National Summit on Cuba
October 4, 2003
A Compendium of Commentary
Sponsored by
World Policy Institute
Puentes Cubanos
Cuban Committee for Democracy
Fundación Amistad
The Time is Now Coalition
Cambio Cubano
Americans For Humanitarian Trade With Cuba
The National Summit on Cuba Compendium
 Cuba Project, World Policy Institute
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Cosponsoring Organizations
2
Supporting, Individuals, Organizations and Staff
3
Overview in the Context of Events of 2003
6
Introductory Remarks: Lissa Weinmann, Project Director, Cuba Project, World Policy Institute
7
Open Letter to the National Summit On Cuba: President Jimmy Carter
8
Points of View from the New Generation of Cuban-Americans
Moderator: Silvia Wilhelm, Puentes Cubanos
9
Elizabeth Cerejido, Exhibitions Coordinator, Florida International University Art Museum
11
José Latour, Immigration Attorney, Journalist, Musician, Former U.S. Diplomatic Officer
13
Cynthia Barrera, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Miami School of International Studies
Producer of Maria Elvira Confronta
15
Mayda Prego, Attorney, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, Miami
16
Questions and Answers: The New Generation
18
Florida - A Changing Political Equation?
Moderator: Alfredo Duran, Cuban Committee for Democracy
18
Pat Collier Frank, Hillsborough County Commissioner
20
Kenneth Lipner, Ph.D., Department of Economics, University of Miami, former Economic
Development Coordinator for Miami’s Downtown Development Authority
22
Joe McClash, Manatee County Commissioner
24
Alvaro Fernández, Florida Director, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
25
Rob Schroth
Schroth & Associates, Pollster for Miami Herald
26
Annie Betancourt, former Florida State Representative (ran for national office against
current U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz Balart on a pro-change platform toward Cuba)
28
Questions & Answers: A Changing Political Equation
29
Our National Interest, Our National Security
Moderator: Lissa Weinmann, Cuba Project, World Policy Institute
29
General John Sheehan, USMC (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief U.S. Atlantic Command,
Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic
32
The Hon. William D. Rogers, former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American relations (1974-1977),
Vice Chair, Kissinger Associates
34
William Ratliff, Ph.D., Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
38
Ken Lindeman, Senior Scientist and Cuba Program Director Environmental Defense
40
Mayor Michael C. Dow, Mobile, Alabama
42
Questions and Answers: Our National Security, Our National Interest
46
The Human Dimensions of U.S. Policy
Moderator: Luly Duke, President, Fundación Amistad
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
47
José Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director, Americas Division, Human Rights Watch
50
Holly Ackerman, Amnesty International
51
Robert Bach, Ph.D., Senior Visiting Fellow, Inter-American Dialogue,
Former Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Programs, INS
54
Thomas Wenski, Bishop of Orlando, Former Bishop of Miami
56
Donna Hicks, Ph.D., Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
57
Peter G. Bourne, M.A., M.D., Chairman, Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba
60
James Early, Ph.D., Director of Cultural Heritage Policy, Smithsonian Institution
62
Questions and Answers: The Human Dimensions of U.S. Policy
64
Impetus for and Implications of Open Travel to Cuba
Moderator: Antonio Zamora, The Time is Now Coalition, U.S. Cuba Legal Forum,
Bay of Pigs Veteran, Former Counsel to the Cuban American National Foundation
64
U.S. Representative William Delahunt (D-MA)
67
U.S. Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
68
Phil Peters, Vice President, Lexington Institute, former U.S. Department of State Official under President Reagan
70
Bradley Belt, Executive Director, Association of Travel Related Industry Professionals
72
Questions and Answers: Open Travel
74
The U.S., Cuba and the International Community: A Multilateral Perspective
Moderator: Patricia Gutiérrez Menoyo, Cambio Cubano
75
Joaquín Roy Ph.D., Jean Monnet Professor, Director of the EU Center, University of Miami
78
John Mcauliff, Executive Director, Fund for Reconciliation and Development
82
The Hon. Mark Entwistle, former Canadian Ambassador to Cuba
84
Questions and Answers: The International Community
85
Closing Remarks
Dr. William Leogrande, Ph.D., Dean, School of Public Affairs, American University
87
Mikhail Gorbachev Keynote Address
Introduction: Michael Putney, ABC Network News Anchor, Miami
87
Mikhail Gorbachev
94
Questions and Answers
97
Excerpts from Mikhail Gorbachev’s Press Conference
100 Cosponsor Information
108 Biographies of Speakers
130 Editorial: The Last Wall by Mikhail Gorbachev and Selected Press Clips
1
National Summit on Cuba
FLORIDA 2003
COSPONSORS
THE WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE
A research and education policy center that seeks innovative solutions to critical problems facing the United States and the world
PUENTES CUBANOS
Creating links between the people of the United States, Cuba and the Cuban diaspora
CUBAN COMMITTEE FOR DEMOCRACY
Facilitating the necessary environment for a peaceful transition in Cuba
FUNDACIÓN AMISTAD
Promoting mutual understanding and respect between the peoples of the United States and Cuba
TIME IS NOW COALITION
Florida Cuban American leaders working together for change
AMERICANS FOR HUMANITARIAN TRADE WITH CUBA (AHTC)
A national organization of leaders who advocate lifting restrictions on food and medical trade with Cuba and
the free travel necessary for such trade to occur. Advisory Council members follow:
Carla Anderson Hills
Former U.S. Trade Rep
The Honorable Michael C. Dow
Mayor, Mobile, Alabama
Julius B. Richmond, M.D
Former Surgeon General
Dwayne Andreas
Archer Daniels Midland Company
Dr. Robert Edgar
National Council of Churches
Dennis Rivera
1199 National Health & Human Service
Employees Union
Phil Baum
American Jewish Congress
Richard E. Feinberg
Former NSC Chief Latin America
David Rockefeller
Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr.
Former Treasury Secretary
Craig L. Fuller [AHTC Co-Chair]
Former Chief of Staff, VP Bush
James Rodney Schlesinger
Former CIA Director, Defense Secretary
Reginald K. Brack, Jr.
Former Chairman, Time Inc.
Sam M. Gibbons [AHTC Co-Chair]
Former 34-year Florida Congressman
Kurt L. Schmoke
Former Mayor of Baltimore
Melinda Bush
Hospitality Resources Worldwide
Larry Gold, PhD
SomaLogic, Inc., Colorado
General John J. Sheehan (retired),
Former Supreme Allied Commander,
Atlantic (NATO)
Dr. Joan Brown Campbell
Chautauqua Institution
Mark O. Hatfield
Former U.S. Senator, Oregon
Frank C. Carlucci
Former Reagan NSC Chief
Grazell Howard
Coalition of 100 Black Women
Oliver Stone
A.W. Clausen
Former President, World Bank
Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Paul A. Volcker
Former Chair US FederalReserve
Alberto Coll
Pell Center for International
and Public Policy, RI
Bob Odom
Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture
Malcolm Wallop
Former U.S. Senator, Wyoming
Francis Ford Coppola
George Sturgis Pillsbury
Sargent Management Company
John Whitehead
Former Deputy Secretary of State
Peter H. Coors
Coors Brewing Company
A.J. Pete Reixach
Port of Freeport, Texas
Jim Winkler
United Methodist Church
Mark Sanford
Governor, South Carolina
2
National Summit on Cuba
FLORIDA 2003
SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Silvia Wilhelm, Puentes Cubanos
Alfredo G. Duran, Cuban Committee for Democracy
María de Lourdes “Luly” Duke, Fundación Amistad
Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo, Cambio Cubano
Patricia Gutiérrez, Cambio Cubano
Antonio Zamora, Time Is Now Coalition
Sam Gibbons, Americans For Humanitarian Trade With Cuba (AHTC)
Kathleen Donahue, The Donahue Group
James L. Abernathy, Abernathy MacGregor, Inc.
A.W. Claussen, Former President, World Bank
Paul Volcker, Former Chair, U.S. Federal Reserve Bank
Randy K. Haynie, Haynie & Associates
The Christopher Reynolds Foundation
The General Services Foundation
The Arca Foundation
SUMMIT SPEAKERS RECEPTION HOSTS
Tessie Aral, ABC Charters
Joe Perez, Cuba Travel Services, Inc.
Tom Cooper, Gulfstream Airlines
Xiomara Almaguer and Eddie Levy, Xael Travel
WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE CUBA PROJECT STAFF
Lissa Weinmann, Summit Coordinator ♦ John Loggia, Assistant Summit and Communications Coordinator
Michele Wojcik, Assistant Summit Coordinator ♦ Emily Myers, Summit Intern ♦ Tucker Hall, Public Relations, Tampa, Florida
SPECIAL THANKS TO
Pavel Palazhchenko ♦ Steve Schwadron ♦ Rep. Delahunt ♦ Lisandro Perez-Rey ♦Marlene Arzola, Cuban Committee for Democracy
Matthew Sholler, Fundacion Amistad ♦ Dan Krassner and Christian Leon, Tucker Hall ♦ J.P. Wright ♦ Robert Walker
Mavis Anderson, Latin America Working Group ♦ Ali Arostegui ♦ Beatriz Miyar ♦ Naife Fallace ♦ Robyn Weiss
3
NATIONAL SUMMIT ON CUBA: FLORIDA
OVERVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF EVENTS OF 2003
The National Summit on Cuba: Florida was held at the historic Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables,
Florida on October 4, 2003. Diverse leaders from across the United States convened with
Cuban-Americans from South Florida to explore alternative policy approaches to Cuba, in
front of an audience of 400 participants. This growing segment of the Cuban-American
community in Florida seeks to end the forty-three year political stalemate between the two
governments in order to promote national reconciliation and participation in a changing Cuban
society.
Chosen for his leadership role in charting a new course for the Soviet Union and the world at
large, Mikhail Gorbachev delivered the keynote address at the Summit. Gorbachev shared his
personal vision of how to heal a community torn apart by a policy that many view as an
anachronistic and a painful legacy of the Cold War. Reflecting on his experience, Gorbachev
advocated a new approach of diplomatic and economic engagement with Cuba that would
advance U.S. interests and empower Cuban citizens.
NATIONAL SUMMIT ON CUBA: AN ANNUAL EVENT
The Miami National Summit on Cuba was the second in what has become an annual gathering
of American and international leaders from all sectors representing various points of view on
U.S. – Cuba relations. The Summits are held in various cities, and organized by the World
Policy Institute’s Cuba Project in conjunction with different cosponsors depending on the
orientation of the event. The Summits’ guiding mission, whatever the city or roster of
cosponsoring organizations is to examine and illuminate how our policy of unilateral economic
and diplomatic embargo on neighboring Cuba affects the U.S. economy, our national security,
the well-being and human rights of the Cuban people and U.S. leadership internationally,
among other areas.
The first Summit, held at Washington DC’s National Press Club in 2002, was cosponsored by
the World Policy Institute, the USA Engage Coalition of more than 650 U.S. corporations
(many household names) and the American Farm Bureau Federation and Americans For
Humanitarian Trade With Cuba. The Summit assembled an impressive ‘grass tops’ array of 44
speakers and delegations from 28 states including elected officials, corporate representatives,
port and transportation officials, farmers, local trade groups and chambers of commerce as well
as a broad array of human rights and religious leaders. Approximately 400 Cuban Americans
participated in the second day of the Summit, organizing various Congressional panels on
changes within that important community.
The Florida Summit was meant to inform a policy review the Bush Administration had
announced was taking place in 2003. The review came in the wake of a Cuban government
crackdown on political dissidents which appeared to arrest a trend toward more political and
economic openness on the island.
4
THE CONGRESSIONAL CONTEXT IN 2003
During 2003, tension grew between the Administration and Congress, as well as within the
Republican Party itself.
Despite growing bipartisan momentum to lift the ban on U.S. citizens’ ability to travel to Cuba,
the Bush administration in 2003 greatly tightened restrictions on legal travel to Cuba by
cutting-off all people-to-people exchanges.
Several votes in early September 2003 reflected the House of Representatives support for
broad relaxation of the Cuba embargo.
Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) sponsored an amendment that would cut the appropriation
for the Department of Treasury to enforce the travel ban. That amendment won by a vote of
227-188.
Representative William Delahunt (D-MA) sponsored an amendment that would have
prohibited Treasury from enforcing any cap on remittances to Cuba. That amendment passed
222-196.
Representative Jim Davis (D-Tampa) sponsored an amendment that would have restored the
people-to-people travel that President Bush had cut earlier that year. The House passed that
amendment by a 246 to173 vote.
On October 23, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-SD) introduced the same amendment that passed the
house which would, again, have eliminated Treasury’s ability to enforce the travel embargo by
withholding the Congressional appropriation to do so. The amendment passed by a 59 to 36
vote. The Senate roll call on that vote is included later in this compendium.
The normal procedure when the Senate and House pass exact language is that it is included in
the final bill, and it was fully expected that the Cuba language would therefore be included in
the final Treasury Appropriations bill which would then be sent to the President for signature.
Congressional leaders in 2003 summarily removed the Cuba language. The move was widely
viewed as a shocking and unusual measure that angered Congressional leaders on both sides of
the aisle. It is generally accepted that the leaders did this to avoid sending the bill to the
President as he had said he would veto the important spending provision if it contained
language that loosened the embargo on Cuba.
The Senate later underscored its support for open travel when the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), passed separate language that would
end all travel restrictions to Cuba. U.S. Senator John Kerry voted yes for that measure and
remains a cosponsor of that same legislation to end the travel ban entirely.
5
THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT OF U.S. CUBA POLICY IN 2003
The Summit underscored how the international and human rights community has been caught
in the crossfire of U.S.-Cuba politics. While chagrined at the turn of events in Cuba, the
international community steadfastly refuses to follow suit with economic isolationism, making
any efforts to form a multilateral policy toward Cuba necessarily predicated on U.S. steps
toward diplomacy and principled engagement with Cuba.
Polish Solidarity leader Lech Walesa and ‘Velvet Revolution’ head Vaclav Havel in 2003 were
joined by other Eastern European leaders in denouncing both the crackdown in Cuba and U.S.
policy toward Cuba.
The two main human rights groups (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) spoke at
the Summit. They reiterated the view of political dissidents in Cuba in explaining how current
U.S policy impedes the cause of political freedom and human rights in Cuba. Both groups
called for steps toward diplomatic engagement between the U.S. and Cuba, encouraging the
U.S. to take the first step by recognizing American citizens’ human right to travel freely to
Cuba.
The Organization of American States refused in early 2003 to entertain a U.S. resolution
condemning Cuba for the political crackdown, arguing that the measure was illegal since,
because the U.S. bars Cuba’s membership in the OAS, Cuba had no standing therefore no
ability to defend itself within the regional body. The U.S. subsequently lost its important seat
on the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.
A 2003 resolution from the European Union condemning Cuba’s human rights abuses also
condemns U.S. policy toward the island. The United Nations has annually condemned the
embargo as an abrogation of international law for 10 years running. The last vote in 2003 was
157 to 3.
THE CUBAN-AMERICAN CHANGE AND BUSH ADMINISTRATION REACTION
Numerous polls conducted in 2003 showed that a majority of Americans and Cuban-Americans
in South Florida believe the U.S. government should embark on a new policy, which can
enhance their ability to participate in an evolving Cuba as well as begin to address the interests
of the Cuban people as they themselves, express them. The community is increasingly and
now openly discussing what can be done to speed the reunification of the Cuban family for the
benefit of current and future generations on both sides of the Florida Straits.
Days after the Florida Summit, despite the obvious change of heart within the Cuban American
community and the urgings of President Gorbachev for President Bush to “Tear down the wall
of this embargo,” President Bush reiterated his support of the embargo in a Rose Garden event
on October 10, 2004.
In his speech that day to a group of 100 Cuban American embargo supporters (which excluded
representatives of the Cuban American National Foundation which by then had become viewed
as too moderate since they had earlier in the year advocated dialogue with Cuban government
representatives except for the Castros), President Bush announced the formation of a
Presidential Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. The President’s comments are
included later in this compendium.
6
The Commission would be composed of the heads of various U.S. government agencies and
include no private sector participation. In 2004, the Bush Administration would adopt many of
the Commission recommendations to cut family travel to Cuba, limit remittances and
appropriate some $56 million in U.S. government funds to help speed a rapid and peaceful
political transition in Cuba.
THE IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL SUMMITS ON CUBA
For Americans at large, the National Summit on Cuba provided a valuable and historic
opportunity to examine Cuba in relation to our national security needs in a changing world. It
also allowed an overview of the new commercial opportunities being explored by U.S.
companies, farmers and communities as a result of limited but renewed sales of U.S. food
products to Cuba under the 2000 Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act. Most
importantly, the 2003 Summit allowed us to reconsider our approach toward an important
neighbor and share opinions on what an effective, proactive U.S. policy could be and what we
as a nation can realistically expect such a policy to do.
DOCUMENTATION
A full set of DVDs from this and previous Summits, including the historic Gorbachev address,
have been distributed to various government repository libraries throughout the United States
and are available for purchase from the World Policy Institute. Copies of this Compendium are
also available. Please call the World Policy Institute’s Cuba Project at 212 229 5953 for more
information or email [email protected]
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
LISSA WEINMANN
PROJECT DIRECTOR, CUBA PROJECT, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE
Greetings, welcome, I am glad to see everyone gathered here today, at our 2nd National Summit
on Cuba. In Washington last year we brought together representatives from across the county
to give voice to the broad National Support for a more constructive U.S. policy on Cuba. This
year we have chosen to focus on the support in the Cuban American community in Florida for
a new policy.
Our keynote speaker, Mikhail Gorbachev, has been invited at the behest of the Cuban
American groups co-sponsoring this event to provide his insights into the key developments
that led to the transformation of Russia and how the lessons he learned could be applied to the
current standoff between the United States and Cuba.
I would like to introduce Shelly McConnell. Shelly works with president Carter at the Carter
Center in Atlanta, Georgia. She accompanied President Carter on his Historic trip to Cuba last
year and has continued to travel back to Cuba as President Carter’s representative in ongoing
discussions with the Cuban Authorities and with the Cuban people. I’d like now to introduce
Shelly to come up and read a word of greeting from president Carter welcoming you all to our
conference today. Thank you
7
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE NATIONAL SUMMIT ON CUBA
PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER
READ BY SHELLEY MCCONNELL PH.D.
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, AMERICAS PROGRAM, THE CARTER CENTER
McConnell: Good morning. It is my privilege to be with you here today to read an open letter
from former U.S. president Jimmy Carter:
Greetings to those who have gathered in Miami for the second National Summit on Cuba.
My visit to Cuba in May of 2002 was the first by a U.S. president since the 1959 Revolution. I
went at the invitation of Fidel Castro to discuss our common interests in improving world
health and inter-American relations. Rather than interfere in Cuba's internal affairs, I went to
extend a hand of friendship directly to the Cuban people and to urge mutual respect between
our societies. Regrettably, neither the United States nor Cuba has been willing or able to define
this positive relationship.
The events of the past year have been disturbing, leading some to call for an even deeper
isolation of Cuba by the United States. The Cuban government has imposed extraordinarily
harsh prison sentences on Cuban citizens peaceably seeking to change their country's
legislation and promote freedoms of expression and assembly and also has executed hijackers
in Cuba after summary trials, while the U.S. government has further restricted the rights of
American citizens to travel where they please.
While distressing, the actions by both governments simply reinforce the points I made more
than a year ago during my speech in Havana. I called on the United States to end the trade
embargo, not because U.S. policy is responsible for the economic hardships that Cubans
endure, but because as the more powerful nation, we should take the first step. I also supported
the right of all U.S. citizens to trade and travel freely, and I called for an unrestricted student
exchange between our universities, believing, as I have for a quarter of a century, that cultural
interchange between neighbors holds no threat for free societies. Deepening the divide that
separates our countries is not the answer.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts citizens' rights to choose their own leaders,
speak freely, organize political parties and civil society organizations, and have fair and open
trials. This aspiration must be fulfilled by the people of Cuba. I consider the Varela Project to
be an effort by Cubans to work with one another to change laws peacefully. In Havana, I noted
the concerns expressed by many Latin American countries that after four decades Cuba has yet
to meet universally accepted standards of civil liberties despite tremendous progress on health
care and education.
These have been my views since I was president, and they have not changed.
U.S.-Cuban relations have been frozen for four decades - but the world has changed. The Cold
War has ended, as Mikhail Gorbachev so eloquently points out. The Cuban family has also
changed. Citizens are asking for their basic rights of free speech and assembly, while
upholding their right to decide their future for themselves as a sovereign country. In the United
States, Cuban-Americans now include recent migrants and a new generation born in the U.S.
8
Views are diversifying, with polls showing that the majority now favors increased ties - travel
and remittances, not more punitive measures that hurt their family members in Cuba. In this
respect, the Cuban government's announcement that it will end the visa requirement for many
Cuban-Americans is most welcome.
Cuban-Americans are seeking creative alternatives, and I applaud this search. This Summit is a
chance for an open dialogue among those who care deeply about the island. It takes courage to
make change, to be receptive to new ideas. Though I could not be with you today, I urge you
all to be courageous in listening to and debating every idea presented and to seek new ways to
improve the lives of all Cubans no matter where they live.
I look forward to seeing the results of your deliberation.
POINTS OF VIEW FROM THE NEW GENERATION OF CUBAN-AMERICANS
MODERATOR: SILVIA WILHELM
PUENTES CUBANOS
Silvia Wilhelm: I have been asked to moderate the panel of the younger generation of CubanAmericans that represents the future—a panel, if I may add, with a very bright future, on both
sides of the Florida straits. I am convinced that the future is now. They are part of the present.
The group that you will hear today has had the courage to come out in the open and take
charge.
My name is Silvia Wilhelm and I am the Executive Director of Puentes Cubanos. I am CubanAmerican. I came to the United States in 1961 as one of the 14,000 children that fled the
island with Operación Pedro Pan. My parents didn’t want me to be raised in a communist
country. I applaud their decision. My decision to return to the island in 1994 is one that they
have also applauded. I am delighted to have made that decision—it is one that has truly
changed my life.
