In this column, October 28,2014, titled ‘Foreshadowing the end of the Cuban embargo’, I wrote that the United States embargo against Cuba was almost over. The United Nation’s General Assembly was scheduled to vote that day on a resolution to end the 54-year-old blockade against one of the world’s last remaining communist state. “However the US votes today, the end is near,” the article said. “Cuba will soon be our competitor in ways they have never been in the modern economy…”

The assembly, for the 23rd straight year, voted 188-2, with Israel and the United States as the only dissenters. The US envoy, Ronald Godard, dismissed the resolution, saying Havana uses the yearly vote as an “attempt to shift blame” for economic problems that are its own creation. As we now know, negotiations were taking place behind the scenes even then.

Without specific knowledge of those negotiations, logic suggested that the end of the embargo had to come; the question was how and when. Some people thought that the United States would wait out the death of Fidel, now 88, and Raul Castro, 75, and try to begin anew with a younger more pragmatic generation of leaders, driven by economic realities rather than ideological loyalties.

My sense of the immediate loosening of restrictions, if not a full end to the embargo, came out of an observation of favourable conditions, Obama’s commitment to a particular approach to problem-solving, and an understanding of how American executives think. At the micro or macro levels, big decisions are never random. They are data driven, and they follow a trajectory which includes obvious benefits to be gained by taking one set of actions versus another, and they are taken or made public at a time when the decision will be greeted with the greatest favourability.

Cuba’s role in the Ebola outbreak, which began in West Africa last December, enhanced the favourability climate. With much panic on the international scene, the island’s medical professionals emerged on the front line of the battle against one of the nastiest and most contagious diseases. “…We are seeing nations large and small, stepping up in impressive ways to make a contribution on the frontlines… Cuba, a country of just 11 million people, has sent 165 health professionals, and it plans to send nearly 300 more,” said Secretary of State John Kerry, October 17.

In a context where even the United States floundered momentarily, Cuba was adding value. It was always known that, despite limited resources, Cuba has both excellent education and health care systems. But this was a new frontier — a moment in which the United States was forced to reflect on greater opportunities to advance human welfare that are being lost by an embargo that was about a set of issues that no longer obtain. It is at this juncture in relationships — a smart woman looking for a man or vice versa, an employer looking for a top-notch employee, business people looking for new partnership, or astute politicians looking to form mutually beneficial alliances — that we put the past behind us.

Kerry’s carefully scripted statement telegraphed the announcement that Obama made last week, easing much of the restrictions previously imposed on Cuba.

A for Obama! What, essentially, is a commonsense move will be a part of his foreign policy legacy, but there is more to come. I wager that, at the end of 2016, observers will recognise that this was a relatively easy move compared to actions he will take on some of the most intractable domestic and international issues. He has set himself up to use the discretionary powers of the executive order to achieve meaningful changes when it matters most seriously. Though he is being accused of tyranny by the right, data shows that the last president to issue executive orders as rarely as Obama was Grover Cleveland, president from 1885-1889 and 1893-1897. Obama, in his State of the Union Address, January 2014, said he would begin to rely more on executive orders to advance policy in areas where Congress has stalled.

Obama has been accused of hesitancy or weakness too, and the political right continues to paint him as a failure, despite his Administration’s successes reviving the US economy, passage of the Affordable Care Act, and the operation in Pakistan which captured and killed Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the September 2001 attack on the United States.

Notwithstanding, his first term in office was about legitimacy. As the first black president, he knew it was supremely important, for history’s sake, that he did not “delegitimise” his presidency by allowing himself to be voted out of office after only one term. One-term presidents are perceived as weak and unable to make their mark sufficiently to win a second term.

The legitimacy question for Obama was about race. While his presidency has been misconstrued by some as signalling the end of racism in America, day-to-day realities say otherwise. The results of the 2008 election showed that, while enough whites voted for him to make a difference, white votes overall went to John McCain — 55 per cent to 43 per cent. But blacks voted 95 per cent for Obama; Hispanics, 67 per cent; and Asian Americans, 62 per cent. Without the minority vote, he would have lost the election by 12 per cent, despite the fact that John McCain was a weak candidate. Keenly aware of these realities, and hounded by accusations of being “Un-American”, Obama treaded carefully.

His value as a leader is premised on his belief in the dignity of all people. Plus, he is courageous, he is patient and he is strategic. Cuba’s value, meanwhile, lies in the groundwork it has laid, also premised on the dignity and ability of its people. Despite flawed beginnings, its outcomes have been more positive than negative. It is in the world today a better mouse trap.

As we ponder these developments, pertinent questions for us are: What value can we add as individuals, as leaders, and as a nation? What is it that will have the world beating a path to our door?

I wish you safety, thoughtfulness, compassion, and moderation this season.

Grace Virtue, PhD is a social justice advocate.