bloc and the Shanghai CooperationOrganization(SCO), positioning it as apotential bridge for a triangulareconomic dialogue
Within the frameworkofAURO, weproposethecreationofa jointlysupervised international economic cooperation zone where the United States, Cuba, and companies from BRICS- or SCO-aligned countries can participate under clearly defined and mutually agreed-upon regulations.
Sectors such as clean energy, tropical biotechnology, resilient infrastructure, and digital commerce could serve as areas of shared action and convergence. This approach would allow the United Statesto reclaim strategic influence in the Caribbean without direct confrontation with global competitors, while promoting new economic rules based on cooperation rather than control
The message to the world would not be one of hegemony or domination, but of structured collaboration, where the United States acts as a regional trade facilitator, safeguarding its interestswhile establishinga newpositionofrelevanceand influencethroughconstructiveand balanced proposals.
This initiative, observed globally given the historical context of U.S.–Cuba relations, would also serve as a test of credibility. A fair and pragmatic approach from the U.S. could inspire trust in other countries and attract broader participation in AURO. In a world where nations are gradually shifting alliances and testing alternatives to traditional power centers, proposing better conditions and demonstrating long-term commitment will be essential. A cathedral, after all, is not built in two days.
IX. Doctrinal Principles for AURO’s Sustainability in a Multipolar Environment
To ensure the long-term sustainability and legitimacy of the AURO framework, a set of nonnegotiable doctrinal principles must be adopted. These principles will not only define the operational ethics of the initiative but also reinforce the credibility of the United States as a responsible and strategic economic partner in a complex and evolving global order:
1. Full Sovereignty: No nation involved in AURO shall be subordinated, manipulated, or used as a geopolitical tool. All actions must recognize and respect the national sovereignty of participating countries.
2. Structural Transparency: There shall be no hidden clauses, conditionalities, or covert mechanisms. Agreements must be public, auditable, and mutually understandable by all parties.
3. Symmetrical Distribution of Benefits: Gains from AURO-related initiatives must be shared proportionately among stakeholders, avoiding exploitative asymmetries that could undermine cooperation.
4. Institutional Neutrality: The initiative should avoid the involvement of organizations with a historyof political interference or distrust in the region, such as the Organization of American States (OAS), to prevent ideological friction or rejection.
5. Periodic Review of Commitments and Outcomes: AURO should include a mechanism for regular assessments, allowing for recalibration of priorities and correction of imbalances in benefit distribution or implementation challenges.
6. Separation of Economy and Domestic Politics: Technical and commercial cooperation should not be made contingent upon the internal political or ideological systems of participating nations. Collaboration must be based on mutual respect, rule of law, and functional goals.
7. Balanced Inclusion of Global Actors: AURO must encourage cooperation with both traditional allies and emerging powers, avoiding exclusive dependencies that could compromise the sovereignty or flexibility of any party.
These principles should be integrated into every bilateral and multilateral agreement derived from AURO, forming the normative backbone of a new economic diplomacy model, rooted in respect, pragmatism, and shared development.
X. Demographics as a Strategic Vector in the New Commercial Order
Within the framework of a prolonged commercial and economic conflict such as AURO, demographics emerge as a growing strategic dimension. Over the long term, population dynamics directly influence economic power, industrial resilience, and international bargaining capacity.
1. Population as an Internal Market: Countries like China, India, and the African continent have populations exceeding one billion people. This demographic volume guarantees an internal consumption base capable of sustaining industries independently of foreign demand. U.S. companies risk losing competitiveness if they cannot access or remain active in these large domestic markets.
2. Population as Productive Force: Nations with a high percentage of young populations suchas Vietnam, Nigeria, or Indonesia offer sustained labor advantages over time. In contrast, the United States, facing demographic aging, will need to reinforce its workforce through strategic alliances, vocational training programs, and smart immigration policies.
3. Demographics and Negotiating Power: Densely populated countries hold greater leverage in setting trade and technological standards. India, for example, is already negotiating froma positionofregulatory strengthwith globaltech giants like Apple and Meta, based on its demographic size and digital potential.