Puentes Cubanos is a not-for-profit organization incorporated in the state of Florida in June
1999. The main objective of Puentes Cubanos is to develop the institutional frameworks that
will facilitate humanitarian and reconciliation projects between Cuba and the United States.
The board of directors of Puentes Cubanos consists primarily of Cuban-Americans and one
American-Cuban intent on working on the reconciliation of the Cuban family. They believe
that through the initiations of mutual projects, Cubans on both sides of the Florida straits can
develop fluid communication that will lead to much needed trust and respect—essential
ingredients on the path of such reconciliation. Examples of projects initiated by Puentes
Cubanos reside in the area of cultural exchanges, professional exchanges with primary
emphasis on medical delegations and medical projects in Cuba, and a very specific project that
fosters dialogue between members of that generation—la generación N and their counterparts
in Cuba. That particular project has been going on for the last four years and it is very
unfortunate that when we sent our renewal for our license to continue the project, it was denied
by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Quite unfortunate, but we will continue the fight. If
there is a project that needs to be licensed, I would say it is that project.
9
ELIZABETH CEREJIDO
EXHIBITIONS COORDINATOR, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY ART MUSEUM
“There is not one Cuban-American in this room that does not have a story - that has not been
marked significantly or otherwise by this idea of there vs. here, of family members that left and
the ones that stayed behind.”
When I think of a word that might conjure up an image about the Cuba story I think of the
word schism - like a great divide that has left a crude and profound gap on the earth – the issue
of separation has left deep marks in the lives of all Cubans. This is not unique. There are
countless stories of exile and immigration to a number of groups of people around the world.
And yet each is infinitely personal. There is not one Cuban-American in this room that does
not have a story - that has not been marked significantly or otherwise by this idea of there vs.
here, of family members that left and the ones that stayed behind.
In my case, that schism marked my parent’s history – tore right through a romance that
throughout 12 years of separation dissolved into much pain and disillusionment. I was born in
Cuba in 1969 and my mother brought me to this country when I was merely 6 months old. My
parents had only lived together for a year as a married couple but nine years went by before I
met my father for the first time and before my parents saw each other again. Only that meeting
would take place in a Cuban jail – since my father was later put in jail as a political prisoner.
In 1980, via the Mariel boatlift, we were reunited again. My father passed away in January of
2001 and this event prompted, among many other things, the beginning of an insatiable quest
into the meaning of my identity both on a cultural and personal level.
I am representative of a generation that grew up within the context of a very particular place. That
context I refer to is Miami and the obsessive nature of a place in which every corner, every other
street sign evokes something Cuban in an attempt to recover the country that was left behind.
Ironically, these overtures have done little to actually connect us to the very place that it wants to
recreate. How can we connect to Cuba when we deny the place that exist so close to us? Because
of the intolerance that has permeated the political climate for so long, I feel that our generation
has been robbed of the opportunity to form our own informed opinions and experiences by
making the very place we want to connect with a forbidden one. The long- standing embargo, a
history of politicians banning cultural and artistic exchanges with Cuba and the recent travel ban,
etc. have only served to polarize either side and create a situation where things are formulated in
binary terms: good vs. bad, black vs. white. This is no way to try to affect change.
It was during the Elian episode that I became passionate about my political involvement in the
Cuba issue. It was impossible to ignore this scenario or feel apathetic about which side to take.
I found myself having no place, no room to debate a point of view that differed greatly from
the majority of the Cuban-American community. The Elian saga became a mirror that clearly
reflected how intolerant we had become. It was then that I found myself writing letters to our
local papers out of anger and frustration, out of a desperate need to let the rest of the world
know that other Cubans felt differently and expressed themselves in a manner that allowed an
open debate to take place. It was painful to see how our own community became polarized and
how we in turn alienated other groups due to our unwillingness to listen to other points of
views. It was during this time, as well, that I sought out people in the community like Max
Castro and Silvia Wilhelm to guide me as to where and how I could express my views and
10
become involved. These meetings led to many events such as lobbying in Washington against
the travel ban, launching a group called Yo Si Voy and most importantly a trip to Cuba in
October of last year through an exchange program sponsored by Puentes Cubanos with the
University of Havana. This particular experience became a turning point in my life.
It was during this trip that I became acutely aware through conversations with Cubans of my
generation that an exchange of ideas is crucial if any type of healing and future reconciliation is
going to take place. I became aware of the following: that they too long to connect with us
and also feel the loss of those that leave the country; that they are much more critical of their
government than I had been led to believe but that interestingly enough they feel committed to
playing an active role in the future of Cuba and that they have a much more complex
understanding of their reality. These revelations also marked me and though they inspired me
to believe that we can work toward a common goal, I also realized how little we knew about
each other. I was able to share with them one evening, for example, that as a group we visited
La Cabana (where my father was imprisoned) to witness a historically enacted ceremony, that
this beautiful and peaceful place once was a prison and where countless executions took place.
To my amazement, some had no idea it had been used for those purposes.
I had first hand experience with artists, economists and other young Cuban professionals who
genuinely expressed their unique perspectives, who showed a genuine interest in sharing their
ideas of how they would like the quality of their lives to improve. To this day, we continue to
correspond via e-mail and the dialogue that was initiated a year ago is alive and continues to
transform, develop and mature. These exchanges convinced me that our generation will be an
important or crucial part of the bridge toward reconciliation with our counterparts in Cuba.
My recent trips to Cuba have also strengthened my conviction that travel to Cuba is crucial for
this bridge to form and be effective. I feel strongly that this can only take place for us in
particular, by traveling and having a lived experience there. Thus I have lobbied in favor of
lifting the travel ban because at the core of the Cuban issue lie such deeply personal wounds,
healing must be the first step toward reconciliation and future change. This can only take place
by beginning to understand one another and that in turn can only take place if we change our
laws thus allowing for free travel and allowing for the flow and exchange of ideas to take
place. Changing our policies is the beginning of that change.
I feel my father was a victim of an intolerant regime and conversely I feel that to some degree
we have all been victims of laws that stem from intolerance. Our generation sees Cuba as an
integral part of what forms our identity. We are all eager to learn where we come from, where
our parents come from, to see for ourselves the very places we grew up hearing about. If we
do not create an environment whose politics allows us to express our concerns, voice our
opinions and not be intimidated by questioning, than we run the risk of remaining apathetic or
simply voicing what our parents have voiced for the past 40 years. And we now know that
route has been ineffective.
How can our generation take a step toward unraveling the intolerance? If our identity does not
develop through our own experiences it will only be something inherited and we will not take
responsibility for our actions. How do we transcend memory if we are not allowed to make
contact with the place where those memories are borne?
11
JOSÉ LATOUR,
IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY, JOURNALIST, MUSICIAN,
FORMER U.S. DIPLOMATIC OFFICER
“We are willing to speak to everyone, with Socialists, Communists, right-wingers...but one
thing is for sure: the future of Cuba is only assured by discussions amongst everyone.”
These are not the words of a disillusioned Castro revolutionary, not of an island dissident, not
the words of a long-time exile exasperated with decades of a failed policy, calling for change.
No. These were the words of the leader of the most respected conservative, pro-embargo
organization in the U.S., the voice of the home of the Cuban exile community. These were the
words of Jorge Mas Santos to the Miami Herald on January 30, 2003.
After leaving Havana at the age of 4 in 1966 I was privileged to return for the first time in
March of this year, wide-eyed and full of wonder. My first days were filled with tearful
outrage—outrage at an embargo that had made the short flight to my island birthplace pretty
much impossible for decades—Outraged at the bald-faced lies about the reality of life in Cuba
that my mother had listened to for decades on Miami’s a.m. stations. I was outraged at the visit
to the house from which we were ejected due to my father’s refusal to endorse the Castro
regime, at the foreigners-only pharmacy, at the one-year jail sentence that accompanies the
conviction of a Cuban national’s consumption of a lobster or beef steak.
But, a few days into it, I was overwhelmed. I was shocked at my ignorance, for one thing. I
had blamed the embargo for Cuba’s financial mess, apparently buying into Castro’s whole
spin. Not until I witnessed the colossal chaos and fundamental failure of a socialist/communist
non-economy first hand, did I understand that the embargo has little to do with Cuba’s
financial mess. I was amazed at the joy and resilience of the Cuban people, the good cheer and
generosity I found everywhere I went. And the music: Oh, man, the music. I have never heard
such music in my life.
And then I was outraged again that I couldn’t visit anytime I wanted to visit, that I couldn’t
spend my hard earned dollars as I pleased. I could hop on a plane to see clients anywhere in
the world, but not the island where I was born, because, by golly, the prescription made when I
was a toddler was still what the doctor ordered, logic be damned.
The ironies overwhelm me when I consider the dozens of nations with which the U.S.
maintains close, intimate political and economic relationships. Political repression is the order
of the day. Nations harbor international war criminals deemed as such by the United Nations
or the World Court; nations operate barbaric “judicial” systems which defy international law
call for routine beheadings, stonings, and other cruel and unusual forms of punishment; and
these atrocities are committed by those to whom we donate billions of dollars. And these
atrocities are repeatedly spelled out and condemned by Amnesty International and other
respected international groups.
Consider the People’s Republic of China. Dan Fisk, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
previously told this forum that the argument for treating Cuba like China was “superficial”. In
justifying this astonishing statement, Mr. Fisk cited China’s “economic reform model”,
decentralization, independent entrepreneurs, etcetera. I did business in Hong Kong for the
three years preceding its return to the PRC and while all that sounds quite logical, I suspect that
Mr. Fisk has never conducted private sector business in the People’s Republic of China. If so,
12
he would have found a nation full of institutionalized corruption, contradictory to fundamental
U.S. values, persisting, such as: mass infanticide of female babies due to barbaric state birth
control policies; forced child labor, particularly in provinces less visited by Westerners; a
trillion dollar a year Triad-run economic “gray zone” circumventing regional taxes; and
systematic alien smuggling operations that make our rafter issues in South Florida pale in
comparison, to the current market tune of $75,000 a head.
Mr. Fisk’s response is, frankly, an insult to Cuba and to Cuban-Americans and reflective of the
attitude I found on the topic of Cuba while serving the Department of State: “It’s different
because it’s Cuba.”
Baloney. The bottom line is that if we can put up with all that from China and give them MFN
status, Cuba should be getting even more. How our bureaucrats turn the logic inside out and
tell us that we need to give Cuba a harder time because it is a closer neighbor when it is a poor,
unarmed, hungry island while the PRC crushes Tibet, enslaves children and has a military force
which can crush the planet is ludicrous. No, the distinction, Mr. Fisk, is not there, it is a
fiction, it is an artifice. The truth is simply that Cuba does not produce cheap clock radios.
Need proof? Go to any of the discount online camera shops and price twin lens reflex cameras.
Now go and find the Chinese made Seagull. Do you think that the Chinese manufacturing
system is so superior that they can make a similar camera for about one tenth to one twentieth
the cost? Or could it be that perhaps, just maybe, international child labor agreements just
don’t seem to hold up as well in the interior of China?
The truth is that Fidel Castro remains in power not despite the embargo but, I submit
respectfully to you today, because of the embargo. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has served as a
galvanizing force behind Castro’s perpetual cry of “foul” and unwillingness to take personal
responsibility for the havoc his leadership decisions have caused upon the people of Cuba.
When Soviet subsidization ended and Cuban re-exportation of Soviet goods – the island’s
primary source of hard currency after the continuing fiascos with sugar production – the
“special period” began. Castro trashed his ex-benefactors for their decision to pull the welfare
plug and the cash flow cranked up in Little Havana, making the glaring hypocrisy even more
obvious: those who back the embargo preventing U.S. growers in desperate need of export
markets are precisely the ones funding the island’s appetite for imported European food. Is it
just me or wouldn’t it be better if those Florida dollars were coming back to American
companies exporting to Cuba?
Yet, according to Fidel, the special period was not the fault of his government and
mismanagement of finances, but due to the Soviets cutting him off. And now, of course, the
reason my Cuban taxi driver had to ask us to buy a medicine for his daughter in a dollarsonly/no-Cubans-allowed pharmacy was the fault of the U.S. embargo as well. Never mind the
fact that communist economies negate the human spirit by removing the very human element
of drive and ambition from the equation of production. And never mind that the Cuban culture
is one, inherently, of dreamers and hungry hearts. The whole damn thing was doomed from
the get go, Fidel.
So what do we do now? The Cubans are ready to deal and we need to cut our best deal, can the
embargo and get in there. Those who disagree simply do not understand the power, beauty, and
strength of American democracy and its capitalism and the nature of Cuban culture. What will
happen when this artificial trade barrier between Cuba and her most logical, massive trade partner
is lifted? Will Fidel pay off the devil in full and gain eternal immortality, build a Death Star, and
13
spread communism throughout the Americas? Nah....here’s what will happen: The Cuban black
market, already controlling the economy (find me a person in Havana who owns a car who is
NOT a taxi driver...) will embolden dramatically and the blatant tolerance exhibited now by the
government will grow to “licensing”, fearful as they will be of losing “control” (as if they have it
now....). That’s right, “licensing”. Watch. Do you know what that means? It means the
acknowledgment of private enterprise by the government without the Bearded One ever having to
say so, under the guise of preserving control.
The whole “Cuba as Brothel” scenario which has tragically unfolded as a result of the fact that
the vast majority of non-Cuban-Americans willing to risk unauthorized travel to the island will
be replaced with a Cuba as American travel paradise, with European infrastructure in place.
Castro will either accept the changes and turn into the benign doddering figurehead he would
have been by now but for the embargo or he will remain in the “Gritodromo”, ranting and
raving about the evils of materialism, with no one listening because they’ll all be down the
street at the Starbucks having a soy latté.
Bottom line: Cubans in Cuba love and embrace U.S. culture and it is our absence that is the
biggest threat to the island, not our presence or our dollars. The prolonging of the embargo is
the result of hardheadedness and the unspoken political and financial agendas of “those who
would be king” when the dictator finally bites the bullet.
One thing was echoed again and again when I was in Cuba, in that fleeting week, explaining
real freedom, fighting tooth and nail with my indoctrinated colleagues from the University of
Havana school of law, shooting the breeze with cab drivers and dodging “genuine” Cohiba
vendors: despite his best efforts, Fidel has failed miserably in convincing the people of the
island that Raul will be in a position to lead them after his death. By denying the Cuban people
a steady stream of our best ambassadors – schoolteachers from Iowa, steelworkers from
Pennsylvania, retired physicians from Texas, groups of curious school kids from North Florida
– we’ve let the people of Cuba come to believe that “freedom” is what the Europeans say it is.
Double Baloney. It’s been a little more than two centuries since we bailed from Europe to
carve out the roots of our version of democracy. Frankly, I like ours better. It’s time to let the
people of Cuba personally feel the magic that is America, and that, my friends, will whet their
appetite for real freedom and real democracy on the island where I come from.
CYNTHIA BARRERA PH.D.
CANDIDATE AT UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
PRODUCER OF MARIA ELVIRA CONFRONTA, A POPULAR LATIN-AMERICAN SHOW
“We have the opportunity to end the fears and misconceptions about the United States and the
Cuban exile community.”
I am a daughter of the Cuban Revolution. I was born and raised in the decade that followed the
Revolution of 1959. I once believed in the so-called Projecto Sociale –socialism as it was
taught in school. I lived practically my entire life under the system. It was actually only three
years ago when I began living here in Miami. I decided to leave Cuba and experience what life
was like outside of the island. I am here today to share with you the perception that I, and
many other people had, in Cuba while growing up. These are perceptions, or rather
misperceptions, we had about the United States and Cuban-Americans in Miami. Although
they may seem unbelievable to you, these myths are widely held and are very real in the minds
of many people living in Cuba today. These perceptions are the product of the current U.S.
policy of isolating the island, leaving the Cuban government as the only source of information
14
about the outside world. It is important to understand that very few Cubans are able to travel
abroad, have access to internet or can afford newspaper or television. Within this context, it is
not surprising that the Cuban government has been able to cultivate a type of besieged
mentality in which the people rally against a foreign enemy that is every-looming. As many
other children in Cuba, I grew up thinking that at any moment, the American navy or 82nd
division will attack the island. Drills were practiced with regularity to prepare for the day
when American bombers would blanket the country with bombs. I grew up in a house that
before the Revolution belonged to a family that fled to Miami. We were told that if the
Revolution were to collapse that the Miami family would return, forcing my family to move
out. I spent sleepless nights thinking about where my family would live if this were to happen.
I hoped that the Revolution would never collapse. I hoped that the Miami family would never
return. Not only would Cuban exiles return to claim their homes, they would also demand that
supporters of the Revolution be punished. According to another popular myth that we grew up
with, I was completely convinced that people from Miami didn’t have good will for my
country. We were led to believe that many of them were concerned with only their personal
greed, and not for the common good or the people of Cuba nor the creation of a better society
for the island.
I suffer from asthma and I had nightmares that the economy would worsen and affect my
supply of medicine. I imagined an asthma attack without an inhaler. We were raised to
believe that the end of socialism would bring privatization of healthcare and the impossible
expense of medical care. Could my family pay for a stay in an emergency room at the
hospital? According to the government, we would not. Through the radio, television and
newspapers, we learned that Cuba was a classless society. That is was better than other
countries in the developing world. We were made to feel lucky to be a part of such an exciting
social experiment. We learned that the United States was to blame for all of the worse problem
and that there was a Cuban mafia in Miami. Like me, young people don’t have the ability to
travel or have access to alternative sources of information with which to do a comparison with
other societies. That is why the policy of maintaining the embargo as well as the effort to
create stronger laws against any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba has done little but lay
credibility to the nationalist rhetoric of the government. It made the myth of the ill-will of
Cuban exiles seem real. It made the United States seem like the imperialist enemy against
which the people should stand united.
As I was growing up, I became active in student politics, becoming the President of the
National Federation of Students for Cien Fuegos province. I was even one of the lucky girls
selected to meet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and present him with a bouquet of flowers during
one of his visits in Cuba.
Years later I arrived in Havana to attend university. It was then that my life changed totally,
radically, and forever. Suddenly I was in a big city—a more international city, filled with
foreigners and new experiences. I became involved with the reformist Centro de Estudios de
las Americas. I had access to new treasures like Milan Kundera, an author who gave me an
alternative perspective on life. I met new friends from around the world: travelers, academics,
international students, among them Anglos and Cuban-Americans. The more I interacted with
them, the more they seemed to contradict the stereotypes I had about them.
I began to develop a more objective and critical perspective about my own country and the
world. It was through the Cuban-Americans who had traveled to Cuba that I first began to
understand the pain of exile. I began to understand why in Miami many people have a strong
15
passion attached to their homeland. But I never understood why many Cuban exiles were in
favor of the embargo. How could it be possible thousands of Cubans would want to starve
their fellow countrymen on the island in order to obtain their preliminary goal of eliminating
Fidel Castro? It was hard for me to understand having experienced first-hand the effects of the
embargo. But for many Cuban-American exiles, the need to punish Fidel Castro himself
seemed more important than logic.
The thinking of some Cuban exiles is that if the embargo is lifted, Castro has won a victory.
Luckily, I found that not all Cubans in Miami were in favor of economically strangling and
isolating my homeland in order to somehow create political change. I soon began to discover
that there were many Cuban-Americans in Miami that thought differently, who thought like I
did—that political change in Cuba could only be achieved by engaging the people and
government of Cuba, not by turning our backs on them.
This is why I am here today. The embargo and the travel restrictions have been a barrier of
cultural understanding between the people of Cuba and those in the United States. It has been
useful for the Cuban government to maintain the status quo and its nationalist language. My
generation did not create the Revolution. We never took up arms and attack the Presidential
Palace. We never fought in the Sierra Maestra, nor did we make the decision to align our
nation with the Soviet Union decades ago. We inherited the system, its isolation and its antiAmerican discourse. Members of my generation are living with the consequences of what our
parents and grandparents did or did not do. We do have a role and deep responsibility for the
future.
Now that I live on this side of the Florida straits I understand that those of us here have to send
a more optimistic and tolerant message to the new generation living on the other side. We have
the opportunity to end the fears and misconceptions about the United States and the Cuban
exile community. We can create a new role, a new image of exiles within Cuba. We can
create a bridge between two countries and two Cuban communities. The Cuban government
will not be able hide the reality of the outside world and the resistance movement in Cuba if we
continue to share and communicate face-to-face with the Cuban people. If we really want to
experience change there, we have to preach by example with tolerance and communication.
We are the democratic side of the equation and thus, the one with the advantage. It is for us to
reach out and make the first gesture of good faith—erasing the myth and helping to shape the
future of Cuba.
MAYDA PREGO
ATTORNEY, HUGHES, HUBBARD & REED, MIAMI
“The embargo is the crutch that keeps the Castro government alive.”
Seven years ago I moved to Miami. I was born and raised in New York City and my father is
Cuban. I had obviously never been to the island. As I grew older into my thirties, I developed
a desire, then a need, to find out who I was as a Cuban. Growing up in New York, I did not
have the same kind of atmosphere or background that someone growing up in Miami had. For
other personal and professional needs, along with the quest to find out who I was as a Cuban, I
moved to Miami. I found out when I got here, that the Miami Cubans were definitely not the
Cubans that I thought I was a part of. I was definitely an outsider in this community, although
I definitely considered myself Cuban. I decided, although it was not an easy decision
considering my family history and my father’s conservative views, to go to Cuba. And I thank
Silvia Wilhelm for opening that opportunity for me.
16
I went with a group of young Cuban-Americans, with Puentes Cubanos, and we sat in a room
at the University of Havana with counterparts of our age discussing what it is to be a Cuban
here and there. Surprisingly, despite our differences, there are many, many similarities and
common ground. Based on those similarities and common ground, we were able to reach
many consensuses that I never thought that I could have with a communist, because I am
certainly not one and have always been politically conservative. That whole week in Cuba
changed my life and many of views of how I perceived Cubans in Cuba to be. I believe,
because of my personal experience, the value of people-to-people exchange is enormous.
Anyone who has the opportunity to go to Cuba should go and find out what Cuba is all about.
