Many moons ago, Dan Erickson — then a Latin America specialist at the Inter-American Dialogue — declared that “as a member of a younger generation of U.S. foreign policy analysts, I believe the Cuba issue requires both a new set of eyes and a fresh series of approaches.”

Yet the eyes remain the same as before, and there are no fresh approaches in Washington when it comes to Cuba.

On Nov. 19, President Obama — in an effort to drum up Asian support for the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership — spent six hours in Myanmar, thereby becoming the first U.S. president ever to set foot in the country also known as Burma. Many questioned the wisdom of such a visit, and some wondered: Why, then, not Cuba?

Since independence in 1948, the country’s ethnic Bamar elite and its military institutions have exerted a totalitarian rule. Its brutal supremacy over non-Burmese ethnic groups was, and continues to be, based on systematic genocide — where forced human labor, the kidnapping of children and women to “serve the military” as sex slaves are documented every year. The Shan, Kachin, Karen, Naga, Rohingya, Thai and other minorities have suffered from Burmese (Bamar) policies for centuries.

Even the State Department’s 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights — despite some minor changes from previous years— still denounce these atrocities.

Myanmar is a key player in the “Golden Triangle,” which along with Afghanistan has supplied much of the world’s supply of opium and heroin since the 1920s. It’s also involved in money laundering as well as border disputes with neighboring India, Bangladesh, China, Laos and Thailand.

There is no regional consensus regarding its policies and intentions. Nor is there any consensus in judging the seriousness and scope of recent changes that, for the most part, are considered “minor gestures” to soften international pressure.

Nobel Peace Prize winner and human-rights campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi may have some degree of freedom right now, but that freedom hasn’t been extended to vast sections of the country’s 49 million inhabitants.

In addition, she was and is very much a member of the same Bamar elite — and a member of one of its most powerful families.

This makes Myanmar more of a typical “rogue state” than a normal one, not very deserving of an official presidential visit just now. So what new set of eyes or approaches inspired this executive decision?

It’s hard to say, but any comparisons between Myanmar and Cuba must come to a rather obvious conclusion: Their contexts are entirely different. It’s also the case when it comes to drug trafficking, terrorism, immigration and security issues.

Cuba is supported by the entire Western Hemisphere except for the United States. In late November, the 27-member European Union concluded that it needed a new policy of constructive engagement with Havana, so it put its 1995 “Posición Común” on hold. The EU’s new priorities vis-à-vis Cuba will be cooperation projects, investments and dialogue.

It’s not that the EU is turning “red” or pro-Castro — just that Cuba is undergoing a significant process of internal reforms and seeks to redesign the very foundations of the system. Thus, constructive engagement is the correct policy to follow.

Besides, Fidel Castro is no longer at the helm, and much of the old generation is simply fading away. An atmosphere of tolerance and public debate has taken hold, while Hav-ana’s relations with religious communities — from Catholics and evangelists to Jews and santería practicioners — couldn’t be better.

At the same time, the United Nations voted overwhelmingly to condemn the U.S. embargo of Cuba. The vote was 188-3, with only the United States, Israel and Palau supporting it.

Antonio Caño, Washington correspondent for Madrid’s El País newspaper, described the embargo as “a relic of U.S. foreign policy that has survived until now regardless of its inefficiency and lack of international support.”

After all, how many U.S. governors, senators and representatives have come to Cuba in recent years? Former President Jimmy Carter has visited twice, and every word he said was printed for all Cubans to read, including his praise of the late dissident Oswaldo Payá.
Cuba’s cooperation with other countries in medicine, sports and literacy programs are recognized and widely praised by agencies ranging from UNESCO to the World Health Organization — and even Interpol.

Yet in the eyes and approaches still prevailing in Washington, Cuba remains the “black sheep” of the Western Hemisphere. U.S. officials describe Cuba’s recent reforms as simply “cosmetic changes,” as if nothing has changed in the past 50 years.

Indeed, what we are witnessing is a paradox of wrong choices, a serious lack of vision. It seems that Obama and his foreign policy team has remained — and will continue to be — not just blind but also deaf to numerous demands made at regional summits in Port of Spain, San Pedro Sula and, more recently, Cartagena, to lift the embargo and normalize relations with Cuba.

No doubt the late Sen. William Fulbright  would have characterized this policy as a first-class example of U.S. “arrogance of power.”

Indeed, Myanmar was the wrong choice. Cuba, 90 miles away, would have made far more sense for an official presidential visit.