4. Population Pressure as a Weapon: Massive migration flows, consumer movements, or humanitarian crises can be used intentionally or indirectly as tools ofcommercial or diplomatic pressure. In this context, Cuba with a small but highly educated and organized population can serve as a pilot platform for regional stabilization, provided it is economically integrated into AURO.
5. Demographics and Technological Sovereignty: The more a country educates and trains its population, the greater its capacity for endogenous innovation. China and India are accelerating their technicaland scientific education systems. The United States must maintain its technological leadership by attracting global talent and investing in domestic STEM education for future generations.
In sum, demographics are not just statistics they are strategic infrastructure. Ignoring this variablewouldweakenthe long-termfoundationsofanycommercialdoctrine. AURO must embed demographic intelligence into its planning, fostering alliances that not only deliver market access, but also build future productive capacity and innovation ecosystems.
XI.
Strategic
Parallel: Ukraine Conflict vs. AURO Commercial Operation.
Dimension
Type of Operation
Triggering Actor
Main Opponent
Tools Used
Allies Involved
Opponent’s
Reaction
Systemic Escalation
Ukraine–NATO–Russia
Military Conflict
Military – territorial control and geopolitical influence
NATO expansion eastward
Russia
Weapons, troops, sanctions, cyber defense
NATO, EU, U.S.
Armed intervention, alliances with China and Iran
NATO fragmentation vs. Russia/China/Iran
Influence Networks
Structural Risk
Demographic Dynamics
Trade
Reorganization
Visible Changes
(2024–2025)
External Perception
Russia expands in Africa and Central Asia
Prolonged military instability
Millions forcibly displaced
AURO – U.S. Commercial War vs. China and Allies
Commercial – control of global flows and industrial repositioning
AURO: tariff increases to protect U.S. industry
China (with indirect support from BRICS and aligned nations)
Tariffs, subsidies, tech and financial blockades
U.S., G7, industrial allies
Retaliatory tariffs, bond offloading, deals with the Global South
Commercial multipolarity (BRICS+, de-dollarization, CIPS)
China strengthens BRICS, the Belt and Road Initiative, and new pacts
U.S. commercial isolation without cooperative openness
China and India dominate markets by sheer demographic volume
Russia redirects exports to Asia, Africa, BRICS
EU seeks alternatives with China and Asia
Russia seen as strategic actor or aggressor depending on bloc
BRICS+ drives global trade shift without U.S.
Morocco surpasses Spain in U.S. trade; EU suspends retaliation
U.S. seen as reindustrializer or aggressive protectionist
Strategic Warning Note:
This parallel suggests that in bothmilitaryand commercial arenas, the world is moving beyond unipolarity. The emergence of a multipolar global order requires the U.S. to adapt rather than impose
A rigid or unilateral application of AURO without a long-term vision could seriously undermine the structural position of the United States in the global economy. Ignoring these emerging dynamics could lead to progressive relative isolation, loss of regulatory leadership, and diminished access to strategic markets
To remain viable, AURO must be accompanied by smart diplomacy, selective cooperation, and tactical flexibility, ensuring the U.S. maintains a position of functional hegemonic leadership within a shared and competitive global architecture.
XII. Additional Strategic Considerations and Scenario Updates
Given the highly volatile geo-economics context of 2025 and the accelerated restructuring of global trade, it is essential to incorporate the following warnings and recommendations to ensure the strategic consolidation of AURO:
1. Loss of Global Trust:
The rapid and unilateral imposition of tariffs could, in the medium term, erode the perception of the U.S. as a reliable player in the global trade system. The weakening of U.S. "soft power" in multilateral forums such as the WTO and the G20 could have negative consequences in future trade negotiations.
2. Redistribution of Global Trade:
Current signs in 2025 reveal a structural diversion of trade flows. Morocco has overtaken Spain in certain U.S.-bound exports, while China has strengthened its partnerships with the EU, Africa, and Latin America. U.S. participation in the new commercial architecture is being directly challenged.
3. Emergence of New Agreements:
BRICS+, the Digital Silk Road, and the CIPS platform for yuan-based payments are creating parallel systems that reduce dependence on the dollar and on Western financial institutions.