When I stepped foot in Cuba (I made a joke about it in one of the workshops) I expected them
to show up in fatigues and rifles and ready to attack us at every moment. It was very
interesting to find out that they have the same concerns and issues that we have. They question
why they can’t travel freely outside of Cuba. They don’t buy the party line. They are told,
“Well, we’re trying to prevent brain drain…or you have to serve your time after we’ve given
you education for so many years and then you can leave”. But then they can’t.
The solution for many Cubans is not to jump on a raft and leave. They want to affect change
there and they question their policies. That’s what we’re seeing with the dissident movement
and with less vocal people of my generation with all the questions they have challenging their
government. Most of their voices are silenced if it’s not for us going over there and letting the
rest of the world know that yes, they have these concerns, they are not just lemmings following
along and accepting the Castro regime. It is a shame that our government has tightened travel
to Cuba and cut off the opportunity for Puentes Cubanos and organizations like it to continue
with people-to-people exchanges. If nothing about the embargo changes, that needs to change.
We should be able to travel to Cuba to meet and talk with people there because that is what is
going to make change happen in Cuba.
The recent crackdown on the dissidents in Cuba disgusted me. I thought about it, and realized
that Castro is probably very smart. He saw the wave of change coming through Cuba precisely
because of these exchanges. They Cubans are now seeing what they are missing out on—free
and democratic government because of the interaction they have with people who come over
from the United States. The crackdown happened because he wants to silence those voices and
he doesn’t want the embargo to end. The embargo is the crutch that keeps the Castro
government alive. He can blame it on us and the government tried to shut down any effort
from this side—tried to make us look ridiculous—those of us who support the lifting of the
travel ban and the lifting of the embargo. I leave you with those remarks. I encourage anyone
and everyone to go to Cuba, if they have the opportunity to do so.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Question: What progress are we making with dialogue?
Jose Latour: I would say with dialogue it depends. From a State Department and an official
level, none. According to our policy, and the way that the policy is being dictated officially
(and I know about this because I left the State Department in 1990, but I still have a ton of
friends in it, and I still keep in touch with the official stuff that doesn’t necessarily make the
news) nothing is going on because everything is stymied. Congress does its stuff and you guys
keep in touch the efforts to deal with the embargo. President Carter is probably the most
important policy effort existing, but on a people to people level, progress is dynamic. These
17
guys in Cuba know what’s going on—Internet access is happening over there—they’re reading
the New York Times. I got back from Prague the other day, and post-Soviet vibe versus what
is going to happen in Cuba after the embargo is gone—it’s going to disappear.
Castro is like an ornery junkyard dog looking for a way out right now and he’s not going to
admit it. It’s isn’t being debated and it needs to be. Five years ago, it was impossible to talk.
Those of us in here, we need to challenge the Diaz Balarts—maybe that’s the next step—public
debate.
Elizabeth Cerejido: I think it’s important to create a forum locally precisely where we can
discuss these issues they way we’re doing it now and express ourselves. That is why I talk
about the intolerance that has permeated Miami for so long because I don’t feel that our
generation has had a place to deposit these questions. It has never been encouraged. The more
that we speak of our experiences there, and how exchange programs like Puentes Cubanos
have granted us these experiences, the more we’re able to import that information to our
generation. I feel that the more people will be involved, the more that apathy of thinking like
your parents or fear of hurting your parents, will eventually dissipate—when a majority of us
gain more strength and become more vocal. I suspect that more of our generation feels the way
we do, it is just that there hasn’t been that platform to be able to express ourselves.
Question: Please comment on the recent announcement from the Cuban government that they
will remove the visa requirements for Cubans living abroad.
Cynthia Barrera: I think it’s the moment for the young generation here to go there. We don’t
have an excuse to say that Cuba won't allow contact with people from outside. We have the
moment to do that. This is a challenge to the Cuban community here in Miami and we will
have to respond to this challenge.
Question: Do you believe that changes should come from our side of the Florida straits first if
we are to see change on the other side?
Mayda Prego: Changes in Cuba are already happening. Because we don’t have immediate
contact with the Cuban people, we don’t see those changes happening. But having been there,
they are definitely on the path to change. Do we move first or do we not more first? I think
we’re both moving in the same direction. That moment needs to continue to take force.
Unfortunately, what happened with the dissidents and the executions, it seems that people were
paralyzed in their tracks, but this event today shows that people are committed to having
change happen there and happen here.
Question: How does one possibly believe that dialogue and discussion can take place when
the rhetoric is truly disgusting on both sides of the straits?
Elizabeth Cerejido: That’s why I believe that personal contact, the people-to-people
exchange is so important, because you begin to realize that the rhetoric falls apart. When you
start to connect with someone and put a face to that stereotype, the stereotype is no longer an
abstract idea. You actually begin to connect to a thinking person who has views and thus
rhetoric becomes more real and you begin to get to the heart of the matter. That is why I think
that people-to-people is so valuable. It is a shame that Puentes Cubanos doesn’t have a license
to continue to make that happen now.
18
FLORIDA - A CHANGING POLITICAL EQUATION?
MODERATOR: ALFREDO DURAN
CUBAN COMMITTEE FOR DEMOCRACY
Alfredo Duran: The Cuban Committee for Democracy is an organization that was started
about ten years ago, composed mostly of academics, professionals, and businessmen who
believe in moderation. We say that we are a voice of reason within the community. The
organization had at times a tremendous amount of confrontation. Engagement was a bad word
and dialogue was a bad word. Miami was the only place in the world where dialogue was a
bad word. We have evolved from that point and now the Cuban Committee for Democracy has
become mainstream because the Cuban community in Miami has changed, and because the
Cuban community in Florida has changed. All the polls show that there is an increasing trend
toward moderation. That increasing trend toward moderation and other aspects of changing
Florida politics is what we are going to discuss in this panel.
PAT COLLIER FRANK
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMMISSIONER
" As Cuba moves more to capitalism, which it is gradually achieving, democracy will not be far
behind. We can help that transition by opening the window of trade."
On November 25, 1891, a young man arrived by train from New York City to a waiting crowd
of 50 at Ybor City. It was the first of over 20 trips which Jose Marti would make to Tampa and
Hillsborough County. Ybor City, an enclave of Cubans, Spaniards, Italians, and Afro-Cubans,
was a haven for Marti and his cause. Jose Marti was seeking an audience of supporters for
Cuban independence from Spain and for financial support for his revolution.
It was in Tampa - in Ybor City - that Marti delivered two of his most famous speeches. His
words were repeated by the lectores, hired by cigar workers to read for them in the cigar
factories of Tampa as they rolled and tapped the tobacco leaves into some of the most sought
after cigars of the world. It was these cigar workers who, inspired by Marti, cheered Marti's
cause of Cuban independence on by loudly slapping their wooden work tables with their
chavctas. It was in the cigar factories of West Tampa and Ybor City that war chests furnished
the financial fuel for the launch of his march for freedom for the Cuban people. When the
moment came that Marti knew that the financial resources were secure to initiate overt
aggression against the Spanish control of Cuba, a message from Marti was wrapped in a cigar
made in a West Tampa cigar factory, together with an identification dot on the last layer of
tobacco, which would signal to his trusted ally in Cuba that Marti had sent the message to
begin the revolution.
Jose Marti is revered in our country, in Tampa and in Ybor City. A statue in his memory stands
today, in Ybor City, yet rests on Cuban soil on dirt acquired from Cuba's six provinces. The
land, on which the Marti statue is placed, was donated to Cuba by Tampa in the 1950's and the
county property records list the owner as the "state of Cuba." Tampa and Cuba, united.
During the same time that Jose Marti staged independence for Cubans; Teddy Roosevelt led his
Rough Riders into the war and launched his campaign from Tampa's own Tampa Bay Hotel,
now the home of the University of Tampa.
19
At the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, Cuba was free and trade flourished between
Tampa and Cuba. Tampa's Lykes family, which pioneered cattle trade with Cuba as early as
1850, was shipping as many as 100,000 head of cattle to the island. John McKay, a shipping
magnate, was sending goods and passengers to Cuba on a regular basis. The bond between
Tampa and Cuba is a deep and lasting one.
Hillsborough County is located on the Central-West Coast of Florida. It covers over 1,000
square miles, and has a population of one million people, making it the 35th largest county in
the country, according to the 2000 census. The Hispanic population of the entire Tampa Bay
area has shown tremendous growth, outpacing all estimates. Approximately 1/3 of the
population growth of our seven-county region is traced to an increase in Hispanic population.
Of the seven counties, Hillsborough is the most ethnically diverse, Hispanics total 18% of our
population, accounting for 180,000 people. It is a ripe community for developing trade with
other Hispanic nations.
Tampa is the heart of Hillsborough County. It is an urban city, which has attracted major
industries from other regions, including J.P. Morgan, Chase and Citigroup's financial services
unit. The concentration of the trade developers in our City has been to target call and financial
services centers. That attention is now spreading out to the development of the
bio/medical/biotech industry. This is looked at as a potential because of the location of the
University of South Florida, with its Medical School and the H. Lee Moffit Cancer-Center,
together with the Level 1 trauma center and transplant center at Tampa General Hospital.
Tampa, i.e., Hillsborough County, has a world premier international airport and a large,
diverse, and vibrant Port. In addition, the large landmass of 1,000 square miles accommodates
a vast agricultural industry. 37% of Hillsborough County's acreage is devoted to agriculture.
Local land development plans specify that urban and suburban growth will not occur in the
designated agricultural areas. This insures the continuation of agriculture in our County. We
recognize the significant impact which agribusiness has upon our economy - which is
estimated to be $2 billion dollars a year.
Located in downtown Tampa, the Port of Tampa occupies 2500 acres and traces the coastline
of southeast Hillsborough community. It is the largest port in the state of Florida and handles
almost 50% of all waterborne trade in the state. It also is modeled after Hillsborough County's
diversity. It has a growing cruise ship industry, which next year is estimated to handle 800,000
cruise passengers; it has the infrastructure which handles bulk shipments of dry and liquid bulk
(including fertilizer, cement, petroleum products and orange juice concentrate). To add to
Hillsborough's diversity, we have phosphate mines and fertilizer plants in our county and
surrounding counties which snip their raw materials and goods through the Port of Tampa. The
Port is further diversifying by contracting with one of the world's largest container terminal
operators, SSA, and one of the world's most significant global container carriers, ZIM.
The Port of Tampa is in a prime position to expand its trade. Now, can this trade include Cuba,
and if so, what will it mean to our County and the region?
The Port recently sent two shipments of phosphate-based animal feed to Cuba. There is, in my
opinion, no reason that we could not expand our trade. Our agricultural industry is capable of
producing many of the same products which Cuba imports from states and countries located
20
further away. Eggs, poultry, fruits and vegetables could be readily available from Hillsborough
and the cost and delivery tine to Cuba would be less. That could be accomplished today, within
our embargo limits.
In the future, with restrictions lifted, the potential is great. Located in our county are heavy
machinery companies which could supply Cuba with the needed tools to rebuild its
infrastructure. Fertilizer could be shipped to enhance the agricultural development of Cuba.
Cruise ships could carry passengers to and from Tampa to Cuba, a natural trip for Hispanics
and non-Hispanics. The possibilities are endless.
The obstacles to such trade are not limited to political rhetoric. Farmers in the United States
have been sensitized to the effects which NAFTA has had upon their industry. In Hillsborough
County, the previous tomato capital of the country, acres of land have become fallow as
Mexican tomatoes compete. The fear is that Cuba, a country of like seasonal agricultural
development, would one day become a fierce competitor.
Fear can only be overcome with logic. Cuba is a market for agricultural products today. Tampa
is the logical shipping point for delivery. A new market cannot do anything except put money
in the pockets of our own farmers today and build potential markets for tomorrow.
We are a country proud of our capitalistic nature. Democracy and capitalism are the tools that
have made us superior to our adversaries. Democracy and capitalism repeatedly have allowed
us to overcome communism. As Cuba moves more to capitalism, which it is gradually
achieving, democracy will not be far behind. We can help that transition by opening the
window of trade.
The first step should be to remove the barrier to travel. With open travel, cruise ships and
airlines would carry hundreds of thousands of people from Tampa to Cuba, spending tourist
dollars and infusing the economy of Cuba. This would, in turn, result in purchasing power for
Cubans to invest in machinery to build their infrastructure, goods to purchase for their homes
and businesses; food products for their stores and homes; telecommunication systems to
develop, and financial institutions to accommodate trade.
The avenues to bilateral trade are immense and all will be the beneficiaries, the people of Cuba
and the people of Hillsborough County - if we lead the way!
KENNETH LIPNER PH.D.
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, FORMER ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR FOR MIAMI’S DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
"The potential opportunity costs of nearly $1 billion annually to Miami’s economy is quite a
high cost for all of us to pay (for the Cuba embargo)…ending it could create an average of
30,000 jobs."
As this is a humanitarian conference, I was very impressed with one of the young people in the
previous session who mentioned that the embargo punishes Cuba. The point I want to make is
that the embargo also punishes the Miami economy.
21
We have a 7% unemployment rate; over 100,000 people are actively looking for a job. In
addition to punishing the South Florida economy, it punishes the Alabama economy, the Texas
economy and even the Tampa economy. As I begin to discuss the nature of the embargo and
how it affects our economy, as mentioned in the introduction, I want to point out that I have
been studying this economy, both as a member of public agencies and the university
community for over thirty years. I have published several reports.
The first was in 1982 which was the South Florida International Trade Study. Perhaps one of
the more interesting ones was the study I did in 1999 and updated in 2001 and updated again
this year, which estimated the cost of the Cuban embargo on Miami’s economy. We lose $750
million annually. It could even be suggested that if we include capital construction connected
with increased trade, it would be virtually $1 billion. Two other studies followed this one. One
was conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission, which estimated $650 million in
lost opportunities. Another study done by Texas A&M University estimated the losses to be
$800 million.
Since the time that I did the original study, unfortunately here in South Florida and across the
nation, economic conditions have worsened. We now have a local unemployment rate of 7%,
compared to a 6% unemployment rate nationally. We have the unfortunate distinction within
the city of Miami, with its very high concentration of recent arrivals of people from other
nations, of having the highest poverty rate in the nation—30%. Greater Miami itself has a
poverty rate of 18%, which translates to 360,000 having incomes at or below the poverty level.
As an economist, if I can look at the human costs of this embargo and say, they are huge. They
are huge for all of us. Some of us may have a luxury—we may not be poor, fortunately we
may have jobs, homes, and businesses. For us, the embargo may be a luxury. For the poor and
unemployed, it is a humanitarian disaster.
Consistent with American economic business principles, it is my suggestion that U.S.
businesses have a right to do business, to increase their market share, to hire more employees,
and even to grant stock dividends. That is the nature of U.S. business. The port of Tampa here
in Miami is primarily a transshipment port, we ship things that are made in other places.
Hence, the embargo affects farm equipment. The nuts and bolts of trade in South Florida are
literally nuts and bolts. Trade includes tractor parts that may be made in Illinois or Ohio. It
includes domestic products from Proctor and Gamble in Cincinnati, automobile parts from
automakers in Michigan, Ohio, Georgia and California. This embargo affects the whole
country. It is a cost which there is no reason to pay when indeed, there is a willing customer.
One of the areas of U.S. supremacy, although we may not think about it, is an air conditioning
and refrigeration carrier in Syracuse, New York and one in Arkansas. The list goes on and on
and on.
We in South Florida have a tremendous interest in international trade, as you know. I
understand all of the positions on the free trade of America: The importance of having a
position consistent with the idea of having your headquarters here should be enhancing and
encouraging to all trade. This embargo disproportionally affects Miami more than any other
place in the United States because international trade is disproportionally so important to us
here in South Florida. It is estimated that 20% of all jobs are related to trade—people who
work in banks, accountants, and the physical work of loading and unloading materials. All
these jobs would be enhanced, and as I mentioned earlier, they are important groups of people
who need this kind of economic stimulus.
22
Latin American and Caribbean trade has always been at the heart of this economy. If I can
briefly mention the nature of the study and how I did it: the proximity of a trading partner is
very important to us. Therefore, not surprisingly, the Bahamas has the highest percentage of
trade with South Florida. I have often heard people suggest that Cuba has a weak economy and
cannot afford trading. I then looked at our friends, and no disrespect intended, in the poor
nation of Haiti. I then combined these figures and made the projection that an island nation of
Cuba with 10-12 million people compared with the smaller other economies. I came up the
figure of lost incomes by using an average wage of $25,000 per job for jobs lost, which
depends upon the nature of trade. This is very hard to project because in South Florida it is
very volatile. At one time or another, the leading trading partners have been Brazil, Venezuela,
and Colombia. It goes up and down due to all kinds of different factors that we in South
Florida have no control over. But we indeed are the beneficiaries of this trade. Using those
figures, I came out to an average of 30,000 jobs that could be created. Using that $25,000
figure is how I got this $250 million. Two other studies corroborate this.
In conclusion, for the Miami economy, Cuba is disproportionally important for the most
obvious reasons for everyone here. For the most economically disadvantaged among us, the
opportunity costs of forsaking Cuba trade is a very high price to pay. It is a luxury that the
poorest among us cannot afford. Free trade in the market system can help solve their income
problems. The potential opportunity costs of nearly $1 billion annually to Miami’s economy is
quite a high cost for all of us to pay.
JOE McCLASH
MANATEE COUNTY COMMISSIONER
"As an elected official from Florida, I choose to be a voice of reason, a voice for change,
because change is in the best interest of not only Florida, but of the United States of America."
Florida is a perfect setting for this Cuba Summit. Unfortunately, Florida's voice of reason is
absent from the table when changes are being discussed for a new U.S. Policy for Cuba, and
from the constant voice of the rest of our country to change the current U.S. Policy.
Change is coming… does Florida really want to be left out of these needed discussions?
Is Florida’s silence a sign that the facts today justify the current U.S. Policy? The current U.S.
Policy of "Let us deprive the people in Cuba of resources from the United States and they will
want regime change?” How can we justify this when the rest of the world is trading, investing
with Cuba, and traveling freely to Cuba?
The U.S. policy that says, "Let us only allow Cubans who touch our shores to enter America,
but send back any other people from other countries who risk their lives to get to America." It
saddens me that this policy has created untold deaths for those who never made it to our shores.
Even worse, for those within sight of America, the "beacon of freedom," to be sent back to
Cuba. This current policy hurts Cubans in Cuba as well as those in the United States.
Florida's voice should be the "Voice of Reason."
23
Cuba has had positive changes over the years. Our military commanders state that Cuba is no
longer a military threat. Cuba has offered help in stopping illegal drug trafficking. They have
even offered to help in the fight against terrorism, yet we refuse to enter into discussions that
would lead to a safer Florida.
Some Florida leaders are starting to voice an opinion for a change to the current Cuba policy.
They are hearing from many of you in this room today and it has made a difference.
There are many opportunities for Florida, as a leader, in shaping a new Cuba policy, a policy
that is based on the future, versus a past plagued with dissatisfaction on both sides.
Opportunities for Florida are many; however for Florida to be silent or to support this outdated
40-year-old policy of more isolation will mean other states will drive a new policy without the
needed input from Florida.
There is no doubt Florida will be affected by the changes of a new policy toward Cuba.
Currently, the House of Representatives has established a Cuba Working Group to change the
existing Cuba Policy. This group is made up of 50 Republicans and Democrats yet not one
member is from Florida.
Florida will benefit from increased economic activities that a policy change with Cuba will
create. New businesses will emerge. Florida ports will see increased shipments and increased
revenues. The cruise industry in Florida will benefit. And more workers will be employed to
support these new economic activities, helping to improve and stabilize Florida’s overall
economy.
The U.S.-Cuba policy is changing and Florida is not the guiding voice. As an elected official, I
am here to include my voice for change, and urge you to ask your elected officials to join this
voice for change: a change of policy to allow us our right to travel freely to Cuba, to allow us
to freely export and import goods similar to what is allowed with other countries and to allow
unlimited remittances to those Cuban families from their families here.
This policy change is good for Florida. This policy change is good for Cuban people in Cuba.
This policy change is good foreign policy for our country. We can turn the noise of the past
into the music of the future.
As an American, I am proud to represent a handshake across the waters to Cuba, a country
improving its economy through tourism, not through aggression. As an elected official from
Florida, I choose to be a voice of reason, a voice for change, because change is in the best
interest of not only Florida, but of the United States of America.
ALVARO FERNÁNDEZ
FLORIDA DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT
"The Cuba issue in the United States will take a drastic and favorable step in our direction the
day South Florida elects one U.S. congressperson who will look south to Cuba with love and
compassion."
I’d like to begin with a quote: It’s from a 20th century drama critic, George Nathan, who wrote:
“Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.”
24
I represent in Florida a national organization by the name of Southwest Voter Registration
Education Project. I believe our name explains what we do. Next year we turn thirty years
old, and it is our history and that of our founder’s – Willie Velazquez – that should teach us
some lessons: it is a story of zeal, enthusiasm and perseverance.
Velazquez died of cancer at 44, but he left a legacy whose results are an army of community
organizers and activists around the country. Over the years SVREP has cultivated more than
50,000 community leaders, and conducted close to 2,500 voter registration and Get Out the
Vote campaigns. 2.4 million registered Latino voters in 1974 have grown to more than 8
million. And with our current national 10/4 campaign, we should hit the 10 million mark by
November of 2004.
So I ask: how can we apply that zeal, enthusiasm and perseverance that is Willie’s legacy to an
area badly in need of these qualities from people like us? Fine tuning it, we should be asking
ourselves if we can apply these formulas to help do away with a Cuba embargo whose
stronghold and vise is headquartered in Miami.
I am convinced that all we need is ONE. And that ONE can be achieved if everyone in this
room today – most us from right here in Miami – agreed to work together to achieve this.
A couple of months ago, SVREP commissioned a poll of 600 Cubans. By now many of us are
aware of some of the results, which include:
•
•
•
To a normal Miami Cuban more than 60% feel their quality of life here is more
important than international issues.
55 percent agree that the embargo has not worked.
And Cuban-Americans feel that they are lied to by politicians who use the Cuba issue
for political gain.
But this morning I would like to focus on possibly the most important result of our survey, a
question that was basically ignored by most media: question number 16.