4. Systematic Long-Term Isolation:
If AURO does not incorporate elements of strategic cooperation, it could result in the gradualexclusion oftheU.S. fromkeyemergingmarkets, weakening itsexport base, technological competitiveness, and financial leadership.
or autonomous regional platforms these same countries could progressively disengage from the AURO framework, thereby weakening its structural reach.
6. This method of operating under pressure might project an illusion of early success, but if not supported by a fair distribution of benefits and genuine respect for national sovereignties, it could turn into a counterproductive strategy. The U.S. risks misleading itself regarding the true solidity of its trade alliances, and losing legitimacy as a trusted strategic partner.
7. Ultimately, AURO must build its legitimacy not only through commercial power, but through diplomatic coherence, strategic foresight, and the generation of sustainable and shared benefits.
XIV.
Strategic
Comparison: Perestroika (USSR, 1985–1991) vs. AURO (USA, 2017–2030)
Dimension Perestroika (USSR)
Leading Figure Mikhail Gorbachev
Geopolitical Context
Cold War / internal economic crisis / external military pressure
Official Goal Reform the Soviet system without dismantling it (more efficiency + openness)
Key Instruments Glasnost (transparency), partial liberalization, decentralization
Foreign Policy
Impact on Allied Bloc
Internal Perception
External Perception
Initial Economic Result
Main Systemic Risk
Structural Outcome
Openness toward the West, nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from foreign conflicts
Dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, loss of regional influence
Reformwithout consensus; loss of state control and declining trust
Initial hope, later seen as systemic weakness
Short-term: shortages, inflation, productivity loss
Reforms without safety nets; loss of national cohesion
Collapse of the Soviet system, territorial and economic fragmentation
Key Lesson A system cannot be reformed from above without real internal consensus
AURO (USA)
Donald J. Trump
Emerging multipolarity / global geoeconomic transition / decline of the unipolar system
Reindustrialize the U.S., contain China, and strengthen strategic autonomy
Tariff increases, nearshoring, trade decoupling, diplomatic andeconomic pressure
Pressure on NATO allies, treaty renegotiation, trade war with China
Fragmented trust among traditional G7 allies / divergence with EU, Japan, and Canada
Polarized popularity; strength in some industrial sectors, but institutional resistance
Commercial aggressiveness, mix of respect for assertiveness and distrust due to unpredictability
Short-term: partial industrial reshoring, inflationary pressures, partial deglobalization
Long-term commercial isolation; strategic allies’ withdrawal if cooperation isn’t redefined
Pending. Risk: structural weakening of U.S. commercial and normative leadership
Global leadership cannot rely solely on tariff pressure: shared legitimacy is essential
Strategic Reflection and Lessons for AURO
1. Continuity Beyond Leadership: Perestroika ended with Gorbachev. AURO needs bipartisan support and institutional continuity.
2. Avoid Coercion Optics: Gorbachev’s reforms were misread as surrender. AURO must not repeat this image.
3. Clarity and Legal Structure: AURO must be legally codified, with clear benefits and responsibilities.
4. Gradualism: Avoid abrupt shifts; AURO should proceed incrementally.
5. Trust and Partnership: Foster genuine alliances, not forced alignments.
XVI. Institutional Stability
and the Four-Year U.S. Electoral Cycle in Foreign Policy
The regular transition of presidential administrations every four years is a hallmark of democratic vitality and political dynamism in the United States. However, in the current geoeconomic context marked by accelerated global competition and more stable emerging blocs this model can represent a structural weakness for the coherence and sustainability of U.S. foreign policy.
Frequent leadership changes often lead to abrupt shifts in strategic orientation, undermining the predictabilityand credibility of the United States in the eyes of its international partners. While political alternationensures institutionalchecks and balances, it can also result in the disruption of cooperation agreements, trade treaties, and investment projects that require long-term continuity.
In contrast, blocs such as BRICS+ and organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) demonstrate greater consistency in foreign policy, even in the face of leadership changes. This stability is valued by many countries as a guarantee for establishing lasting, trustworthy, and mutually beneficial alliances.