I say the most important because in number 16 is the formula to achieve that ONE I mentioned
earlier. In other words, I am convinced that together with all the work that is being done in
DC, right here in south Florida, and in other parts of the country, the Cuba issue in the United
States will take a drastic and favorable step in our direction the day South Florida elects ONE
U.S. congressperson who will look south to Cuba with love and compassion.
That person will not emulate our congressional representatives – some with names of former
U.S. presidents – who refuse to shed the hatred and rancor espoused by an unjust 40-year
adventure that never worked.
In number 16 we drew the picture of three separate candidates for political office: Candidate A
who took the hard line against Cuba; Candidate B, with a more moderate attitude, saying the
embargo has not worked and encouraging new ways of democracy-building on the Island; and
Candidate C who would allow trade, travel, investments and even retirement – if one chose to –
in Cuba.
25
On his own, Candidate A wins, but not with a majority. The interesting result is when you
combine Candidates B and C: a Moderate candidate who is also looking ahead to the
possibilities of trade, travel, retirement, etc… in Cuba.
Someone with the talent to combine these two lines of thinking – without going to extremes –
garners 43 percent of the Cuban vote across the board. Broken down: the numbers for this new
candidate surge to 62 percent with men under 45, and 56% with women of the same age group;
and the figure is 54% with people with incomes over $60,000.
But let’s go back to the 43%. And let’s apply the SVREP philosophy. I’m talking of
engagement and cooperation. Miami-Dade County has a population of about two and a quarter
million people. Of those, more than 1.3 million are Hispanics. A bit under 50 percent of the
Hispanics are Cuban. There are about half a million African Americans and Haitians. And lest
we forget, most of the rest are the wrongly-called Anglos that are the real minority in this
county.
We’ve got to reach out. We’ve got to engage. We’ve got to network. In other words, we’ve
got to let these other communities know that our aim is not only about Cuba, but about our
home – Miami. Our message must be one of cooperation and love. Love of neighbor, and the
community we live in. Today I dare you and challenge you to work the streets of Miami: to
knock on doors, make telephone calls, raise money (yes, money IS important in this challenge),
and do whatever it takes to engage new voters, new participants, in a quest that in the end will
make this area a better place to live in.
If we take this on, I assure you that we can achieve that power that ONE can give us: the hard
work, the sweat and that Willie Velazquez-perseverance will help us elect to Congress one
member who looks like us, talks like us, and shares many of the same attitudes we will be
discussing today. Like I just said: I am here to challenge you!
ROB SCHROTH
SCHROTH & ASSOCIATES, POLLSTER FOR MIAMI HERALD
Schroth was unable to appear at the last minute and sent a brief statement
Based on the results from polls conducted for Noticias 23 and the Miami Herald over the past
ten years, it is clear that the Cuban-American community's attitude toward "dialogue" with the
island regime has increased although their profound hatred for Castro has remained equally
strong. In other words, based on this body of research, South Florida Cuban-Americans are
slowly -- but steadily -- more accepting of dealing/dialoguing with (non-Castro) officials on
the island, in an attempt to make issues like travel to Cuba and lifting restrictions on money
transfers from the U.S. easier. In fact, a clear majority of the exile community (56%)
supported holding a meeting -- in Cuba -- between the island's top diplomat to the U.S. and
members of the exile community, according to a poll commissioned by the Miami Herald.
Indeed, the exile community now overwhelmingly believes that dissidents on the island will
play a more important role in any democratic transition in Cuba than they themselves
ultimately will -- a dramatic shift in public opinion over the past generation of polling in South
Florida. In other words, there's been a sea change of Cuban-American public opinion on the
subject of dialogue with the regime since the days of fire bombings and protests that often
dominated the news in the late seventies and early eighties. (So much so that is was the
CANF itself that actually proposed the meeting in Cuba earlier in March of this year.)
26
In my opinion, two key factors have driven this shift in attitudes: first is the psychological
factor: everything that's been done to isolate and collapse the island's dictator over the past
thirty years has essentially failed, which has led to widespread frustration among Miami-area
exiles... and frustration felt long enough often leads to a change of opinion and approach
toward a problem.
Secondly, the demographics of the exile community is inexorably changing -- meaning that "el
exilio" today is much more populated by younger people with less memorable and personal
ties to the island than their older counterparts. (And, as with all things inexorable, this trend
can be expected to continue into the new millennium).
In conclusion, an incredibly large number of Cuban-Americans today share a deep hatred for
Fidel Castro -- while at the same time seeking different approaches -- including dialogue -- in
dealing with his rancid regime.
ANNIE BETANCOURT
FORMER FLORIDA STATE REPRESENTATIVE, RAN FOR NATIONAL OFFICE AGAINST
CURRENT U.S. REP. MARIO DIAZ BALART ON A PRO-CHANGE PLATFORM TOWARD
CUBA
"I would be open to take a strong leadership stand and consider an effective policy alternative
that help both the people in the island and the people of Florida."
During the eight years that I served as a member of the Florida Legislature, I devoted a great
deal of time on issues related to economic development and international trade. And the reason
is very simple; Florida is blessed with a geographic location that’s second to none in our
hemisphere, perhaps only equal to Hong Kong in the Far East. Florida is known as the global
gateway for international commerce, with a growing consumer market and an environment
conducive to fulfilling any investor's expectations. No wonder Enterprise Florida, the state's
economic development agency currently has a promotional campaign calling: Florida,
Innovation Hub of the Americas.
Periodically Enterprise Florida organizes trade missions to different countries seeking trade
partners, most recently to Spain, South Africa and Germany. I visited South Africa two years
ago in a similar journey to establish business contacts and develop prospective ventures with
investors. In their website, Enterprise Florida proudly displays five countries they actively
engage with, one of them is China. I find it particularly interesting that Florida has an office in
China to promote trade and investments and just 90 miles from our shores, all we get is a
weekly quota of new arrivals or human cargo, people who have been smuggled to find a better
life, and at the same time challenge U.S. immigration laws. It's sad that the only active trade
between South Florida and Cuba is that of human cargo - conducted illegally by smugglers.
The island nation is Florida's closest Caribbean neighbor, just 90 short miles from Key West,
with a market of 12 million souls hungry to taste prosperity. Florida is well positioned, better
than any other state in the nation, to benefit in assisting Cuba's modernization and entry into
the 21st century economies. It is obvious that the longstanding cultural ties (almost 200 years)
should put Florida at the forefront of the opening of the U.S.-Cuba relations. Any policymaker
who does not see this is just blind.
27
During the 1998 Legislative session in Tallahassee, economic development legislation was
drafted which included directives to develop a strategic plan to allow our state to capitalize on
opportunities with Cuba in anticipation of a return to a free market economy. In Florida we are
establishing a pragmatic approach to emphasize economic growth. Specifically international
trade, which is one of the main engines driving our growth, valued at $68 billion per year.
Adding Cuba to this amount could easily increase another $8 billion per year. Back in 1999,
Chairman of the Economic Development Council Rep. Carlos Valdes said, “The State must be
prepared to again become a full-time trading partner with the island once a free market
economy is established."
Cuba is the largest and most economically viable of the Caribbean basin nations, with a large
labor force, its human potential remains underutilized. In addition, the rich soils and
tremendous natural resources, the island nation is a logical target market for Florida.
Historically, Florida and Cuba have enjoyed substantial trade, tourism, investment and cultural
exchanges.
The United States was Cuba's principal and natural trading partner until Castro took power
more than four decades ago. Up until 1959, Florida was Cuba's largest U.S. trade partner,
where 40% of all the cargo moving through Miami's customs was earmarked for Cuba, and
85% of all the island's exports were destined toward the U.S. mainland. Therefore, it is
anticipated that a change in U.S.-Cuba relations —perhaps easing some restrictions and
opening into a free market, would open the floodgates for business opportunities for Floridabased companies.
According to Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, free trade not only promotes material
welfare, it also fosters peace and harmony among nations. Unfortunately, he says, sometimes
government is the major source of interference with a free market system. When a
predominantly voluntary exchange economy exists, there is the potential to promote prosperity
and human freedom. And YES, there is a close connection between political freedom and
economic freedom.
Being aware of all this, last year during my congressional race I was not afraid to bring to the
forefront as part of the campaign platform a complete revision to current U.S. policy on Cuba
(which by the way, I am the first one to acknowledge that this is a complex and multi-faceted
issue). Some people were advising me not to even go there, this was a political minefield and I
should not bring the "E" word into this race, just stay out of this emotional, not rational, but
emotional issue. However, I reasoned, this is precisely the moment and the kind of race where
this issue belongs, - not at a local race, for county commissioner, not at a state race, for a house
or senate seat, but YES, at a federal race, a congressional campaign this is the place to debate
this issue.
I simply wrote an open letter stating my position to the Editor of The Miami Herald, which was
by the way, not published. However, he said, it is an interesting position, and is newsworthy,
so a story appeared the next day and this generated quite a stir in our community.
In this letter I stated that if elected to the newly created 25th Congressional District, I would
work diligently with my colleagues in Congress to build consensus and take the necessary steps
to change a failed policy—a policy which is incoherent and hasn't achieved any results, a
policy that doesn't pander to the Cuban regime but likewise, doesn't punish the Cuban people.
If elected, I would consider different options to the 40 year-old U.S. economic policy on Cuba,
28
which is nothing more than Castro's own failed economic policies exacerbated by tough U.S.
sanctions. These have been the tired and fruitless formulas that have helped perpetuate the
power of a tyrant. I finally said, that I would be open to take a strong leadership stand and
consider an effective policy alternative that would help both the people in the island and the
people of Florida.
Yes, in retrospect, we are experiencing a major change in public opinion, and although I did
not win the congressional seat last fall, I had the courage to speak up on these thorny issues. I
literally put a stake in the ground, and frankly, when it comes to winning congressional races,
there are three fundamental elements needed: money, money and more money, particularly in a
competitive media market such as South Florida.
In summary, it is about time that the United States becomes more proactive in a policy of
economic engagement towards Cuba. Easing travel restrictions would be a start...trade would
follow. Again, I firmly believe that there is a close connection between political freedom and
economic freedom, and so I say, let's give freedom a chance. It is imperative to bring stability
and prosperity to the island, by combining opportunities for peace and investments.
As it stands, the current U.S.-Cuba policy is incoherent, makes no sense and is impossible to
enforce. Using clinical terminology, it's like a bi-polar disorder, (manic-depressive perhaps)
which need a different modality of treatment, a new approach, and maybe a second opinion.
We must face realty and move away from the political inertia, we need innovators, creative
thinkers, and above all, the political will necessary to shift the conventional paradigm into a
new direction.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Question: (to Annie Betancourt): Have you visited Cuba and when do you intend to visit?
Annie Betancourt: After much agonizing and after a 43 year absence, I traveled to Cuba. I
had some thoughts in terms of my family. I wanted to visit my grandfather’s tomb in the
cemetery. I wanted to connect with my heritage. As an American, no one can deny me
freedom to reconnect. I’m sure that dissidents of Ireland, France or Germany would desire to
connect with their heritage
Question: If the embargo is lifted and the tobacco cigar products can be imported into the
U.S., what would be the impact on the Tampa cigar industry?
Pat Frank: Unfortunately, the Tampa cigar industry has reduced considerably. There are still
some outstanding cigar manufacturers in the area, but they are small in numbers. I think that
they would still hold their own. It’s obvious that there would be an immediate attraction to
Cuban cigars, but I think that we also have a good history and quality cigar that we sell. So, I
don’t see this as a threat.
Question: What percentage of people polled abstained from answering question 16? What
would be effective to marshal Miami Cubans to vote for anyone but Bush to demonstrate that
the election of a president does not depend upon a block vote of Cubans in South Florida?
Would a president then sign, without fear, legislation passed to end the embargo?
29
Alvaro Fernández: Percentage abstaining ran from between 4-12%. For most of the
questions it is basically the same. It is interesting what is happening now in Miami, I get a
feeling that there are going to be plenty of Cubans not voting for George W. Bush based on
what is happening and we see it played out everyday in the newspapers. What they call here
the hard right is arguing amongst themselves over things that they need to work out. President
Bush is worried about that.
OUR NATIONAL INTEREST, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
MODERATOR: LISSA WEINMANN
CUBA PROJECT, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE
When the Cuba Project began in 1997, we focused our research and public discussions on the
impact the embargo was exerting on Cuba itself, including the implications of what was then a
total ban on the sale of U.S. - produced food and medical products. Since then, our work
expanded logically into the ramifications on the U.S. itself which surprisingly is actually far
greater than we expected going in. We began to learn that the policy had important negative
effects on various interests, including the economic impact on the agricultural community and
various local communities throughout the nation for whom Cuba is a natural trading partner.
Right now, our project is working to more precisely define the international ramifications of
U.S. policy toward Cuba, particularly how our the policy, which defies numerous international
covenants and human rights conventions, impacts America’s ability to lead in a changing
world. The panel later this afternoon on international perspectives is a very important part of
our future work. That U.S. leadership is obviously closely tied to our national security. I am
very honored to bring to you this very distinguished panel of speakers who can speak with
great authority on these matters.
GENERAL JOHN SHEEHAN, USMC (RET.),
FORMER COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF U.S. ATLANTIC COMMAND,
SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER ATLANTIC
“When someone says to you there are weapons of mass destruction in Cuba, don’t believe
them. It’s not true.”
I apologize for being a couple of minutes late, but in my world if you don’t know what the
opposition is doing, you have a difficult time (Editorial Note: Sheehan is referring to the
parallel conference arranged by Miami International University’s Cuban Studies Program
which highlighted Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Roger Noriega which was
planned after the Summit and held at the same hotel. Sheehan went to sit in on Noriega’s
comments.). One of the comments that the Ambassador from the State Department made as he
was giving his presentation is that those of us here on this side of the hotel are newcomers to
the issue of Cuba. I take exception to the concept of newcomers because when he was going to
grammar school in the Central part of the United States, I was walking the hill lines with a rifle
in Guatánamo Bay, Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. So, being a newcomer to the issue
really isn’t true. When I look around this room and I see people here that were in the Bay of
Pigs, I say maybe he is a newcomer to this issue and doesn’t quite understand it.
The other part of the conversation in the other room was that there was a member of the House
of Representatives who made the introduction and her comments were all about weapons of
mass destruction and the fact that the Cubans have this kind of capability. As all of you know,
there has been a great deal of discussion over the subject of weapons of mass destruction. The
fact is there are no weapons of mass destruction in Cuba.
30
As the Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command responsible for the security of the
United States, I saw no intelligence that Cuba was a military threat to the United States. It
wasn’t then and it isn’t now. As a matter of fact, the Cuban military, since the collapse of the
Soviet Union, has continued to deteriorate. In that process of deterioration, that military, which
at one time was a global expeditionary force, now is a National Guard defending the Cuban
homeland. Defending it against whom? It is defending it against people from this part of the
world who would cause insurrection in Cuba.
What strikes me about this whole debate about weapons of mass destruction is that there is a
political component to it. When you see what’s happened to Ambassador Wilson’s wife, you
have to be concerned about the politicization of intelligence. I’ve lived with my wife in the
UK for the last five years because I work in the former Soviet Union, and when you look at
what’s happened to David Kelly, who committed suicide because his information was
politicized, then you have to ask yourself a very fundamental question: when a democracy
misuses intelligence for political gain, then there is something fundamentally wrong. And
when political representatives misuse information to induce a fear factor, that is really in the
realm of the desperate. So, I would say to you as an American who has spent 35 years
defending this nation, don’t listen to that type of diatribe. It is not true.
America is a great nation. Its greatness comes because it has allowed immigrants into this
nation. This nation was built on immigrants. I live in Texas. The area I live in now between
Mexico and California, 750,000 illegal immigrants are picked up by the border patrol every
single year and returned to their native lands. Yet, we deal here in Florida in human
cargo—people who risk their lives to come here come to the United States. Why? It’s not
because they hate Fidel, Raul and family. It’s because they want a better way of life—the
same way 750,000 captured every single come here for a better way of life.
I’ll give you two stories. When I ran the camps in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, I used to visit
there very frequently. During the very bad days we weren’t sure what the policy was—who
could go or who could come. There were some very desperate times in those camps. On the
airfield at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, oftentimes it was 110 degrees in those tents. During one of
my visits, I went to one of these tents to visit a family. They gave me a picture. The picture,
essentially called refugee art – as you know Cuban people are incredibly talented artistically –
is a painting of the Statue of Liberty. The interesting part of the Statue of Liberty is that it has
a blindfold on it and at the base of the statue there are naked people who created a parallel
pyramid. If you look really closely, the people are handing babies up the pyramid. I asked the
artist to tell me what this was about. He said, “Look, you Americans have a great symbol, the
Statue of Liberty. It’s a symbol of hope. But your government is blind to our plight, that’s
what the blindfold on the Statue of Liberty is.”
I said tell me about the people. He said that the people represent the people of this camp. “We
have no hope. The kids, our kids, do have a chance if they get to the United States.” That’s
what the symbol of the kids moving up the pyramid is about. We did let some of them into
United States and they are citizens today doing a good job.
The sequel to that story is that a couple weeks ago when I was traveling, I was sitting in an
airport waiting for my flight when a planeload of soldiers coming from Iraq came by and one
of them stopped me and said, “You’re General Sheehan.” I thought, “Oh God, it’s someone
I’ve done something to a long time ago and it has now come back to haunt me.” He said, “You
don’t remember me do you?” He was obviously Hispanic, but I said, “No, I don’t.” “You used
31
to play basketball with me and my brother in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.” One of the things I
used to do is play basketball all the time, because that was the only thing I knew how to do
well. He said, “You were on our team and we won every game.” I said, “Good. What are you
doing now?” He said, “Well, I’m in the army. I got into the United States. Do you remember
that you used to talk to us about participating and being part of America, so I joined the army.”
He talked about his family and how most of them are still in Cuba operating under minimal
conditions of caloric intake because of insufficient food and medicines. I asked him where he
had been. He said, “I’m coming from Iraq.” He was with the American army in Iraq liberating
the Iraqi people. Just before he left he made an interesting comment. He said, “General, when
the Castro brothers leave, don’t let the United States make the same mistakes that we’re
making in Iraq.” I thought about it, but I had to catch a plane and he had to catch the bus.
I just left Ambassador Noreiga’s remarks and during the question and answer period, someone
asked what was being done about the transition to power in Cuba. Essentially he said, “We’re
creating a government in exile. We’re creating a new Chalabi who is hanging around here
somewhere on the East coast of the United States.” So when the Castro brothers leave they’re
going to impose this leadership on Cuba. Let me tell you something, don’t do it! The Cuban
people need to lead Cuba, those who are there. Because if you do that, if you allow an outside
influence an outside refugee kind of leadership that hasn’t been to Cuba in 43 years, you’ll get
exactly the same results as you have in Iraq right now. You’ll have disenfranchised people
who won’t support what you’re trying to do and Americans will become casualties.
Cuba is about the Cuban people. It’s not about two brothers who are going to pass from the
scene one of these days now. When someone says to you there are weapons of mass
destruction in Cuba, don’t believe them. It’s not true. I’ve been to the biological laboratories
and there is no evidence of weaponization and, in addition to that, it’s very hard to do.
So when someone says to you, “The Cubans are talking to the Iranians, the Cubans are talking
to the Syrians.” That’s ok, because I talk to the Iranians and the Syrians too because I want to
do business there, not because I’m producing weapons of mass destruction in my garage. So
when someone says to, “What is Cuba about?” Cuba is about 11 to 12 million people who
want a better way of life. How do you do that? You trade.
What I find so inconsistent is that we are killing ourselves to talk to Kim Jong Il from North
Korea. We’re giving him food, we’re giving him material, and we’re actually even giving him
a processing capability. At the same time, there are 11 or 12 million people 90 miles away,
whom we can’t do the same thing for. There is something inconsistent in my mind about our
policy process. If we’re rushing to talk to Kim Jong Il who is really an idiot and really
dangerous, why can’t we do the same thing with the Cubans? That is inconsistent, it doesn’t
make sense and that is not what America is about. America is a nation that reaches out to help
other people. That is what made this place so great, that is what makes this conference so
great—people who can reach out and touch people, not people who go out and build bigger
fences. Thank you.
32
THE HON. WILLIAM D. ROGERS
VICE CHAIR, KISSINGER ASSOCIATES, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR INTER-AMERICAN RELATIONS (1974-1977)
“In my view, the United States should adopt with respect to Cuba a foreign policy akin to that
it practices with each of the other residual formally Communist regimes: normalize diplomatic
relations, exchange ambassadors, open the channels of trade, travel and investment.”
There is a fascination with Cuba in this country, and one may well wonder why. The world has
changed enormously since the United States and Cuba first embarked on their long mutual
hostility, but U.S.-Cuba relations have been froze.n in amber, seemingly, for the past 40 years.
During that period, the Soviet empire came to an end. Communism has been dismantled
throughout Europe and Central Asia and survives in rather modified form only in China,
Vietnam and North Korea.
Furthermore, Cuba is not anywhere near the top of this country's foreign policy agenda. The
Middle East, North Korea, economics and trade – all are far more significant. Even in this
hemisphere, Mexico and Venezuela loom large in our national interest scale. Yet Cuba
commands far more ink and TV attention than the rest of the hemisphere.
Part of the reason, I suspect, lies in the fact that Cuba has always had a great power relationship
to define its identity. First as a colony for several hundred years until 1898, then as a virtual
U.S. dependency and then, when that came to an end with the overthrow of Batista, it entered
into the Soviet sphere – as the only country voluntarily to do so, let it be noted – largely in
order to strengthen its role and image as outside that of the United States. One might suggest
that for this entire century, Cuba has attempted to understand its national role in terms of its
relationship to the United States, first positively and then for forty years negatively.
But change is inevitable, and we should accept, understand and reckon with the consequences
of that inevitable change. The Soviet subsidy is finished. Cuba's economy is a disaster; the
end of the Soviet subsidy coincided with a sharp global slowdown; Cuba can look forward to
further economic deterioration. Finally, Castro will not last forever.