To preserve its influence in a multipolar world, the United States should consider creating bipartisan frameworks that shield key pillars of foreign policy especially in Latin America and the Caribbean from internal electoral shifts. The partial depoliticization of economic diplomacy would enable the establishment of relations with sovereign nations based on shared strategic interests, rather than partisan agendas.
Failing to address this need for stability could result in progressive isolation, loss of trust in U.S. commitments, and, over time, the structural weakening of operations such as AURO. Adopting a more consensual, pragmatic, and stable foreign policy will be essential to maintain international relevance and domestic sustainability for the United States.
ANNEX I
Strategic Arguments for the Partial Lifting of the U.S.
Embargo on
Cuba
I. Direct Economic Costs for the United States
1.1.
A Missed Market
Cuba represents a nearby market of over 11 million consumers with a growing urban middle class.
Europe and Asia including U.S. strategic allies such as Spain, Germany, and Japan have long occupied commercial spaces that should naturally be led by U.S. firms due to proximity and historical ties.
1.2.
Lost Sectoral Opportunities
Agriculture: The U.S. misses out on an agro-import market valued at $2.1 billion annually.
Energy and Technology: The embargo blocks U.S. exports in sectors where Cuba has urgent demands and the U.S. holds a competitive advantage.
Meanwhile, strategic allies like Canada and the EU are already reaping these benefits.
IV. Damage to U.S. International Image
4.1.
Diplomatic Incoherence
The U.S. maintains close relations with regimes more authoritarian than Cuba (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Vietnam).
This inconsistency undermines U.S. credibility on human rights and democracy.
4.2. Global Rejection
In 2024, 187 countries voted against the U.S. embargo at the United Nations, including many U.S. allies.
Washington finds itself increasingly diplomatically isolated and morally weakened.
V. Barrier to Hemispheric Reindustrialization (AURO)
5.1.
Need for Stable Partners
AURO requires reliable partners in logistics, biotechnology, energy, and healthcare.
Cuba could be a strategic node but the embargo blocks this potential.
U.S. allies are already investing in the same sectors that AURO aims to develop.
5.2. Relative Disadvantage
While China and others advance regional integration strategies, the U.S. remains perceived as exclusionary and regressive.
VI. Internal Political Costs in the U.S.
6.1. Lack of National Consensus
Younger voters, business sectors, and agricultural states increasingly criticize the embargo.
A small ideological minority prevents a rational reassessment of national interests.
6.2. Electoral Repercussions
Normalizing ties with Cuba could economically benefit key U.S. states and sectors, potentially shifting internal political dynamics.
VII. Historical Foundation of U.S.-Cuba Solidarity
7.1. Forgotten Support During U.S. Independence
In the 18th century, citizens of Havana raised gold and silver to support the U.S. independence struggle through General Bernardo de Gálvez.
7.2. Symbolic Ground for Reconciliation
This shared historical legacy could serve as a powerful moral and diplomatic foundation for a new phase of cooperation.
ANNEX II
AURO
in Cuba: Strategic
Opportunities and Calculated Risks for the United States
I. Strategic Opportunities
1. Regional Logistics Transformation
Cuba recently hosted the 2nd International Transport and Logistics Fair (FITL 2024), attracting over 120 exhibitors, including companies from U.S. allies such as Canada, Spain, and Germany.
The Mariel Special Development Zone (ZEDM) is emerging as a critical logistics hub in the Caribbean.
If U.S. restrictions were lifted, American companies could immediately benefit from this platform.
2. Renewable Energy Development
Cuba plans to install over 50 solar parks in 2025, backed by China, with a generation capacity exceeding 1,000 megawatts.
The national goal is to reach 24% renewable energy by 2030, opening vast opportunities for U.S. clean-tech investment.
3. Cuba's Institutional Fragility
Bureaucracy, liquidity shortages, and regulatory uncertainties could hinder the implementation of binational projects.
Technical assistance and transparent contracts are essential to reduce operational risks.
4. U.S. Domestic Political Pressures
Ideological sectors may present AURO as a political concession.
Without bipartisan support, electoral cycles could jeopardize the program’s continuity.
III. Mitigation Recommendations
1. Flexible and Phased Mechanisms
o Design protocols that allow AURO to adapt operationally to changing political scenarios in both countries.
2. Triangular Diplomacy
o Involve neutral observers (e.g., Switzerland, UAE, or multilateral agencies) to ensure transparency and foster trust.
3. Binational Guarantee Funds
o Establish a U.S.-Cuba fund to insure against political and operational risks, supervised by international institutions.
4. Focus on High-Impact Sectors
o Prioritize biotechnology, renewable energy, regional logistics, public health, and food technology.
5. Narrative of Sovereign Cooperation
o Present AURO as a technical partnership between sovereign nations, grounded in mutual respect and international law.
IV. Final Conclusion
The implementation of AURO in Cuba is not merely a technical or commercial adjustment it represents a strategic structural opportunity for the United States in a rapidly evolving global context.
Refusing to adjust the current approach rooted in unilateral sanctions and immobility means prolonging a policy that directly harms U.S. economic, diplomatic, and logistical interests while enabling geopolitical rivals to expand their influence.
In contrast, a new approach under the AURO framework should not be perceived as surrender, but as an intelligent adaptation to a multipolar world. Repositioning the United States as a cooperative, flexible, and technologically competitive actor within its own hemisphere demands strategic foresight and leadership.
This process must unfold under non-negotiable principles that guarantee legitimacy and sustainability:
Full respect for Cuba’s sovereignty, its laws, and its internal model.
Compliance with international law and the UN Charter, free from impositions.
Balanced sharing of risks and benefits through binational mechanisms.
Diplomacy between equals, without ideological impositions or historical asymmetries.
Ten Signs of Hegemonic Decline and Strategic Warnings for the United States
Introduction
Throughout history, great powers have risen and fallen following identifiable patterns. This annex outlines ten critical warning signs of hegemonic decline, drawn from civilizations like Rome, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and post-colonial France.
The objective is to provide U.S. policymakers and the American public with a clear, accessible roadmap to avoid these pitfalls and to present the AURO Framework as a modern, corrective strategy that preserves U.S. leadership in a changing world.
I. Ten Historical Signs of Decline and Their Current Relevance
1. Overextension Without Focus
Definition: Expanding military and economic commitments globally while neglecting immediate strategic spheres.
Historical Example: Rome’s defense of distant frontiers drained its economy.
Current Parallel: The U.S. maintains over 750 military bases worldwide, yet loses direct influence in its own neighborhood the Caribbean.
Strategic Advice: Prioritize economic leadership close to home before attempting to dominate distant regions.
2. Innovation Fatigue
Definition: Loss of leadership in technological and educational advances.
Historical Example: The Ming Dynasty banned overseas navigation, ceding maritime dominance.
Current Parallel: China now leads in AI, renewable energy, 5G, and semiconductors, while the U.S. debates outdated policies like the Cuba embargo.
Strategic Advice: Lead through innovation, not sanctions. Invest in regional tech collaborations and cutting-edge industries.
3. Disengagement from Natural Allies
Definition: Neglecting peripheral regions historically aligned with national interests.
Historical Example: The British Empire lost influence in the Americas by focusing only on Europe.
Current Parallel: The U.S. retreats from Central America and the Caribbean, leaving space for China and Russia to gain ground.
Strategic Advice: Strengthen hemispheric partnerships through trade and investment, starting with Cuba under the AURO model.
4. Internal Fragmentation
Definition: Deep societal and political divisions weaken foreign policy consistency.
Historical Example: The Soviet Union collapsed under internal ethnic and political divides.
Current Parallel: The embargo on Cuba divides the U.S. between ideological hardliners and economically pragmatic regions.
Strategic Advice: Build bipartisan consensus for policies that benefit the entire nation, not just specific interest groups.
5. Strategic Rigidity
Definition: Clinging to outdated strategies despite clear failures.
Historical Example: The Ottoman Empire resisted economic reforms until it lost all competitiveness.