What might be said about the consequences when the inevitable change occurs? First, that
Cuba is vastly different than it was in 1959. There is no possibility of rewinding to that earlier
era, even if one would wish to reinstall the society, culture and economic structures of the
Batista era. Sugar is dead as a factor in the world economy. Cuban production is one-fifth of
what it was a few decades ago. Most of the mills are closed. And other economic prospects are
unfavorable as well. Tourism in Cuba, whatever the attractions of its beaches and old Havana,
will, under the best of post-Castro circumstances, have a long way to go to capture substantial
market from Mexico and the Dominican Republic, and to forge a tourism industry which can
make a major contribution to the domestic Cuban economy. In short, it is fanciful to suppose
that Cuba will very quickly and easily move to a happy upland of economic prosperity when
the transition occurs.
If the economics are not wildly hopeful for the transition, what of the politics? Here again,
uncertainty rules. There is a variety of possible scenarios to choose from. It is conceivable
that Cuba will move smoothly and easily from authoritarian rule to representative democracy
and a civil society, as was the case, for example, with Spain and Czechoslovakia – but in my
33
view quite improbable. The potential for conflict between the factions within Cuba, and
between the interests of those who stayed in Cuba and those who emigrated to the United
States, are too great. It is also possible that Cuba will open its economy to the outside world,
as in the case or China, but attempt to maintain political control at the center and suppress
dissent. But this is not an easy course for the successor regime to follow.
It is, unfortunately, just as conceivable that Cuba will suffer through a bloody and conflictive
transition, as in the case of Romania and other countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia
which shed their Communist heritage. This desperate scenario, it seems to me, needs to be
seriously considered as we contemplate the future of Cuba. It is not by any means a certainty
that Cuba will enjoy a soft landing from its bumpy ride with Fidel. The recent crackdown and
jailing of almost 80 leading dissidents are especially tragic in this respect. For as Theresa
Bond has suggested in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, "Having thrown the cream of his
country's civil society behind bars, Castro has ensured that his departure – whether caused by
biology or ideology – will be chaotic, since Cuba will be unprepared for it. In fact, the
transition may look more like the bloody end of Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989 than
like the carefully planned soft exit of Poland's general Wojciech Jaruzelski, who is now writing
his memoirs in retirement.” (Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2003)
This brings me to the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba. The relationship has been in stalemate
for 40 years. Fidel is now squaring off against his tenth American President. By the same
token the United States has maintained an "embargo" – forgive the shorthand for the moment –
for four decades the only change has been to tighten and strengthen it. Such was the case with
the Helms-Burton legislation, which very considerably raised the bar for normalization to
require first a Cuban government selected through open elections. The more recent
Administration promises to severely enforce the travel ban against American visits to Cuba.
In my view, this "embargo" is flagrantly counterproductive and against the national interest of
the United States. That interest is in a soft landing – one in which conflict and confrontation
are minimal and which moves the nation toward democracy, freedom and market economics as
smoothly and as quickly as possible. Iraq has brought home the plain truths about regime
change. First, the misleading and inadequate quality of our intelligence about what is going on
in closed societies. Second, the law of unintended consequences, which counsels moderation
and careful consideration of proposals for intervention. Thirdly, that no nation can impose
democracy on another, and that political and economic progress must spring from native soil.
The "embargo" does not, it seems to me, contribute to the probability of a soft landing. Indeed,
it provides a prop to those – Fidel most particularly – who agree that the failures of the Cuban
economy are due to U.S. policy and not to Marxism. It isolates the United States from the rest
of the Hemisphere and puts us in a minority every year at the UN. Finally, it contributes to our
declining reputation in the world; Fidel is admired – witness his recent visit to Argentina
(Editor’s note: where Fidel Castro was welcomed in 2003 by thousands in numerous official
and unofficial demonstrations of support) – as a heroic David battling with Goliath.
In my view, the United States should adopt with respect to Cuba a foreign policy akin to that it
practices with each of the other residual formally Communist regimes: normalize diplomatic
relations, exchange ambassadors, open the channels of trade, travel and investment. The
embargo has failed. It has not brought about regime change, but it has cut Cuba off from
influences from abroad which could only strengthen the desire, and the possibility, of more
open society and economy on the island.
34
I urge diplomatic and economic normalization, not because I would anticipate any concessions
from the regime. Far from it. As Assistant Secretary of State in the mid-1970's, I negotiated
secretly, at Henry Kissinger's orders, a proposed road map for normalization with the Castro
government. Fidel refused the proposal. The reason was then, I concluded, and continue to
think, that Fidel realizes that he needs the United States as an enemy to maintain his claim on
power in Cuba. Some might say that this is no time for a relaxation of American hostility,
since Fidel has so recently imprisoned the leading dissidents on the island. In my view, that
most recent demonstration of the tyrannical nature of the regime strengthens the case for a
more enlightened policy, since it is a policy designed to hasten the end of the tyranny and
enhance the pressures for change.
WILLIAM RATLIFF, PH.D.
RESEARCH FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION, STANFORD UNIVERSITY
“Our policy toward Cuba is highly destructive of what Joseph Nye has called our ‘soft power,’
that is the level of international support that inclines other nations to co-operate with us in
matters of real national importance such as the war on terrorism… On the other hand, the
embargo feeds Castro’s soft power. Our policy not only feeds his ego and prolongs his
international reputation; it provides him an international stage from which to condemn U.S.
policies generally and globalization more broadly. If we took this scapegoat from him by
declaring him a non-issue, we would come as close as possible to killing him while he is still
alive.”
The problem we are probing today from various angles is how the United States can develop
and implement an effective policy toward Cuba during the remainder of Fidel Castro’s lifetime.
Unlike our current policy, it should have realizable goals and serve, as much as is possible, the
interests of the vast majority of the American and Cuban people.
The underlying problem with our policy today is that while its objectives are altogether
desirable, they cannot be realized with the resources we are willing to commit, or perhaps at all
under current circumstances in Cuba. We claim to be promoting democracy, human rights,
economic reform and a peaceful transition in Cuba but in reality we are doing little or nothing
to advance any of these goals. All the same, the policy resonates with Florida voters and so
both major parties continue to exploit it for domestic political purposes.
There is no easy resolution to this challenge precisely because its supporters and opponents,
both here and in Cuba, are often more passionate than practical in their thought and actions.
This almost guarantees bad policy. It is hard to follow the logic that by trashing the island,
which is the real purpose of the sanctions, embargo supporters are the special friends of the
Cuban people. This might be so if there were significant evidence that pressures would
change and perhaps eliminate Castro, but there is none. Current U.S. policy is crippled by
our inability to see that we do not have the means to achieve our lofty stated objectives and
that much of what we are doing deepens the woes of the Cuban people.
We must be clear about two things before proceeding. Firstly, in most respects the embargo is
more symbolic than effective. Cuba’s economic problems in the past and today have never
been the result of the embargo, but almost entirely the predictable consequence of Castro’s
own political and economic policies. Today almost every country in the world has political
35
and economic relations with Cuba, but Cuba can’t produce much to sell abroad and has very
little money to buy from others. To the degree that the embargo does have an impact,
however, it is more negative than positive, to the point of becoming a strategic liability for
America and the Caribbean. Roger Fontaine and I discuss these issues in detail in our Hoover
Institution study cited below.
Secondly, we must eliminate a common misunderstanding with respect to our current ossified
policy. It is a bipartisan disaster that cannot be blamed on Republicans and conservatives.
Remember that one of our panel members today, former Under Secretary William D. Rogers,
conducted secret negotiations with Cuba almost thirty years ago in an effort to normalize
relations. One of the first to call for a lifting of the embargo after the end of the Cold War was
Richard Nixon. Other long-time critics of the embargo include Bill Buckley, George Will,
Roger Fontaine, a Latin Americanist on President Reagan’s NSC, and analysts at Cato and the
Hoover Institution, the latter being me. Two days ago Richard Lugar, Republican chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that in dealing with Cuba “we must think
beyond our fruitless war of attrition.”
And the Democrats’ role?
The first great leap backward in our relationship with Cuba after the end of the Cold War, a
tightening of the embargo, was largely the work of Robert Torricelli, a Democrat. President
George H.W. Bush opposed Torricelli’s legislation until Bill Clinton endorsed it while
campaigning in Florida. Remember also that the father of the proposed Presidential Bipartisan
Commission on Cuba in 1998-99 was again Bill Rogers. This effort to seriously examine the
successes and failures of U.S. policy drew broad Republican support from former secretaries of
state Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, the majority of the Republican
members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and many others. But it was blasted by
Cuban-American legislators, Republican and Democrat, among others, and was finally
terminated by Bill Clinton. The Clinton Administration stubbornly blocked significant change
as long as it was in office. Now the Bush Administration, with the help of such Democrats as
Joseph Lieberman, is adopting an even more aggressive and potentially dangerous approach to
the island.
Here are just a couple of the issues we should consider:
The embargo is intended to make conditions in Cuba so bad as to spark “regime change,”
namely the removal of Fidel and Raul Castro from power. This is a change most of us would
welcome, but the process is dangerous because it could easily lead to a domestic uprising.
Should there be a civil war, the democratic forces would likely be crushed by Castro’s
powerful repressive apparatus unless they get strong support from the U.S. military. But U.S.
military involvement in Cuba is something we should try very hard to avoid. Also, under
embargo conditions what should be minor matters, like the Elian Gonzalez incident, can
escalate into serious conflicts.
As wonderful as Cubans may be individually, and however delightful their culture may be, the
country is a mess. A character created by Cuban novelist Pedro Juan Gutiérrez (in Dirty
Havana Trilogy, which had to be published abroad) remarks that she is “pained to witness so
much poverty and so much political posturing to disguise it.” One might only add moral
posturing as well, by Havana and Washington.
36
Intelligence reports show clearly that Cuba is no military or economic threat to the United
States. But our policy toward Cuba is highly destructive of what Joseph Nye has called our
“soft power,” that is the level of international support that inclines other nations to co-operate
with us in matters of real national importance such as the war on terrorism. The polls,
confirmed by my personal experiences, and probably by your experiences as well, tell us that
America’s image around the world today is very low and hostility toward our policies is rising.
Most of the antagonism toward the United States results from what more and more consider
our bullying and bombing of other sovereign nations, highlighted by the attacks on Yugoslavia
in 1999 and Iraq in 2003. Thus Cuba is not a major cause of our current reputation today, but it
fits the pattern of the world’s only superpower bullying small countries. A unilateral lifting of
the embargo would help improve our image, at least in Latin America, besides reducing
tensions on the island.
Some embargo supporters say lifting the embargo now would reward Castro for his
stubbornness, even for his recent repression. No. A bad policy is a bad policy and should be
changed. We should announce that Castro has been dumped from our “most wanted” to our
“least relevant” list. His international admirers would say “Viva Fidel,” but most of the world
would just say, “It’s about time.” It is even remotely possible that if we let Castro “win” the
recognition matter, he would consider a more positive transition policy within the country.
On the other hand, the embargo feeds Castro’s soft power. It gives him a scapegoat for his
repression and economic failures, but it also polishes his image as the scourge of American
imperialism, the image he has cultivated for his entire career and without which he could never
have played such an assertive role abroad. Our policy not only feeds his ego and prolongs his
international reputation, it provides him an international stage from which to condemn U.S.
policies generally and globalization more broadly. If we took this scapegoat from him by
declaring him a non-issue, we would come as close as possible to killing him while he is still
alive.
The Helms-Burton Law, the heart of our current Cuba policy, is destructive of U.S. interests
because it makes demands on the current and future governments that are imperialistic and
inappropriate. Helms-Burton is a new Platt amendment, one hundred years after the first.
American Enterprise Institute conservative Mark Falcoff has noted correctly that the Platt
Amendment planted “seeds of a long smoldering resentment” in Cuba and Helms Burton is
doing the same.
Many embargo supporters note that dollars made from trade and tourism support oppression.
Yes some do, but so do remittances by Cuban-Americans to family members that have become
far and away Cuba’s main source of foreign currency. But almost all of these dollars also feed
people and give them at least some chance of a better life. If that isn’t so, why is the country
crawling with Cubans of all ages doing whatever free-lance work they can to earn U.S. dollars?
The logic of the “dollars foster repression” argument should demand stopping all remittances
as well, though to do so would be barbaric. But the logic of continuing remittances is to
expand the circulation of dollars on the island by tourism and in other ways, not least because
doing so would get more dollars into the hands of Cubans who do not have family members
living abroad who can ease their plight. Not least important, the tourism industry in particular
spreads out the benefits and thus reduces the growing and potentially explosive divide between
Cubans who have dollars and those who do not.
37
Then there is still another angle on dollars. This money may subvert as well as support
repression. By the late-1980s the amply-funded Ministry of the Interior, the ministry that
protects and promotes Fidel, had become the most liberal, reform-oriented body in Cuba.
When General Ochoa was executed in 1989, in a parallel action that was hardly noticed in this
country, the top three levels of the Interior Ministry, including the Interior Minister himself,
were purged. Stalinist types were put in. But this subversion of the Cuban repressive
apparatus could happen again and is something to be quietly cultivated.
There are indeed legitimate concerns the U.S. should have about Castro and Cuba. After all,
Castro has devoted his life to fighting the United States and we, in turn, are trying to overthrow
him. The issues that warrant attention include whether the dictator is helping or obstructing us
in the war on terrorism, what role he may be playing in the transshipment of drugs or moneylaundering, and whether Cuban scientists are developing a germ warfare capacity.
But even if he were doing some of or all of these things, we would be able to monitor them
better with more rather than fewer people on the island. And an embargo targeting the entire
country is an aggressive and unproductive way to address these alleged activities of a tiny elite.
We desperately need more friendly or at least informational contacts with Cuban political
leaders, military officers, academics and people in general. These contacts should not be
developed in ways that threaten the Cubans’ well being while Castro is still in power.
Finally, has the embargo improved human rights, brought more democracy, or promoted
peaceful transition? For all their claims to supporting the Cuban people by marching on the
moral high ground, there is no evidence that the embargo has improved the lives of Cubans or
lessened repression. There is much to the contrary.
Embargo supporters say the repression of last March and April 2003 proves that the moderate
engagement line of the Europeans has failed. But that European policy was conducted to the
confusing counterpoint of our militant policy and if anything the recent repression proves that
our policy has failed. The arrests and executions in March and April were a severe blow to
the human rights movement, and there is some justification for the argument that the
aggressive involvement of the U.S. Interest Section with dissidents provided a justification for
the crackdown even if it was not its cause.
Would lifting the embargo bring improvements? Probably in some respects, though it would
be no panacea. Much repression will continue as long as Castro lives, though there is reason
to believe that with more and more Americans roaming around the island the dictator would at
least have to think twice before becoming significantly more repressive.
In reality, history since 1959 when Castro took power shows that neither threats nor
enticements, from the former Soviet Union in the past or from Europe or us today, will move
Cuba closer to being a free market democracy – unless Castro decides that is what he wants.
Castro is as hard to change with the resources we have as the Rum Tum Tugger. As T.S. Eliot
says, slightly paraphrased: “Fidel Castro WILL do, as Fidel Castro DO do, and there’s no
doing anything about it.”
Two years ago I spent a long evening with Cuban dissidents Elizardo Sanchez, Oscar
Espinosa Chepe and Hector Palacios, two of whom are now serving decades in prison.
Palacios had recently polled dissidents on the island and found that 90% wanted the embargo
lifted. Why? Because as Sanchez said, “isolation is oxygen to totalitarians.” And yet the
38
United States is not only maintaining the embargo but cutting back on the number of
Americans who can visit the island legally, a tragically misguided and counterproductive
policy that increases the isolation that is the oxygen to totalitarians.
Who knows better how to deal with Fidel Castro: Cuban-American legislators in the States
who represent militantly anti-Castro constituencies, and their declining supporters around the
country, or the people of Cuba, most certainly including the dissidents on the front lines and in
jail? I should think we would all vote for the latter. Cubans generally and the dissidents want
to see Americans and others traveling around Cuba, so why are we cutting that back?
We persist in pledging to increase support for the dissidents, despite the fact that 75 have just
been given long prison terms and many are very wary of assistance from abroad, particularly
from Washington. Dissidents have told me it “burns” because it seems to give credence to
Castro’s charge that they are tools of the American imperialists, a main charge made in their
Stalinist “trials.”
Embargo supporters are gleeful when the dissidents condemn Castro’s repression, but they
close their ears when the vast majority calls for more contact with Americans through a lifting
of the embargo. If we Americans really admire courageous men and women like Palacios,
Payá and many others who stand up to Castro to demand a little more freedom, why don’t we
show them the ultimate respect of doing what ask of us. Why don’t we open the doors wider
to Americans wto want to visit Cuba, or better yet lift the embargo altogether?
KEN LINDEMAN
SENIOR SCIENTIST AND CUBA PROGRAM DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
“Interchange between American scientists and conservation NGOS generates products that go
far beyond simply new research and conservation products, and can help catalyze new
avenues for local community participation.”
The northwest Caribbean is the convergence point of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and
Gulf of Mexico. Cuba is at the center of this convergence, has the largest insular shelf in the
Caribbean, and far exceeds other islands of the Caribbean in biological diversity. Far-ranging
benefits can result from conservation science efforts that improve coastal management in
Cuba.
Due to the prevailing currents and the close proximity to neighboring countries, the
conservation of Cuba’s fisheries, notably snappers, groupers, lobsters, and corals serves the
interests of the greater region. Millions of dollars of annual fishery production in the
southeastern U.S. depend on replenishment from fish and lobster populations that spawn in
Cuban waters, because their eggs and larvae are carried by currents to the north from Cuba.
This is particularly important in Florida.
Clean water, clean air, and sustainably harvested fishery and land resources are critical
components in the national interest of any civil society. Achieving these seemingly
fundamental goals has been difficult for many island nations of the Caribbean. Problems
abound throughout the region. Examples include efforts to provide adequate sewer and
sanitation, avoid elimination of coastal habitats for tourism development, and to restore
degraded reefs and fisheries.
39
These issues are also common to Cuba, and are amplified due to its extraordinary size and
biodiversity. Examples of Cuba’s exceptional biodiversity have been provided in many
forums and do not require detailed review here. However, I will comment on several key
coastal science and management topics in Cuba I have physically worked and published on for
10 years in terms of two primary themes: 1) Sustainable environmental management in Cuba
benefits both the U.S. and Cuba; and 2) the interchange of scientific and conservation
organizations can foster improvements in public participation in local decision-making.
Many of the most valuable fishery species and coastal habitats in Cuba and Florida are
overexploited and insufficiently protected by traditional management tools - this is well
documented in both countries. However, many scientists and managers in Cuba and Florida
are now seeking the implementation of well-designed marine park networks to protect critical
spawning populations and the habitats they depend on.
We and other external organizations have worked for many years to help lay the scientific
foundations for the marine park design and implementation actions that will benefit both Cuba
and South Florida. In 25 years of living and doing science in the Caribbean, I’ve published
over 30 peer-review journal articles and book chapters, and two books with over 40 co-authors
– and the Cuban marine scientists we have worked with on this marine park network project
are as hard-working and scholarly as any scientists I have known.
We have identified many of the most significant fishery production areas around the island,
including sites where groupers and snappers aggregate only once a year for massive spawning
events, we have executed multi-year planning and analysis exercises resulting in the consensus
identification of Cuba’s nine primary coastal eco-regions; we have conducted leading-edge
larval transport modeling and separate decision support modeling to optimize alternatives to
best place and shape marine park boundaries around the island. All of this work provides the
basis for the park management plans now in development – these emphasize local community
education and scientific monitoring of park functioning. Ultimately, this will be the largest
national network of marine parks in the region and will be based on some of the most
thorough scientific underpinnings yet accomplished in the Caribbean.
Cuba’s coastal lands and waters will continue to be subject to increasing development pressure
under any scenario. Cuba is now trying to develop a system for coastal construction permitting
and environmental impact assessment that borrows from protocols used in several other
Caribbean countries and the U.S.. An informed and participatory public is essential to the
protection of natural resources. Some mechanisms to provide communities with access to
environmental information on proposed construction projects and to promote public
involvement are in place in current policies. For example, information on pending projects
(e.g., proposed waste treatment facilities) has been provided to some local neighborhoods or
communities. However, for the most part, agencies have not yet established systematic
methods for consulting the public about proposed projects, and consequently the opportunities
for effective public comments are limited.
Public participation in environmental decision-making is relatively new terrain in many
countries. In Cuba, some sectors are interested in developing methods for increasing public
participation in the environmental review process. One way to expand public involvement
would be simply to provide public notice of draft Environmental Impact Assessments and draft
construction permits before issuance of final permits, as is done in most other countries.
Ultimately, the entire process, from planning to post-construction monitoring could be
40
informed and enhanced by the availability of early drafts of key documents to the public. We
are working on obtaining these modifications in several manners. The larger point here is that
interchange between American scientists and conservation NGOS generates products that go
far beyond simply new research and conservation products, and can help catalyze new avenues
for local community participation.
Sustainable development practices are often discussed with regard to coastal areas, but
examples of long-term applications remain limited even in the developed world. Even in those
places where some sustainable development policies have been applied, a wide variety of
effective best management practices are still commonly underused. The process of seeding and
nourishing the needed environmental research, policy refinement, and public participation is
slow and requires continuous and creative interchange between external and internal players.
These larger goals depend on seemingly simple things, like bringing in new books, journals,
and other educational materials. We bring in more than a ton of such information items each
year for major science libraries and individuals in Cuba - and these materials are hungrily
consumed with both immediate and long term benefits to all parties. Opportunities to build the
skill-sets of the current and next generation of Cubans, while improving local participation in
decision-making, while simultaneously contributing to improved environmental management
are worth continuing and expanding.
MAYOR MICHAEL C. DOW
MOBILE, ALABAMA
“I believe that today the Cuban embargo hurts the 12 million Cuban citizens. We keep them
too isolated and too weakened to help themselves find a more free, open and democratic life, a
new politics and a better, stronger economic model.”
I am here today as a four-term mayor of my historic, 300-year-old, port city of Mobile,
Alabama. Like Charleston, Savannah and New Orleans, Mobile was founded in colonial days
as a trading city on one of America’s largest delta, bay and river systems. Mobile was, in fact,
founded by the French in 1702 and was the original capital of the Louisiana Purchase prior to
our founders later establishing New Orleans. (Obviously, we had our Mardi Gras a long time
before New Orleans did, and ours is family-oriented.)