Current Parallel: Despite 187 nations opposing the embargo in the U.N. (2024), the U.S. maintains a policy that directly harms its own economy.
Strategic Advice: Adapt policies to new realities or risk becoming irrelevant.
6. Diplomatic Isolation and Loss of Soft Power
Definition: Losing global influence not through conflict but through loss of credibility.
Historical Example: France’spostcolonialinfluencefadedduetoafailure to adapt its diplomatic posture.
Current Parallel: U.S. extraterritorial sanctions alienate even its closest allies, eroding its diplomatic standing.
Strategic Advice: Restore leadership by championing fair, cooperative, and mutually beneficial economic policies.
9. Economic Stagnation in Relative Terms
Definition: Falling behind more dynamic competitors even if growth remains positive.
Current Parallel: While the U.S. economy grows slowly, China and Southeast Asia dominate the industries of the future, leaving the U.S. out of natural markets like Cuba.
Strategic Advice: Reclaim competitive space through AURO-driven economic initiatives that open new markets and create high-value jobs.
10. Systemic Denial of Change
Definition: Refusing to recognize a transforming global order.
Historical Example: The USSR failed to acknowledge economic collapse until it was irreversible.
Current Parallel: The refusal to end the embargo on Cuba reflects a worldview stuck in the Cold War, blind to today’s multipolar, interconnected realities.
Strategic Advice: Recognize that the future will not be shaped by force, but by smart, flexible, and respectful cooperation.
II. AURO as the Strategic Response
The AURO Operation is not a concession. It is a pragmatic tool for restoring U.S. leadership without costly wars or ideological imposition.
AURO means adaptability over rigidity.
AURO means cooperation over coercion.
AURO means respect for sovereignty over dominance.
AURO means rebalancing the hemisphere through trade, innovation, and partnership.
III. Final Conclusion
If the U.S. continues to ignore these warning signs, it risks not an immediate collapse but a slow, undeniable erosion of its global leadership.
AURO is not about changing others; it’s about changing how America leads.
Through respectful cooperation and strategic pragmatism, the U.S. can recover its place as a credible, modern, and visionary leader.
II. Current Impact of the Helms-Burton Act
1. Extraterritorial Overreach and International Rejection
The enforcement of Titles III and IV has been condemned by the EU, Canada, and NATO partners.
This extraterritoriality violates international law and creates tension with key allies.
2. Barrier to Foreign Investment
Major international firms have avoided or withdrawn from Cuba due to legal risks under Helms-Burton.
The U.S. has self-excluded from a growing market now accessed by even its own strategic allies.
3. Diplomatic and Commercial Obstruction
The law blocks direct negotiations, tying embargo relief to internal political changes in Cuba.
This prevents any meaningful diplomatic engagement or commercial opening.
4. Accumulated Economic Losses for the U.S.
Since its enactment, the law has cost the U.S. over $120 billion in missed trade, investment, and regional alliance opportunities.
5. Legislative Rigidity in a Changing World
The Helms-Burton Act remains one of the few U.S. foreign policy instruments with fixed, outdated geopolitical conditions, despite significant shifts in the global order.
III. AURO as a Legal and Strategic Alternative
1. Compatibility Without Immediate Repeal
AURO enables progress in economic, logistical, and humanitarian cooperation through executive orders, multilateral agreements, and administrative exceptions.
2. A Flexible and Adaptive Framework
Unlike Helms-Burton, AURO is a dynamic model that allows strategic recalibration based on real outcomes and measurable results.
3. Reopening Strategic Investment Channels
U.S. companies could regain preferential access to energy, logistics, biotechnology, and tourism sectors countering Chinese and European advances.
4.
Strengthening the U.S. International Image
Repositioning U.S. policy under AURO would project an image of pragmatism, respect for sovereignty, and leadership adapted to a multipolar world.
5. Emphasizing Mutual Respect and Shared Benefits
AURO rests on the principles of sovereignty, reciprocity, and noninterference, enhancing international legitimacy and trust.
IV. Conclusion
The Helms-Burton Act was conceived in a vastly different geopolitical context. Today, it represents more of a barrier to U.S. interests than to Cuba’s development. Repealing or partially reinterpreting this legislation is not a defeat it is a strategic, liberal, and forward-looking decision aligned with modern global realities.
The United States does not lose power by changing its approach to Cuba. On the contrary, it would regain:
Strategic Agency
Regional Influence
Access to a Vital Market and Geopolitical Position in the Caribbean
History offers the tools to learn, correct, and adapt. AURO is that historic opportunity. It allows the U.S. to reaffirm its democratic values and national interests through more effective, cooperative, and forwardthinking leadership in the 21st century. HJTO
II. Comparative Table: Costs vs. Gains
Area of Impact
(Costs to the U.S.) AURO (Strategic Gains for the U.S.)
Agriculture Excluded from $2.3B/yearmarket
$1.8B–$2.3B/yearinfood exports
Biotechnology & Health No access to Cuban R&Dorvaccines +$700M/year in codevelopment & shared patents
Tourism &
Aviation
$1.3B/year in lost airline & cruise revenue
$1.2B–$1.5B/year in earnings
Renewable
Energy
Port Infrastructure
Excluded from $1.2B in clean energy projects Regional leadership in cleantransition
$4B in contracts awarded to foreign firms
$3B–$5Bincontractsfor U.S.companies
Migration & Border +30% riseinirregular migration, +$300M enforcement 40% reduction in flows andcosts
Foreign Direct Investment
NoU.S.presenceinkey sectors
$2B–$3BinFDIwithin3 years
Logistics Integration No nearshoring or regionalhubs Up to 40% reduction in logisticscosts
Binational Job Creation Nosharedjobgrowth +25,000directjobs
Federal Tax Revenue No revenue from bilateral trade or investment $500M–$1B/year in new revenue
Global Image / UNVotes
Geostrategic
187 countries vote againstembargo Pragmatic, cooperative internationalimage
Influence China, Russia, EU expandinguncontested U.S. regains regional leadership
Innovation &
TechAccess Excluded from AI, biotech, and green energyresearch Jointaccesstoinnovation pipelines
International Legitimacy Constant criticism at UNandWTO Repositioned as a credible,lawfulactor
V. Conclusion
The embargo is now an instrument of strategic self-paralysis. Continuing this policy means continuing to forfeit presence, influence, and economic opportunities.
The AURO model offers a pathway toward equilibrium, dignity, and modernization
It requires no abandonment of fundamental principles only their reinterpretation through a more effective and cooperative lens.
The United States loses nothing by resetting its relationship with Cuba
On the contrary, it stands to gain everything that its global competitors are already capitalizing on: markets, alliances, regional projection, and strategic leadership.
This change is not a concession—it is a strategic and historically grounded decision, one that is entirely achievable with the analytical, diplomatic, and economic tools the U.S. already possesses.
ANNEX VI
Historical Compensation, Litigation, and the AURO
Proposal for a Realistic Cooperation Framework
I. Introduction
The historical dispute over Cuba’s nationalizations in the 1960s has long served as a political pretext for maintaining the U.S. embargo. Yet, more than six decades later, global geopolitics, economics, and legal standards have fundamentally changed.
This annex proposes replacing the logic of endless punishment with a logic of compensated cooperation, leveraging modern, proportional, and verifiable mechanisms to unlock a new phase in U.S.–Cuba relations through the AURO model
II. Background and International Precedents
Deferred Compensation Resolutions:
Countries like Spain, Germany, Vietnam, Russia, and Mexico have successfully resolved similar disputes through agreements involving partial, deferred, and mutual compensations.
The Cuban Offer Rejected (1960s):
Cuba offered 20-year bonds at 4.5% interest as progressive compensation, backed by sugar export revenues. The U.S. rejected the offer for political and ideological reasons, demanding immediate cash payments and updated market valuations.
Obsolescence of Legal Claims:
Title III of the Helms-Burton Act has produced minimal practical outcomes, and its use has been widely rejected by the international community.