The French brothers, Iberville and Bienville (Mobile’s founders), were based out of Havana,
Cuba. In fact, Iberville is buried in Havana’s History Museum on the City Square near one of
Hemingway’s favorite hangouts. A replicated, larger-than-life statue of Iberville stands on
both the Port of Mobile and on the Port of Havana. Both of these statues of Iberville are
looking to the sea, reminding us of our historic ties and centuries-old relations.
At one point in our history, Havana, Vera Cruz, Mexico, and Mobile owned the Gulf trade
under French, English and Spanish flags. Today our citizens have new-found relationships,
lost and found relatives, lost business, sister-city exchanges and many memories of this 300year history and hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow.
Mobile has had a sister-city relationship with Havana since 1993. Our citizens have made
many, many trips to Cuba over the last 10 years resulting in humanitarian aid, cultural and
educational exchanges, architectural, archival research and historic redevelopment purposes
and many other people-to-people initiatives.
41
These trips have over the years been authorized by a U.S. Treasury Department License to our
Mobile-La Habana Society without major incident. Recently, Alabama has been licensed to
participate in U.S.-authorized trade to Cuba. The first U.S. flag to reach Cuba in 40 years
came from a load of donated medical equipment, medicines and supplies out of Mobile to
Havana’s hospital system.
Last November under a proper license, we flew two Lear jets directly from Mobile carrying
former Alabama Congressman and Foreign Appropriations Chairman Sonny Callahan;
Alabama’s Lieutenant Governor Lucy Baxley; U.S. Airlines Chairman and CEO of the
Retirement Systems of Alabama Dr. David Bronner; Jimmy Lyons, Mobile’s Port Director;
Alabama Power Company President Charles McCrary; Cooper T. Smith’s David Cooper
(whose family provides port and trade services to 40 ports around the world); Bay Haas,
Mobile’s Airport Director and others of influence to see beyond the rhetoric and our outdated,
Cold War foreign policies towards this small island 90 miles off our southern border, to see
beyond Castro and a dated revolution and to see beyond Communism that has failed
worldwide. I took those prominent individuals with me to look into the hearts and minds of the
Cuban citizens and to look into the future.
I am here today not only as a mayor but more fundamentally as an American. I love and
respect my country. I spent two years in Vietnam. I have two brothers who are 100% disabled
in their defense of this great nation. I love our democracy and our freedoms. I want a freer,
more democratic Cuba.
In the 1980s, I watched then President Ronald Reagan develop a relationship and send Soviet
President Gorbachev a heartfelt message to tear down the walls of the former USSR. When I
became the mayor of Mobile in 1989, I established a sister-city relationship with Rostov-onDon, Russia, to foster change and participate in this great event. I met an intelligent, wonderful
people yearning for peace with the same dreams I dreamed in America. Taking down the walls
was a dramatic and effective psychology and foreign policy for economic and political change.
Reagan and Gorbachev created a better world. They were effective leaders.
Today, through a consistent, clear policy of détente and active engagement, Communist China
has free-trade status and Communism is destined to fade to democracy and capitalism as China
captures more world trade and its people become more engaged, aware and involved and
interdependent on outside influence.
Even Vietnam, where I served as an 18-, 19- and 20-year-old paratrooper and helicopter door
gunner, is now, through similar foreign policies, an active U.S. trade partner. Our once WorldWar enemies, Germany and Japan, are now our greatest friends and allies. Isolation and
outdated foreign policies did not create this economic and political alliance - this safer, saner
world.
Are China, Russia and Vietnam more important and economically valuable to the U.S.
economy than tiny Cuba? Is that partly why we pushed Cuba to last place? Certainly. Our
foreign policy has followed our nation’s belief that ideological and political barriers are
normalized and lifted by economic trade and reciprocal investment, but our policy has also
followed the money. Cuba’s economy is much smaller and, unfortunately, it has been written
off as an economic priority.
42
We all know that our Cuban policy is tied to the impact or feared impact of the CubanAmerican vote in South Florida. Is that a good enough reason to keep those 12 million Cuban
people trapped in an outdated 1950’s Cold War standoff? My friends in Cuba look at me with
pain, consternation and a yearning for a better life for them and their families – a yearning for
the American people to engage and help them if our leaders on both sides fail to do so. Where
are the American people in this debate? Where is our concern for the 12 million Cuban
people?
It is my belief that today the Cuban embargo hurts these 12 million citizens. We keep them too
isolated and too weakened to help themselves find a more free, open and democratic life, a new
politics and a better, stronger economic model. We need free travel, free trade and a caring,
compassionate, more active engagement at all levels to mold a better politics and future.
History has proven that. We know that.
It interests me that the 10-year-old, people-to-people, sister-city relationship that Mobile has
had this past decade has not been able to get its license renewed this year by the Treasury
Department and that people-to-people initiatives are now a problem in our Cuban policy. We
had been told for the past 10 years not to trade or have a business agenda, and we were only
authorized to have people-to-people initiatives. We followed those rules.
Now we are being told that people-to-people contact is out and trade is in favor and our State
Docks and State of Alabama agricultural and forest products interests are getting licenses as is
every port and state on the Gulf Coast. Our large grain, farm and forest products states and
corporations are now engaging in trade. I feel certain that political changes will now follow
this business interest and follow the money as has been the case in Russia, China and Vietnam.
In fact, many states are now passing Cuba trade and travel legislation. I understand that even
the Cuban-Americans feel that we need free travel and trade and a new policy of engagement
with Cuba.
It is my hope that our hearts, minds and intellect will better guide our actions towards Cuba
into the future and do it sooner than later. It is time for change. We are a great nation. We
must act like one to keep our self-respect. It is time to deal with this complex issue more
sincerely, humanely and effectively. Let’s tear down our ideological and political walls with
Cuba by engaging and freeing the Cuban economy and its 12 million people. Let’s tear down
those walls!
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Question: Can you comment on China’s involvement with Cuba and whether China and
Cuba’s relationship could pose a future threat to the United States?
General Sheehan: The answer is no. China and Cuba have had a long historical relationship
dating back to the Soviet Union days. Cubans were involved with the Chinese in Africa and
vice versa. I happen to know a little bit more about this subject because the company I work
for now is building a large petrochemical plant in China. The Chinese military is still very
much in control in China. Yes, there is a transition going on and China – part of the economy
has been privatized and part is still state-controlled. It is a big place. There are a lot of
transitional issues that the Chinese are facing in trying to become a part of the World Trade
Organization, etc. The Cubans are looking for a window into, a way to manage a failed
43
economy. They are following what I would call the “Chinese model.” They are trying with
modifications. They’re not getting there very well, but there trying to work through it. So if
you said to me, “Do I think China would sacrifice its strategic position in the world and support
some stupid act in Cuba?” The answer is absolutely no. China is after China’s interest. The
Chinese-Cuban relationship is a matter of economic and technological convenience.
Ratliff: I would agree with that. The one thing that I will add is that the Chinese relation to
Cuba goes back to the 19th century because there is was a very substantial Chinese population
in Cuba, at least there was for a while, a lot of them have gone abroad. But, that was a serious
ethnic group in Cuba for awhile.
I would add that I think one of the things Fidel Castro will not do and has not done yet, but
Raul Castro probably would, that is really follow the Chinese model and carry out serious longterm institutional changes. Fidel has fiddled around with things but he hasn’t done it. If he
were to, or if Raul or whoever were to come after would follow the Chinese model, there is a
transition period that could pass and a more logical one, rather than it suddenly becoming more
democratic.
But as far as far as China becoming involved with Cubans and across the world, China is a big
emerging country, it is going to be involved with countries around the world.
General Sheehan: When you come half way to the United States and you get picked up by the
Coast Guard, you’re returned to Cuba. But if you set foot in Iraq, that is U.S. territory and you
get to come to the United States. It’s interesting where I live in Houston. The Border Patrol
will not pick up a migrant if that migrant is injured because the migrant will go to a hospital
and will get lost in the system. So, we have migrants now purposely injuring themselves so
they don’t get
picked up by Border patrol. We have people who are really in harm’s way because our body of
laws that have to do with hijacking, migration, both legal and illegal, are so complex. We have
lawyers making a cottage industry out of this business and I think we need to focus on the
human dimension of it rather than the political dimension of it. I defer to the lawyer of the
group.
Rogers: One additional point that needs to be emphasized is that the inconsistency and
conflicts within our immigration policy and laws are something that deserve attention. The
discrimination that we practice with respect to Cubans versus other Carribeans who are
attempting to come to the United States is not a monument to rational law-making. I quite
agree with the General that all of this needs extremely careful attention.
Weinmann: So that would tend to negate the potential effect of state resolutions calling for
normalization of relations with Cuba that we have seen passed as by states such as California,
Texas, Lousiana and others.
Question: This question is for Ken Lindeman on the travel ban. Has the travel ban affected
scientific exchanges, particularly with reference to the Cubans ability to come to the United
States?
44
Ken Lindeman: I’ll start with the first. It is complex to understand. The policy to foster a
civil society in Cuba by allowing research that is conducted full-time and results in public
dissemination of research products has served its purpose very well. The ability of U.S.
academics and U.S. NGO professionals to enter Cuba, work directly with Cuban colleagues,
generate research products, has been very productive in many, many ways. They can be
documented not only in terms of environmental science, but in terms of art, culture and
architecture and many other categories. The nature of the recent and long-term political
history of Cuba is such that the ability to get general and now specific licenses is variable. I
don’t have a comment on that. But I would suggest that there is a long-term history of the
existence of this general license since it was made possible in 1999. The existence of this
general license, which allows legitimate researchers to go to Cuba and to do legitimate
research, has generated extremely and quite obvious products of benefit for both countries.
And it’s currently endorsed by the State Department and OFAC policy.
Question: For Ken Lindemann, regarding the Zapata peninsula and how Israeli development
there might contaminate that very delicate ecosystem similar to what has occurred with the
Florida everglades ecosystem.
Lindemann: Regarding the second issue, the Zapata peninsula, this is in South Central Cuba.
It is one of the largest wetlands in the Caribbean. It has “protection” both from the Cuban
government and international conventions that is moderately rigorous. There are a variety of
developments proposed in the Zapata peninsula, just as there are in many other important
protected areas in the North Caribbean. I cannot comment specifically on the development
project mentioned. I can tell you what Cuba, as I indicated in my talk, is facing even with the
embargo. People think it’s virgin and it is just sitting there. Every other country in the world,
many of them know how to do hotels very well, are very carefully and some more aggressively
attempting to produce developments of substantial nature in Cuba. So what you see in Cuba, is
what you see in the U.S., Mexico and elsewhere. There are important places and they have
impending development pressures. In Cuba we have an opportunity to help shape the
mechanisms to guide whether those development pressures will be executed in sustainable
fashions or not.
Question: At a time when most of Latin America is in turmoil, isn’t the obsession about Cuba
counter-productive?
Rogers: I don’t think that it is a zero-sum game. I don’t think that the fact that there is, I
hope, an increasingly active debate on the wisdom of our present policy on Cuba, detracts from
our capacity to move effectively with respect to the problems in Latin America. I think,
basically speaking, the Administration is not nearly as off-base with Latin American policy as
is its policy with respect to Cuba. Policy with respect to Argentina: We have been assisting
the effort to reorganize the international finances of the country in a very important way.
Policy with respect to Brazil: We’re cooperating with Brazil. We’re not moving as viciously
and vigorously as we ought to with respect to the major concern of Brazil, which is the
dismantlement of agricultural protectionism both in the United States and Europe. But, we are
moving forward with respect to Brazil and other countries in terms of free trade agreements,
which is important. I don’t think that we’re paying sufficient attention to Mexico, but our
policy is not terribly off-base there. The fact of the matter is that Cuba policy is the great
anomaly in our Latin American policy and I think it deserves consideration. I do not think that
serious consideration of revision to it is affecting our capacity to continue to assist elsewhere in
Latin America.
45
Question: If all of you have made such honest, solid arguments against the embargo and make
such practical sense, why and who keeps these absurd laws for years and years?
Mayor Dow: I’ll touch on it lightly if I can. The President has been authorized to do what
he’s doing by Congress. Until Congress passes some legislation that says that we want to see
things done differently, things will continue as they are, unless the President makes up his
mind that he wants to have things change. This is policy at the highest level. Now what the
Congressmen and Senators tell me is that they all will agree that this change needs to come
about, but it causes too much dysfunction in Congress when this issue is brought up. Because
it causes dysfunction in Congress, it is shoved to the side. Also, I think that Cuba’s economy is
rather small, so that we can write it off. That is changing though. Their economy is coming
back to the forefront now as becoming more important to us. I think it will move them back
into the mainstream as we see more and more states, corporations, and agricultural interests
who are trying to get this movement back up in front of Congress.
Ratliff: I would add and largely agree that the problem is that Cuba is not a very serious issue
today for the United States as a whole. In fact, I do think it is serious. But, in the eye of the
public and Congress, it is not considered all that important. So, the effective lobbying that’s
being done by the people who continue to support the embargo just raises the spector of so
much trouble that it’s just easier to put it aside and not deal with it anyways.
Rogers: The funny thing about the Cuban issue is that for political purposes, it is only a
downside issue, not an upside issue. There aren’t many Congressmen and Senators and
certainly no President who see a great advantage in advocating a change in Cuba policy. But
they sure see a lot of disadvantages and the disadvantages are concentrated right here in Miami,
Florida, which is a key voting block in what is inevitably a key state. Nobody wants to, if it’s
important to them, as it certainly is to any Presidential candidate, alienate the possible voting
block by advocating a change. I think if it ever got to the merits for a majority vote, in both the
House and the Senate, there would be no problem about changing Helms-Burton. In our effort
to organize a national bipartisan commission, we had over two dozen moderate Republicans
prepared to go to Clinton and say, “we will join you—Republican with Democrat in favoring a
careful objective reexamination of U.S. policy towards Cuba.” It was destroyed at the White
House level, at the senior policy making level of the Democratic administration at the time as
other similar proposals have been in other administrations, both Republican and Democratic
because the Administration could only see a negative effect at the final voting calculation that
was important for presidential candidates.
Mayor Dow: I believe it boils down to principled Senate leadership and doing the right thing.
This is really more of a right thing issue and sometimes in politics, you make those choices,
you do those right things if you’re really serious about your job and are trying to represent,
especially in America.
Question: What is the wisdom of increasing United States government financing to political
dissidents in Cuba?
Rogers: I’ll give you my perspective which originated while I was responsible for the policy
in the State Department. I think that it’s profoundly negative. It is splendidly selfcongratulatory to proclaim as a government official that we’re going to support and do
everything we possibly can to nurture and assist the dissidents in Cuba. But I think there is
46
nothing more poisonous to their credentials, as independent Cuban leaders of civil society, as
the notion that they are taking money from the United States. They don’t actually have to
receive any, but the idea that the United States is anxious to thrust assistance to them, makes
them easily portrayed by the regime as instruments of U.S. policy. I think, therefore, that it is
terribly counterproductive in that sense. I think we can continue as a nation and as individuals
to express our extraordinary admiration for their efforts, our extraordinary sympathy for the
struggle they’re engaged in and the difficulties they face. But I think the idea that we would be
there funding and financing their activities is counterproductive.
Ratliff: I might add very briefly that when I talked with Dr. Palacios a couple of years ago (he
is now serving 26 years), he said specifically that this is very dangerous, that to accept this
money and aid from abroad burns. It challenges their credentials. As much as we might want
to give money with the best of all possible things in mind, as much as we would like to make it
possible for them to have more fax machines, and more of this and that, it is a very touchy
issue and a lot of the dissidents are very uncomfortable with it. Some of them probably accept
it, under what pressures I don’t know, to what ends of course, so they can spread the words.
But, it’s very, very dangerous.
General Sheehan: I think that focusing on one group of people is not a great idea. I think,
across the board, there are a number of institutions including the Cuban military we have to
have daily conversations with. We don’t know what the future transitional process will look
like, so the more contacts you have in the country the better opportunity you have to
understand what that transitional process is going to be. Cutting off communications is like
what we are doing in Baghdad. We cut off our relationships with the Iraqi army, yet we’re
going to spend $2 billion and raise 27 battalions of Iraqi soldiers over the next two years. It
doesn’t make sense. The other point that I want to make is that it’s not just a question of what
we do inside Cuba, in terms
of the outreach. When you sub-contract your foreign policy to a minority group of hardliners,
when it comes time to shape the policy for their transition, you’ll come up with the wrong
answer. So, it isn’t just the question of who we talk to in Havana, but also the question of if we
as a group reach out to other Cuban-Americans across the United States to shape this issue.
The future of Cuba lies with the Cuban people. Who are the next generation Cuban leaders?
We don’t know. We do know that the current institutions, including the army, are going to be
part of that transitional process. So, “deBaathizing” or “deCastroizing” the Cuban military, as
a matter of policy, is a failed policy, and we are going to watch a very bloody process if we go
down the same road as we did in Iraq.
THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF U.S. POLICY
MODERATOR: LULY DUKE
PRESIDENT, FUNDACIÓN AMISTAD
Luly Duke: My name is Luly Duke, Founder and President of Fundación Amistad, a
501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization that promotes mutual understanding and respect between
the people of the United States and Cuba through exchanges and research projects, community
outreach initiatives in the arts and culture, environment and human development. Fundación
Amistad performs this unique work on a collaborative basis with the variety of cultural,
academic, and non-governmental institutions in the U.S. and Cuba within the appropriate travel
and operating regulations of both countries.
47
JOSÉ MIGUEL VIVANCO
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAS DIVISION, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
“Leading Cuban dissidents understand that the embargo helps Fidel Castro’s cause, not theirs.
Because it is indiscriminate, rather than targeted, it enables the Cuban government to shift
blame to the United States for the Cuban people’s suffering. Because it isolates the Cuban
people from the world, it makes it easier for the Cuban government to control what they hear,
see and know. Because it is bitterly opposed by most nations, it enables the Cuban government
to divide the international community, leading, ironically, to less international pressure on
Fidel Castro, not more.”
Thank you for your invitation to address the human rights situation in Cuba and to discuss U.S.
policy toward that country. Anyone who cares about human rights in the region, specifically
Cuba, should be here trying to promote a debate as well as to identify the best instruments to
develop human rights conditions in Cuba.
Human Rights Watch has been monitoring human rights conditions in Cuba for more
than fifteen years. Severe political repression has been constant throughout this time.
Cuba has long been a one-party state. It has long restricted nearly all avenues of
political dissent. It has long denied its people basic rights to fair trial, free expression,
association, assembly, movement and the press. It has frequently sought to silence its
critics by using short-term detentions, house arrests, travel restrictions, threats,
surveillance, politically motivated dismissals from employment, and other harassment.
But this year’s crackdown on political dissent in Cuba, in its scale and intensity, is the
worst we’ve seen in a decade or more. The crackdown was a reaction to the flowering
of civil society in Cuba over the last several years, and to the growing activism and
ambitions of its dissident community. It followed the success of the Varela Project,
led by dissident Osvaldo Payá, in gathering signatures from Cuban citizens on a
petition calling for political reform.
The crackdown began on March 18. In just a few days, state security agents arrested dozens of
people, launching an all-out offensive against nonviolent dissidents, independent journalists,
human rights defenders, independent librarians, and others brave enough to challenge the
government’s monopoly on truth. In due process terms, their trials were a sham. And in the
end, 75 defendants received sentences ranging from 6 to 28 years, with an average sentence of
19 years. Cuban courts have not imposed such draconian sentences on such large numbers of
people in more than two decades.
What do these troubling developments mean for U.S. policy towards Cuba? What approach
offers the greatest likelihood of effecting change?
The first thing I hope we can all agree on is that no one should have any illusions about the
character of the Cuban government. No one should romanticize any aspect of this cruel
system, or make any excuses for Fidel Castro’s abuses. The crackdown on dissent in Cuba is
not the fault of the United States, or the fault of the U.S. embargo, or the fault of the CubanAmerican community. The responsibility lies with Fidel Castro, period.
48
We should also agree that this is no time to reward Fidel Castro; this is a time for maximizing
effective pressure on the Cuban government to change its policies. But we also need to be
tough-minded and strategic in assessing whether the all-out embargo currently in place is the
best available tool for achieving our goals. Is it likely to move the Cuban government? Do
Cuba’s cynical rulers even see it as punitive? I believe the answer to those questions is no, and
that a middle ground approach would serve the cause of Cuba’s brave dissidents far better.
I say that as someone who is often supportive of economic sanctions, even unilateral economic
sanctions, against governments that systematically violate human rights. My organization
believes that sanctions, when carefully targeted and deployed as part of a larger diplomatic
strategy, can be effective in promoting human rights and in expressing where the United States
stands on human rights. This year, for example, we applauded the U.S. Congress for
supporting additional U.S. sanctions against the government of Burma. We are generally
skeptical of arguments that trade with the United States or exposure to American values and
practices can somehow convince repressive governments to be kinder and gentler to their
people.
But it seems to us that any American policy designed to promote human rights in another
country has to meet two basic tests to be worthy of continuation. First, is the policy more
likely to be effective than the alternatives? Second, does it advance the interests and speak to
the needs of those struggling to defend human rights in the country concerned? After 40 years,
it’s clear that the all-out embargo against Cuba fails both tests.
Many of the dissidents struggling for change inside Cuba want to see the embargo eased,
including the writer Raul Rivero and the activist Hector Palacios Ruiz, who were sentenced,
respectively, to 20 and 25 years in prison in April, as well as Oswaldo Payá, the leader of the
Varela Project. Refusing to heed those who risk everything for freedom in Cuba is senseless.
It would be as if the United States had taken steps to defend liberty in the old Soviet empire
that were categorically opposed by Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, and Vaclav Havel.
Leading Cuban dissidents understand that the embargo helps Fidel Castro’s cause, not theirs.
Because it is indiscriminate, rather than targeted, it enables the Cuban government to shift
blame to the United States for the Cuban people’s suffering. Because it isolates the Cuban
people from the world, it makes it easier for the Cuban government to control what they hear,
see and know. Because it is bitterly opposed by most nations, it enables the Cuban government
to divide the international community, leading, ironically, to less international pressure on
Fidel Castro, not more.
At the same time, a relaxation or end to the embargo would not, by itself, be an effective
strategy for promoting change in Cuba. We need to be clear-eyed about this as well; the Cuban
government isn’t going to stop locking up dissidents just because American tourists have
joined the Canadians sunning themselves on Cuba’s beaches, or because American CEO’s
have joined the Europeans signing contracts with Fidel Castro. There does need to be carefully
targeted, multilateral pressure on the Cuban government, or Cuba’s dissidents won’t have the
space to fight for change. We need a middle ground between unquestioning engagement with
the Castro government and an all-or-nothing approach that plays into Fidel Castro’s hands.
All sides in the Cuba policy debate need to ask themselves: What does Castro fear most from
the United States? It is not the continuation of the embargo, or its demise. It is the prospect
49
that the United States might someday agree with allies in Latin America and Europe on an
effective common strategy for defending the rights of the Cuban people.
For that reason, I would argue that America’s Cuba policy should not even be directed at
Havana right now. Given the history of this relationship, there is very little the United States
can do bilaterally to influence the Cuban government. Instead, America’s Cuba policy should
be directed towards the other nations of Latin America, towards Europe, towards Canada. It
should be aimed at forging a principled, common strategy for promoting political change in
Cuba.
A united international community will have immensely more political and moral authority
with the Cuban government than a divided international community. Because of the
crackdown in Cuba, there is an opportunity now to forge a more united approach. The
European Union has already toughened its common position on Cuba, for example. Latin
American countries have supported resolutions on human rights in Cuba at the U.N., which,
although far too mild, are a step forward. But much more can be done.
The United States should be urging Latin democracies to speak forcefully against political
repression in Cuba, and to stop backing Cuban membership in bodies like the U.N.
Commission for Human Rights. It should press Latin diplomats to meet with Cuban
dissidents.
It should urge European countries to impose on the Cuban leadership the same targeted
sanctions, including the denial of visas and the seizure of assets that they have imposed
against other repressive governments, such as Burma and Zimbabwe.
While easing some trade and investment with Cuba, and ending the senseless ban on travel to
Cuba, the United States should also work with allies to develop common rules governing
economic engagement there. Foreign investment in new private enterprises has helped limit
the power of the state in countries like China and Vietnam. But in Cuba, workers in joint
ventures with foreign companies are still hired and paid by the Cuban government, thus
remaining at the mercy of the state. European, Canadian and ultimately American companies
should receive licenses for investment in Cuba only if that policy changes.
The tragedy of the all-out U.S. embargo, and a key argument for easing it, is that it makes the
United States impotent in pressing its allies for these tougher measures. The Bush
administration knows it has virtually no influence with the rest of the world on Cuba. When
Cuba was up for reelection to the U.N. Human Rights Commission this year, the administration
hardly even tried to convince Latin countries to find an alternative candidate. In most capitals,
Castro has succeeded in making the embargo a bigger issue than his own repression.
The best alternative to dumb sanctions against Cuba, therefore, is not a policy of no sanctions.
It should be possible to forge a middle path that isolates the Cuban government, not the Cuban
people. But so long as the United States is unwilling to climb down to a tough, yet sensible
policy, it will not persuade its allies to rise up to such a policy.
50
HOLLY ACKERMAN
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
“In the area of civil and political rights, Amnesty International believes that the U.S. embargo
has also had a negative impact by fuelling a climate in which such fundamental rights as
freedom of association, expression and assembly are routinely denied. As witnessed in the
recent crackdown, the embargo provides the Cuban government with a “justification” for
repression, while the widespread sympathy the country has garnered for resisting U.S.
pressure has left third countries reluctant to push Cuba to resolve its human rights issues.”
Amnesty International's (AI) vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human
rights (HR) enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international
human rights standards. AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic
interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does
it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned
solely with the impartial protection of human rights.
The case of Cuba is one where maintaining that crucial impartiality has required sustained and
stubborn effort in the face of extreme pressure from both those who support and those who
condemn the revolutionary government. Some critics of AI’s work feel that human rights
violations in Cuba are either impossible, that is that they simply don’t occur, or that when they
occur they should be allowed to pass without remark or intervention because Cuba is seen as
under duress from the U.S. embargo.
Others, who maintain that HR violations in Cuba are much more relentless and severe than AI
indicates, feel that AI’s response on Cuba is too ‘soft’ – that its denunciations of human rights
violations in Cuba are too limited and its language too measured. All of these groups are
deeply committed, highly vocal and directly opposed. Pity the human rights organization that
wades into a situation in which both sides deny the existence of an impartial middle ground
between extremes. Every condemnation of violations of civil and political rights by Cuban
authorities is subject to intense criticism as is every mention of the harmful effect of the U.S.
embargo on Cubans’ enjoyment of their human rights. Volunteering to work for improved
human rights in Cuba means volunteering to be unpopular.
Fortunately, the number of those committed to a middle ground between extremes appears to
be growing in the case of Cuba. As recent Florida International University and the Southwest
Voter Registration Education Project surveys have shown, Cuban-Americans are increasingly
open to dialogue and other more moderate approaches. Your presence here today in Miami is a
testament to that opening. Amnesty International hopes that this will lead to a growing
receptiveness to a balanced, rights-based approach to the situation in Cuba.
The work of AI is also evolving, from a commitment to do one thing well and universally namely research and advocacy for certain Civil and Political Rights of citizens worldwide - to a
strategic approach to the full range of human rights including economic, social and cultural
rights. We are currently in transit and in some ways AI’s work on Cuba illustrates the
transition. Amnesty International calls for the lifting of sanctions where it believes their
continuation might contribute to grave human rights abuses.
With regard to economic and social rights in Cuba, the overwhelming evaluation of experts
such as specialized agencies of the United Nations is not only that the United States’ embargo
is highly detrimental to Cubans' enjoyment of their rights, but that its negative effects are felt
51
disproportionately, not by the decision makers and authorities whose policies the embargo is
aimed at influencing, but by the weakest and most vulnerable members of the population.
In the area of civil and political rights, Amnesty International believes that the U.S. embargo
has also had a negative impact by fuelling a climate in which such fundamental rights as
freedom of association, expression and assembly are routinely denied. As witnessed in the
recent crackdown, the embargo provides the Cuban government with a “justification” for
repression, while the widespread sympathy the country has garnered for resisting U.S. pressure
has left third countries reluctant to push Cuba to resolve its human rights issues.
Meanwhile, specific embargo provisions such as the allocation of significant amounts of aid for
"democracy-building" have facilitated the government's efforts to paint dissidents as foreign
sympathizers and ultimately weakened prospects for a strong and independent human rights
movement. For these reasons, Amnesty International calls on the United States to review its
policies toward Cuba with a view to ending the harm caused by its embargo and related
measures.
At the same time, Amnesty International continues to focus its Cuba work on the way in which
Cuban authorities treat their citizens. Following the March crackdown, in which 75 dissidents
were arrested in targeted sweeps and subjected to hasty, manifestly unfair trials before being
given long prison sentences, the number of prisoners of conscience on the island has leaped to
89, from a total of only six two years ago.
Amnesty International continues to press for their immediate and unconditional release, and for
the abolition of laws that restrict internationally protected freedoms. The resumption of
executions in April, ending three years of a de facto moratorium, is another worrying element
in the deterioration of respect for human rights on the island.
The recent clampdown has created an unprecedented consensus worldwide on the need to
attend to the situation of human rights in Cuba. Amnesty International hopes that that
consensus, coupled with the opening of a less politicized “middle ground” in the debate on
Cuba, will lead ultimately to an improvement in the respect for all human rights in Cuba. We
invite your comments & questions.
ROBERT BACH, PH.D.
SENIOR VISITING FELLOW, INTER-AMERICAN DIALOGUE, FORMER EXECUTIVE
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR POLICY, PLANNING AND PROGRAMS, INS
“Continuous human tragedy in the Florida Straits perpetuates the image of instability and
chaos and demands change. The practice and public images of intercepting boats yards from
the safe haven of dry shore, and the continued vigilance against the work of smugglers, are
diverting substantial resources and the energy of U.S. and Cuban armed forces and law
enforcement agencies.”
For forty-three years, the tortured relations between Cuba and the United States have been
expressed through, and in many ways, have depended on the migration of families across the
Florida Straits. From those early days of flight, so-called aerial bridges, boatlifts, balseros, and
now smuggling, each government has used migration policies, or reacted to the other’s tactics,
to try to gain an advantage over the other. As the Elián González episode showed, each punch
and counterpunch represented a human drama that was rarely fully understood.
52
My purpose here is not to rehearse old arguments, tired debates, and redundant evidence, but
rather to forge ahead to highlight three dimensions of Cuban migration that are already forcing
change in the relations between the United States and Cuba. Like it or not, we are on a path of
normalizing migration policies and the challenge is to accelerate our steps along it.
In addition to witnessing the deep human tragedy of the Elián González episode – a family
drama in more than the obvious sense – the entire United States came to understand ,“for
perhaps” the first time, how U.S. migration policy toward Cuba stands alone in a world where
so many other nationalities also want to leave their country and come to the U.S. for both
economic and political reasons. As a nation, we also understood, perhaps for the first time
also, the length to which both sides of the argument would go, when pressed, to try to win.
The Elián episode underscored the essential characteristic of the migration relations between
the United States and Cuba – its enduring capacity to destabilize both relations between the
two governments and, more importantly, within our communities inside the U.S. and Cuba.
Yet, realization and acknowledgement of the uniqueness of our migration relations are steps
forward in appreciating the ways in which the two governments must respond to the endemic
instabilities. The two governments, despite sharply divided political assumptions, are coming
to a mutual understanding of the need to respond to the following instabilities:
•
Cuban migration presents a continuing series of dramatic, abnormal security events
– hijackings, boat rescues, and other events. Although similar events may be found
among the world’s migration patterns, these events involving Cuba cause the U.S. to
make national security-related decisions at the highest levels. Decision-making at
that level is inherently unstable;
•
A broad cross section of the United States increasingly understands that the
inequities between the clear special status of Cubans and all other immigrant groups
makes it very difficult, and often visibly illegitimate, to conduct U.S. foreign policy
with other governments. Demonstrably, the U.S. finds it impossible to argue against
other “special statuses” for migrants from Mexicans, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Colombia, etc.;
•
Cuban migration creates an imbalance in domestic U.S. politics. Increasingly,
mainstream politicians grow frustrated with extremist, single issue partisanship and
the extent to which a relatively secondary issue of national policy (immigration) has
become a political force beyond its scale and number;
•
In the end, continuous human tragedy in the Florida Straits perpetuates the image of
instability and chaos and demands change. The practice and public images of
intercepting boats yards from the safe haven of dry shore, and the continued
vigilance against the work of smugglers, are diverting substantial resources and the
energy of U.S. and Cuban armed forces and law enforcement agencies. They
understand there is a clear resolution to the problem, and increasingly the national
security branches of both governments understand what the public is just learning –
the end is clearly in sight, and only very particular politics stand in the way.
Given these pressures and increasing awareness, the U.S. and Cuba are moving toward
normalizing migration relations.
53
The 1994 agreements between the U.S. and Cuba on migration have many weaknesses, but
their essential quality is a dramatic step forward toward improving the safety of individual
migrants and their families. Although little noticed, the agreements achieved both a sharp
reduction in disorderly movements, and an increase in the number of migrants from Cuba to
the United States. The point: these are not punitive or anti-immigration measures, but rather
go to the heart of protection, safety, and future orderliness.
The infamous wet feet/dry feet policy, though sometimes absurd in its implementation,
successfully introduces another critical step toward normalizing migration relations: the clear
need to interdict, and often rescue, those who have taken to sea to leave Cuba, and to return
them under the same asylum procedures available throughout the world. The policy, which is
obviously a significant break from historical practices, brings the Cuban government another
step closer toward participating in a normal orderly and legal migration framework by
decriminalizing migration and accepting people back.
Unfortunately, the “dry feet” part of this policy still remains hostage to the Cuban Adjustment
Act of 1966, nearly a 40 year old policy designed and intended to assist in resettlement, not to
encourage a migration flow. We now have far better ways to assist the resettlement of asylum
seekers and we would all be better off – the migrants and the State of Florida would be better
off – to turn to those benefits rather than perpetuate this practice.
As is well known, U.S.-Cuban cooperation on smuggling is strong, productive and prepared for
expansion. Now, and into the future, the money that is available to smugglers will continue to
generate this illicit trade in human beings. Even if we had full normalization, the financial
gains are such that smuggling will continue. The U.S., Cuba, and the rest of the Caribbean,
need to accelerate cooperative steps toward combating it. The need for cooperation against
smuggling is a systemic force behind normalizing relations between the two governments.
Given the recurring instabilities, and the pressures toward normalization, what are some of the
immediate policy steps both governments should take?
•
Phase out the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 by extending the period of residence
needed from 1 year to 3 years before automatic adjustment can occur; then end it;
•
Phase out the special “guarantee” of 20,000 migrants a year from Cuba, including the
lottery, and return to normal migration processing;
•
Intensify anti-smuggling cooperative efforts, and involve Cuba in region-wide antismuggling activities;
•
Increase temporary visas – to be used for travel and family visits – both to depoliticize
each request for travel, and to build an experience of return. Looking ahead, future
Cuban migration through normal channels will involve a substantial circular movement,
and it would be wise for the United States to organize it now so it remains within the
legal bounds.
In conclusion, we all have heard that the driving force behind U.S.-Cuban migration policy is
concern that tensions will result in another Mariel boatlift-type eruption – when 125,000
people fled Cuba and landed in Florida in just a few short months. However, since 9/11 we
have far greater reasons for concern.
54
Another large boatlift crisis in the Florida Straits – of Cuban or Haitian origin -- would
seriously undermine homeland security preparedness. The mass migration emergency plan for
the Florida Straits relies on using Guantánamo Naval Base as the holding center for large
numbers of interdicted migrants. Yet, Guantánamo is now occupied, and there is no realistic
alternative to using it.
Another boatlift would also consume large numbers of military and law enforcement assets
currently aligned to protect homeland security. During an earlier, smaller Haitian boatlift, for
example, the U.S. needed 17 Coast Guard cutters, 5 Navy ships, and 9 aircraft to interdict,
rescue, and transport. The choice now would be between keeping Coast Guard and Naval
vessels at work inspecting thousands of cargo ships for terrorist threats, or rescuing hundreds
of tiny boats and ferrying thousands to shore.
Tough, punitive measures to tighten the cap on Cuba, which the Bush Administration appears
intent on pursuing, are against our national interests and security. Our policy focus should be
on finishing the trek toward normalizing migration relations. Bridging the divide between the
various sections of the Cuban community, one south, the other north of the Florida Straits, is a
much wiser, more secure and more humane policy path.
THOMAS WENSKI
BISHOP OF ORLANDO, FORMER BISHOP OF MIAMI
“To use the embargo to foment a popular uprising against the government of Cuba - which
hasn't happened in 40 years - is immoral. It seems to say that the ends (regime change) justify
the means. We cannot use evil means - indiscriminately hurting the general population of
Cuba - to justify a good end - needed changes in the regime that controls Cuban society.”
The title of this panel is “Human Dimensions of U.S. Policy.” I guess we can say that the
policy is always very human, if not always very humane. The embargo has not been a humane
policy because embargoes are very dull weapons and sometimes they can punish the people
that are innocent and those that are guilty, the one that are supposed to be the objects of the
embargo, have the means to circumvent it or not be wholly affected by it. Nevertheless, while
not very humane, it is not very human.
I would say from a pop psychology perspective, if you allow me to indulge in pop psychology,
we have to remember that the embargo really fulfills a psychological need rather than any need
of a state. We have to remember that the embargo was established by the Kennedy
Administration. It was the Democrats’ fault. The Democrats are always accused of proposing
feel-good policies. This really is a feel-good policy because it allowed people to feel good
about themselves “being tough on communism.” It allowed the Kennedy administration to feel
good in spite of their failure with the Bay of Pigs and an earlier failure at Yalta. It is also
morphed into a feel-good policy for the exile community because it represents for them a sign,
a symbol that they haven’t surrendered—they haven’t accepted the status quo of the
communist regime. So it is human, but not always humane.
I remember talking to someone about the policy and this is someone who described the
relationship between the United States and Cuba in terms of co-dependency. You have the
classic story of the alcoholic son, and the mother really needs her son to be dependent on her.
55
Therefore, she really doesn’t follow-through with the tough love provisions that might lead him
to get treatment and end this unacceptable behavior. It is the co-dependency—the enabler type
of thing. Often times, as already has been said, this policy enables the Cuban government to
blame its failures on the United States. It makes what should be a domestic issue, an
international one and by doing so, it makes it more complicated for people to see their way
clear to come up with productive and positive solutions. So, very human in that aspect.
In spite of changes, and there have been significant changes, at this present I think the United
States is the biggest supplier of foodstuffs to Cuba. Cubans today are eating chicken, corn, and
cattle from the United States. Even lumber comes from the United States, while at the same
time the Administration is saying, ‘we are hanging tough.”
Often times, that desire to message those people who need to feel good about “hanging tough”
we are creating policies that result in hurting the Cuban people and also hurting ourselves.
Many people have already spoken about the human rights situation in Cuba which has
deteriorated, there is much tension.
The Church in Cuba has certainly become more vocal in the past year. In the past ten years
they have tried to enlarge its space in Cuba. Again, with the crackdown on visas and a new
regime here in the U.S. because of national security reasons, even that has been adversely
affected.
For example, a Bishop in Cuba will have to wait sometimes more than ninety days before he
could come to the United States to come to a forum like this or to visit his sick mother because
no one in Cuba in the American Interests Section can make a decision and grant him a visa. It
has to be sent to Washington and the FBI has make an investigation to see if someone can
come into the country based on if they represent a security threat. Imagine if the Bishop’s
name is José González, and there are 40,000 people with the same name in the country—what
the FBI has to go through just to clear him. So, these types of things are not positive. We
should try to support the effort for dialogue, support the efforts for reconciliation and to do that
means to make it possible for people to dialogue and to reconcile.
In the aftermath of the Pope's visit to Cuba, once again I affirm the position not only of the
Holy Father, but the Bishops of Cuba and our own Bishops' conference (USCCB) in solidarity
with the Cuban bishops that the embargo against Cuba should be lifted.
In forty years it has proven ineffective in achieving its stated goals. It therefore should be rethought. We must remember the context in which the embargo emerged. Following the fiasco
of the Bay of Pigs invasion the democratic administration wished to show that it was capable of
"being tough" on communism - this in spite of Yalta. At the same time the exile community
embraced the embargo because it symbolized that they would not "surrender" and accept the
reality of a communist regime in Cuba.
These are not reasoned positions but are emotional reactions, a policy that makes both U.S.
government officials and Cuban exiles "feel good". Nevertheless, while making these groups
feel good, the embargo does not punish the elites in Cuba responsible for present policy or
maintenance of the present regime. It is a rather dull instrument - and therefore hurts the
Cuban people - i.e. it punishes the innocent along with the "guilty". Indeed, to use the embargo
to foment a popular uprising against the government of Cuba - which hasn't happened in 40
56
years - is immoral. It seems to say that the ends (regime change) justify the means. We cannot
use evil means - indiscriminately hurting the general population of Cuba - to justify a good end
- needed changes in the regime that controls Cuban society.
Engagement, dialog (which does not imply agreement with or approval of ill-advised policies
of the Cuban regime) is a much better course than the failed policy of economic isolation of
Cuba.
DONNA HICKS, PH.D.
WEATHERHEAD CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
“The most important point that I want to make is that when deep connections are fractured, the
way we’ve seen them time and time again, it takes a special kind of process to rebuild those
relationships and heal relationships.”
What I want to share with you today are some general reflections about the patterns we have
observed in terms of the relationships between conflicting parties. I would like to share with
you another type of lens that we use in addition to political analysis of the causes of these
conflicts. We use another lens which focuses on the psychological underpinnings on these
conflicts.
The easy part of my job is the political aspect of it, in the sense that we can put together a
political analysis, looking at the issues that divide the two parties. But, the really difficult part
is trying to understand the deep and enduring psychological obstacles that face these parties in
conflict. Frankly, I’m at a point now, after twenty years of doing this work, of saying that this
psychological dimension is not only what maintains the conflict, but exacerbates it.
Until this human dimension is addressed in these intractable conflicts, there is not going to be
reconciliation. If it is reconciliation that we’re looking for, particularly in communities that
need to be living together, we have to go deeper. The emotional issues just cannot be ignored.
What we have found, time and time again, is that underlying some of the most inflexible, rigid
policies are profound and tragic human suffering and human tragedies, not unlike what we
know to be the case in Cuba, with families both in Cuba and Miami Cuban communities, how
the families have been ravaged. This matters. The most important point that I want to make is
that when deep connections are fractured, the way we’ve seen them time and time again, it
takes a special kind of process to rebuild those relationships and heal relationships.
Now, you might imagine that in the hallowed halls of Harvard, the word “healing” isn’t exactly
welcomed. But my colleagues and I have persevered. Because as I said, the easy part is to
look at the political, historical, economic issues—the more objective factors keeping people
apart. But, what we believe is that until we can develop a process that gets at these deeper
issues, and I want to discuss more about what these emotional issues are because we have
found a pattern there too; and the pattern is that when these relationships break down, the first
thing to go is human dignity.
People do treat each other when they have been threatened in a way that would be appalling to
them under circumstances of non-threat. So, the big question then is: why do people resort to
such aggressive, hostile, dehumanizing behaviors toward one another during times of threat?
57
What we have found is that there is an ever-growing list of what people need to maintain their
dignity. I just want to run through these quickly, because you will see why this seems to apply
to the Cuba issue.
First of all, people need a sense of identity and when that identity is trashed or diminished in
any way, by either side, there is often a breakdown in that relationship. People need
recognition of that identity. People need a sense of inclusion and when for political reasons or
otherwise, people are excluded, that is a violation of human dignity. People need a sense of
security, both psychological and physical security. People also need to be understood. How
often does it happen in these conflicts that there is no forum for understanding the other side’s
perspective, oftentimes, even one’s own?