IV. Legal Doctrine: Constructive Refusal
The Doctrine of Constructive Refusal applies when a state rejects reasonable settlement proposals without offering viable alternatives, violating the principles of good faith and non-abuse of rights (North Sea Continental Shelf Case, ICJ 1969; Chorzów Factory Case, PCIJ 1928).
In the Cuban case:
o Cuba proposed structured compensation.
o The U.S. rejected it outright.
o Maintaining the embargo constitutes a disproportionate response and a violation of international good faith.
V. Additional Diplomatic Adjustments for U.S. Support
Diplomatic Adjustment
Language
Reformulation
Proposal
Replace “compensation” with “preferential reintegration” or “gradual economic restitution.”
No Legal Admission of Fault Cuba maintains its historical legitimacy over nationalizations; no formal retraction required.
Second-Generation
Investors Preferential treatment for claimants investing in key AURO sectors.
Reciprocity Clause Application of balanced international precedents without exclusive privileges.
ANNEX VII
The New Competition for Strategic Resources in Latin America and the Caribbean: Opportunity
or
Threat for the U.S.?
I. Introduction
The 21st century has shifted the global focus from military dominance to a fierce competition for critical natural resources: lithium, rare earth minerals, freshwater, biodiversity, green energy, and food security. In this race, Latin America and the Caribbean have become central geoeconomic territories.
While global actors like China, India, Russia, and the European Union consolidate strategic alliances with the region, the United States continues to uphold rigid policies such as the embargo on Cuba that isolate it from key opportunities in its own hemisphere.
This annex analyzes why the U.S. must urgently reconsider its regional strategy and, in particular, its policy toward Cuba if it does not want to lose structural and irreversible influence in this ongoing global competition.
IV. AURO as a Platform for Strategic Reintegration
Enables the U.S. to reinsert itself into critical resource value chains.
Facilitates the development of technological and logistical hubs based in Cuba, reducing dependence on Asia.
Strengthens regional alliances with CELAC and positions the U.S. as a key actor in the green transition debate.
V. Conclusion
In a world driven by competition for resources and strategic capabilities, continuing to ignore Cuba is a voluntary forfeiture of a natural advantage AURO is not a symbolic gesture; it is a realistic instrument for protecting U.S. strategic interests in the 21st century.
HJTO
ANNEX VIII
Hemispheric Energy and Food Security: Cuba’s Key
Role in the New Supply Chain Architecture
I. Introduction
Recent global crises pandemic disruptions, war in Europe, inflation, and fertilizer shortages have exposed the fragility of international supply chains. In this context, ensuring energy and food security has become a top priority for every nation.
This annex argues that Cuba can play a critical role in the new hemispheric architecture of stability, and that its exclusion not only weakens the island but also compromises the security of the United States itself.
II. Cuba as a Strategic Node in the Caribbean
1. Underutilized Port Infrastructure
The Mariel Port, with Brazilian investment and a special economic zone, has logistical capacity to serve as a regional redistribution hub.
Its location can reduce maritime transportation costs between South America and the U.S.
2. Clean Energy Potential
Cuba is developing over 50 solar and biomass energy projects.
AURO could integrate the U.S. into the supply of components, knowhow, and regional green energy export platforms.
3. Tropical Food Production and Agricultural Biotechnology
Cuba leads in organic agriculture, soil management, and climateresilient farming.
Through AURO, the U.S. could strengthen its regional food security without dependence on distant markets.
III. Migration and Social Stability: Components of Hemispheric Security
Migratory flows from Cuba to the U.S. increase with each economic crisis on the island.
AURO would create jobs, income, and binational production projects to structurally reduce migratory pressure.
IV. The Caribbean as an Economic and Geopolitical Buffer Zone
An economically integrated Cuba limits the influence of third-party actors (China, Russia) in the region.
Energy, logistics, and food cooperation under AURO would create a strategic buffer zone between South America, the Caribbean, and the United States.
V. Conclusion
There is no hemispheric security without economic stability. And there will be no economic stability while sanctions and exclusionary policies continue. Cuba is not the problem it is part of the solution.
The AURO Operation is the path to strategically, equitably, and mutually beneficially integrate Cuba into the future of the Americas.
HJTO