People need to be responded to. There is nothing worse then being in a conflict relationship
where you are crying out for recognition and nobody responds. So, what we have done most
recently with a few of my colleagues who have taken the risk of acknowledging these deep
emotional issues that have to be recognized, is to create opportunities for deeper reflection. I
applaud young Cubans who have done this sort of thing. I applaud Puentes Cubanos which has
facilitated this. I want to add that this has to be done on a higher level. I think the leadership
needs to have these kinds of discussions because it is not until these issues are addressed that
true reconciliation and reconnection in these communities can take place. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak about these issues.
PETER G. BOURNE, M.A., M.D.
CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL EDUCATION COOPERATION WITH CUBA (MEDICC)
“Significant investment in sophisticated medical research has resulted in Cuba leading the
world in some areas. Its development of a vaccine against meningitis B caused an
embarrassing situation for the U.S. Americans, because of the embargo, could not get access to
the vaccine even though several hundred die from the disease every year.”
In the mid-1990’s the American Association for World Health (AAWH) conducted, with
support from four foundations, a year long-study on the impact which the inclusion of food and
medicine in the embargo against Cuba had on the Cuban people.
No other U.S. embargo, not even those against Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Vietnam or Iran
included these items. Their inclusion directly violated the 4th Geneva Convention and Article
12 of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Including food and medicine could
have had no other goal than to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on the Cuban people and
in ignoring these international conventions, put the U.S. government in the position of grossly
violating, for 40 years, the human rights of the country’s population.
There had long been a movement in Congress to remove food and medicine from the embargo
but those efforts were always hampered by a lack of concrete data. The publication of the 300page study, whose methodology had been verified by a panel of U.S. medical experts from
across the political spectrum, gave new momentum to the Congressional efforts, galvanizing
the efforts of NGO’s and, in particular, spawning the creation of Americans For Humanitarian
Trade With Cuba.
58
The study demonstrated that during the early decades of the embargo, with assistance from the
Soviet block and Western European pharmaceutical companies, Cuba had been able to
ameliorate the impact of their inability to access U.S. pharmaceutical products and foodstuffs.
However, in the 1990’s the situation was severely aggravated by a series of events:
The collapse of the Soviet Union meant Cuba no longer had access to drugs and medical
equipment from the Eastern Bloc. In addition a shortage of hard currency, which hit the entire
economy, meant it was difficult or impossible to purchase on world markets many of the
products to which they had previously had access.
The passage of the Torricelli bill prohibiting foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations from
doing business with Cuba hit the health of the Cuban people hard. It meant that companies like
Sweden’s Pharmacia, which had long provided critical drugs to Cuba, could no longer do so
after it had been taken over by the U.S. company Upjohn. Indeed, the situation was aggravated
in the 1980’s by the acquisition of many small European and Japanese pharmaceutical
companies for whom Cuba suddenly ceased to be a market. The subsequent passage of the
Helms-Burton bill made matters worse, specifically the provision restricting shipping from
docking in U.S. ports within six-months of delivering a cargo in Cuba. This hit hard at the
shipment of food.
The study detailed the impact that the shortages brought about by the embargo had in every
area of health care and nutrition. The study is available at the website www.medicc.org.
The study received intense worldwide attention, being translated into six languages. It was
crucial in allowing various groups to mobilize political support for legislative changes in the
embargo. It was not traditional progressive opponents of the embargo who were critical in this
development, but the agro-industry that saw an economic opportunity they were missing out
on. The changes in the embargo that allowed the sale of food to Cuba (although only for cash)
were brought about largely by conservative legislators from farm states. It is sad that financial
greed, rather than moral outrage or a desire to comply with international conventions, should
have brought about this change. But regardless, the Cuba people were still substantial
beneficiaries.
There has been no similar modification as far as medicine is concerned. This is in part because
there has been no corporate groundswell from America’s pharmaceutical industry to open up
what for them would be a relatively small new market. Including medicine in the embargo has,
over the years had an unanticipated side effect, which is the opposite of what its architects
intended.
Denied access to U.S. markets, Cuba began its own pharmaceutical industry which now not
only meets much of its own domestic need but has created a significant export industry in
medicine and vaccines. Cuba, for instance, now produces antiretroviral drugs for the treatment
of HIV/AIDS within the country and has offered them to African countries either free or at a
fraction of the normal cost.
The embargo, however, still prevents access to the most sophisticated drugs and those that are
still under patent. Medical equipment such as pacemakers, most of which are made in the U.S.,
59
are largely unobtainable. Significant investment in sophisticated medical research has resulted
in Cuba leading the world in some areas. Its development of a vaccine against meningitis B
caused an embarrassing situation for the U.S. Americans, because of the embargo, could not
get access to the vaccine even though several hundred die from the disease every year.
To avoid serious domestic repercussions the Treasury Department eventually agreed to a
licensing arrangement through which the British-based multinational corporation, GlaxoSmithKlein-Beacham was allowed to produce the vaccine under a license from the Cubans and
market it worldwide including in the U.S. There is now a vaccine against a form of lung
cancer and several veterinary vaccines that the U.S. is denying its people access to by virtue of
the embargo. (Editors note: a California company, Cancervax, finally obtained the right to
begin trials on the Cuban produced lung cancer vaccine in July 2004 but has allowed the
company to pay Cuba in foodstuffs not cash)
Spurred in part by an effort to thwart the impact of the embargo, the Cuban government has,
since the revolution, been determined to provide the highest standard of health for the
population. With the best ratio of doctors to population in the world a system has evolved that
is now viewed as the gold standard for improving health in the developing world.
Since 1963, more than 150,000 Cuban health professionals have spent time in 83 developing
countries. At present more than 5,000 Cuban doctors are serving around the world (700 in
South Africa and 2,000 in Central America). Students from many nations have been welcomed
to train as doctors in the last four years. This was ratcheted up several notches in 1990 with the
creation, in the wake of hurricane Mitch, of the School of Medical Sciences of Latin America,
which has medical students from every country in the hemisphere as well as Nigeria, Mali,
Equatorial Guinea and South Africa. The enrollment will be more than 12,000 when the
school is at full strength.
Because there is a limit to the number of students who can be brought to Cuba, not to mention
the limit on suitable clinical material for teaching, the government is now establishing medical
schools staffed by Cuban faculty in several developing countries including Guyana, Paraguay,
Bolivia, Yemen, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Uganda, and Ghana.
Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC), the organization I chair, was created as
an outgrowth of the AAWH study on the embargo to build bridges between the Cuban and U.S.
medical communities and specifically to enable U.S. medical students to gain experience from
the Cuban system of healthcare.
Since 1998 we have enabled more than 700 students from more a hundred schools of medicine
and public health in the U.S. to spend elective time, for which they receive academic credit,
with family physicians in Cuba. In particular, they benefit from seeing how much can be
accomplished with limited resources, how the delivery of care can be successfully combined
with public health to improve overall health status, how effectively health professionals can
work with community groups to enhance health status and how the health of an entire
population can be elevated by focusing, not just on the care of an individual once they are sick,
but rather upon prevention and early diagnosis, asking always “what interventions can I make
that will benefit the health of the largest number of people.”
60
JAMES EARLY, PH.D.
DIRECTOR OF CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
“When you listen to Jim Wolfensohn, the President of the World Bank, say to the world
leaders that you should go to Cuba if you want to see some of the highest social and cultural
interstices, he is not endorsing a particular socio-economic political system. But, he is being
balanced and honest about the fact that there is something within the arts and culture and
education policy of the government of Cuba, vis-à-vis the citizens of Cuba, that has produced
extraordinary results on the stage of math and science.”
I’m particularly pleased to be back in my home state of Florida. I’m also particularly pleased
to hear the voices of democracy and freedom of expression going on in this area as we enter
our electoral season. I say that not as a light-hearted matter, but I say it in regard to a
comment made earlier this morning by Alvaro Fernandez, when he talked about the
demographics of the Miami area and Southern Florida area. When you look at this topic—the
human dimensions of U.S. policy toward Cuba, one of the considerations while I looked
around this room, while I am very pleased to be back in my home state of Florida—it does not
really look as fully diverse as the state of Florida is.
The relevance of that observation is not to be critical, but to hopefully be instructive—that is,
that we have got to build a broader coalition of people, races, and cultures who have objective
interests in Cuba, not simply around a home and heritage, notwithstanding the importance of
the relationship between the Cuban-American community and the Cuban resident community
here in Florida and the nation of Cuba. Otherwise, we will not get those elected officials who
will have more forward-thinking policies. One of the human effects of U.S. policy toward
Cuba is that it has further isolated us here in the Southern Florida area. Therefore, we must go
forward and do something about that.
I have been traveling to Cuba for 28 years. I’ve lost count on how many times, somewhere
either just under or over 30 times. In the last 20 years, in my former role as Assistant
Secretary for Education and Public Service at the Smithsonian and my present role as the
Director of Cultural Heritage Policy at the Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage, I have
been involved in numerous programs in the arts, humanities and more broadly speaking
culture with hundreds of Cuban artists, visual artists, performers, dancers, traditional artisans,
as well as working with Cuban officials in the Ministry of Culture on issues of culture. I’ve
worked with literally thousands of people across the United States from all kinds of political
and ideological backgrounds, who have found common focus and collaboration in looking at
the significance of culture, which I have been asked to address with regard to the human
aspects of U.S. policy toward Cuba.
As has been heard throughout the day, those of us who claim to be experts, we feel that our
area of expertise is the most important and very urgent about that. I certainly feel the same. I
would argue that the arena of culture is the most common currency between the people of
Cuba and the people of the United States, barring any other disciplinary or economic issue that
has been mentioned in this room today. I think that is something we should consider very
seriously.
I would also argue for your consideration, that the exchanges in art and culture between the
Cuban people and the people of the United States is the most unfettered, the most unfiltered,
61
the most direct exchange and it is the basis on which we inform and influence one another. I
don’t think any other area at a level of scale can be suggested to have that same impact.
It brings into question the lack of level-headedness of a policy that would prevent this kind of
exchange that would violate the natural right of inquiry of United States citizens with the
wonderful educational system here that is supposed to give us the basis to be independent and
critical thinkers, to engage the Cuban people and to make our own decisions about that. This
is an area that we must address and we must open up more avenues for the literally thousands
of people across this country calling and asking how they can go to Cuba. They want to find
out what is happening in Cuba in regard to art, culture, education and science. They are trying
to express their democratic rights. If you will, they are trying to overcome a blockade of a
policy against our right to freedom of expression. This is something that we should give
attention to.
Now, it has been suggested any flexibility beyond a hard-line position and a hard-line position
can have two broad dimensions to it—it can be an ultra conservative line, or it can be an ultra
left line. The ultra conservative line is that Cuba is the land of the devil Fidel Castro and
nothing else can be considered until that is dealt with. The ideological position of the left is
that Cuba is a paradise and all is well.
Let me suggest to you from my own direct experiences through Fundación Amistad, where I
serve on their Board of Directors, or my work with the Smithsonian Institution, and the
National Performing Arts Center, that when you enter the arena of culture in Cuba, you enter a
field of discussion, debate, political criticism and political forward-thinking.
If you examine the work of the Union of Writers and Artists in Cuba they are talking about
tourism, and national identity today, notwithstanding the policies emanating from the tourism
department in Cuba. If you talk to the Union of Writers and Artists of all hues and colors in
Cuba, they are talking about the issues of continuing racial discrimination in Cuba today and
have opened up a public forum policy debate which goes on television and there is a struggle
in Cuba national television now about the wholesome presentation of the dissidence of
Africans in Cuba.
Notwithstanding elements of human rights that must definitely be addressed with regard to
freedom of expression and the like, we must be a bit more honest in our presentations about
the dynamics going on in Cuba and how there is a negotiation going on between the people of
Cuba and the government of Cuba and figure out how to situate ourselves in that.
U.S. policy towards Cuba prohibits us from taking advantage of not only the extraordinary
health issues that Dr. Peter Bourne has mentioned, and I’ve spent a lot of time in Botswana,
South Africa where I see a lot of Cuban doctors, but that policy also prohibits us from taking
advantage of the developments in Cuba with regard to education and pedagogy.
When you listen to Jim Wolfensohn, the President of the World Bank, say to the world leaders
that you should go to Cuba if you want to see some of the highest social and cultural
interstices; he is not endorsing a particular socio-economic political system. But, he is being
balanced and honest about the fact that there is something within the arts and culture and
education policy of the government of Cuba, vis-à-vis the citizens of Cuba, that has produced
extraordinary results on the stage of math and science.
62
We all know about the areas of arts and culture. Some of the most compelling popular
presentations on this globe today come from this tiny Caribbean republic of 11-12 million
people. Why is that? Is it in the genes of the Cuban people? Or is there something in their
negotiated policy and struggle with their government that feeds this achievement? We are
being prohibited from taking advantage and learning about that, as our schools are falling
down at the level of student achievement, particularly in math and sciences. Our system of
pedagogy is in question all over the world. You have not but to look at the comparison of
tests from around the world.
I want to close my remarks by suggesting that none of us give up our political perspectives
about Cuba. But I think that we must all struggle to engage the Cuban people. I ask you to
look at the context of culture at a moment in which the Organization of American States has
an agenda for cultural diversity throughout the Americas. The absence of Cuba in that
dialogue does not benefit the citizens of Cuba and rest of the citizens of the Americas.
I’ve just come back from Paris, from the opening of the General Assembly of UNESCO,
where the United States has just reentered UNESCO, and the reigning discussion in UNESCO
today and it has been since the conference in Mexico in 1982, is that culture is the milieu—it
is the context in which we should look at the issues of diversity.
We should try to use culture as a means of mediating the antagonistic differences we have, not
of eradicating them, but finding ways to find common ground while we continue to debate the
agenda on which we do not have common ground. So, I would urge that you stand against the
policies that restrict our engagement with Cuba and that we be more creative and more
democratic about how we are going to engage with both the people of Cuba as well as the
diverse elements within the Cuban government structure. Thank you.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question: Two questions for Dr. Bach: How should the Cuban government feel about U.S.
decisions to transform low-key migration issues into issues affecting U.S. national security?
Do you see the possibility of the Cuban Adjustment law coming to an end any time soon?
Bach: First of all, the issue of migration to the United States from the Cuban point of view has
always been an issue of national security. The United States has often responded in that way.
If you remember during the Mariel boat lift, President Carter admitting that after a high-level
review, he had two options: invade or let people come to South Florida. The conclusion puts
this debate in the current context of post-9/11 national security, which raises the stakes
considerably on what a boat lift or crisis would do. So, it puts another tool in the hands of the
Cuban government. The emergency plan that the United States has for the Florida Straits
requires the use of the Guantanamo Bay and Guantanamo is full right now. There is no option.
That is not a good strategic position for anyone to be in. Also, the Cuban Adjustment Act, for
all kinds of reasons, is one of those sticking points. We tried to change it (we, being those in
the Clinton Administration). In the law, the Attorney General has the power to change it, if she
or he so desires. Congress warned us that we “wouldn’t be able to get away with it.” The
significance again in my paper is that the Cuban Adjustment Act, for the Cubans, is an
incentive to come to the United States. That is a debate. There is no evidence one way or
another clearly, so let’s lay that out in all honesty. The Cuban Adjustment Act 40 years ago
was designed to help resettle people in the United States. This is before the 1980 Refugee Act
63
and the whole history of U.S. refugee resettlement policy. We have better mechanisms now.
We could promote resettlement of Cuban asylum seekers in South Florida with more money,
more help, more support. If the Cuban Adjustment Act is this incentive to pull, we would do
away with it. There is no reason to maintain the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.
Question: Bishop Wenski, is the Catholic Church in Cuba and the Miami Cuban Catholic
Church - regarding the human dimensions of U.S. policy - acting with conflicting points of
view?
Bishop Wenski: For the past several years, there has been an effort to increase
communication and dialogue between Catholics in the Archdiocese of Miami and with activists
in the Catholic Church inside of Cuba. Last month, there was a meeting between certain
leaders in Cuba and lay leaders here in the United States. This has been going on for the past
couple of years. It was preceded by periodic meetings between priests in Cuba and CubanAmerican priests in Miami and Puerto Rico as well as other places in the United States. It is a
process of mutual understanding, mutual growth and a space to discuss those deep pains that
both sides feel, as my colleague mentioned earlier. We as Catholics in South Florida and
Cuban-American Catholics and Catholics of whatever nationality, want to be in solidarity with
the Church in Cuba. I think we’ve made some great strides in that in the past several years.
Question: Mr. Vivanco, today five Cubans languish in U.S. prisons. Could you please
comment on what your organization is doing to secure their release or see to it that they receive
a fair trial?
José Miguel Vivanco: On the case of the five Cubans who have been prosecuted in the United
States, we have criticized the conditions of confinement. We have produced reports, not for
this particular case, but in general, criticizing the use of super maximum isolation of prisoners.
We believe that the conditions where these Cubans, as well as foreigners or Americans in full
isolation are abusive and inconsistent with international standards.
Question: Drs. Early and Ackerman, there is a preservation movement now which tries to
develop preservation projects in order to maintain and preserve collections on site where they
belong. Can you tell us about any such preservation projects being done in Cuba now?
James Early: There are a lot of preservations projects going on. There is the UNESCOfunded project on the renovation and stabilization of the old city under the guidance of Eusebio
Leal, which is developing a pace, and from my vantage point, not without some much needed
criticism. He in particular, is interested in photographic collections from the Smithsonian of
the earlier part of the century to show what went on in Cuba. Fundación Amistad has been
involved with the preservation of documents with a network of institutions across the U.S.
including Duke University and another university in California. There are publication projects
going on with the preservation of literature with many universities on major work over the last
ten years. There is a beautiful hardback bilingual piece that has come out of the University of
Michigan on the work of Nancy Morejon, the most recent literary winner in Cuba. There are a
number of such collaborative projects in film on the documentation of archival film, which
Fundación Amistad is also involved. I could go and on…
64
IMPETUS FOR AND IMPLICATIONS OF OPEN TRAVEL TO CUBA
MODERATOR: ANTONIO ZAMORA
THE TIME IS NOW COALITION AND U.S. CUBA LEGAL FORUM, BAY OF PIGS VETERAN
AND FORMER COUNSEL TO THE CUBAN AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION
The Time is Now Coalition is a non-profit organization that has two essential purposes. One is
to work for the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba. The secondly
is to work towards the reconciliation of the Cuban people. It seems that we have a third
unofficial purpose, which is to challenge the Cuban-American establishment, particularly the
controlling right-wing Cuban-American establishment in Miami.
One of the ways that we did this last year is by organizing a conference that some of you
participated in March in this same hotel. That conference was called The Time is Now to Change
Policy Toward Cuba. That is in fact, how we got our name. That conference was in effect a
challenge to the traditional Cuban-American position on the embargo and U.S.-Cuba relations.
This second conference is more of the same. We are trying to challenge and establish a debate
and an area to exercise free opinion and democracy in Miami, which is hard to do.
In that vein, I sent a letter three days ago to Jaime Suchliki, the organizer of the other
conference held this morning. In the letter, I complimented Jaime, who is an old friend, about
their idea to have a competing conference with us. I thought it was great for us. I also
challenged him to a debate. I suggested that it was nice to have competing conferences in the
same hotel, but since we actually never meet why not get together sometime after today and
hold a debate between members of The Time is Now and Cuban-Americans who participated
in his conference. He did accept the offer and so I would like to announce that we will be
having a real debate in the same room sometime in the near future.
When I ended the Biltmore Conference in March of last year, I ended basically be saying that
we were not going to go away—that we were here to stay. The organizers of that conference
are here to stay and we’re going to continue to challenge the power structure in Miami and
we’re going to fight to establish a position and an honest debate on U.S. policy toward Cuba.
My presence today and the presence of many others The Time is Now directors is proof
positive that we are not going to go away. We are going to continue this. I know that Puentes
Cubanos, the Cuban Committee for Democracy and Cambio Cubano are not going away either.
We are going to continue our fight because we realize that most of what holds the present
policy together is the situation in Miami and the perception that Cuban-Americans in Miami
support the present policy and that somehow they dictate that policy. It is not going to be easy,
but we are going to demonstrate that this is not the case.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM DELAHUNT (D-MA)
“Don’t tell me as an American that you are going to use my constitutional right to travel as a
bargaining chip. No, no, no! Too many Americans have died, have spilt blood to defend those
core constitutional rights! Don’t use it Mr. President! It’s not a bargaining chip. That’s my
right, your right and every American’s right whether they be from California, Massachusetts
or from Miami.”
Thank you very much Tony. You mentioned Rep. Jeff Flake and I know that he has sent a
letter expressing his regrets that he was unable to attend. But on behalf of Jeff and the other 52
members of the House Cuba Working Group that is working to remove the embargo and lift
65
the travel ban, let me say that it is a pleasure to be here once more and to encourage you to
continue to work with us because Tony, you’re not going away, a lot of folks here aren’t going
away, and we’re not going away either until we achieve results.
The subject of this hour is the implications of an open travel policy, and I would like to break it
down into how it impacts Cuba and what it means for the United States. A friend of mine
several years ago made this statement: Experience demonstrates that isolation breaths life into
totalitarianism. On the other hand, contacts between people, free individuals from falsehoods
and the lives without dignity that they are forced to lead. How well said.
That friend, his name is Oscar Chepe. I’m sure many of you in this room know Oscar Chepe.
He is now in prison in Cuba for speaking his mind. But, he got it right. He continues, I know
to support the removal of restrictions of the travel ban on American citizens because he knows
that if you will the winds of democracy, if they are to blow across that island where so many of
you have special relationships, then the first step is to allow Americans to come and
communicate their ideas and their concepts to the Cuban people.
I remember having a conversation with Fidel Castro. In fact, I think that a colleague of mine
on the panel, Phil Peters was present. I said to him, “Mr. President, the next time that we
invade we are going to win.” He looked at me somewhat perplexed and said, “What do you
mean?” I said, “We’re going to invade with thousands of tourists and we have a special
vanguard.” He said, “What is that special vanguard?” I said, “It is the kids on spring break.’
He raised his hands to surrender.
He thought I was kidding, but we’re serious. If there is going to be change in Cuba, the best
way for that change to occur is to allow Americans to exercise their constitutional rights. So, I
don’t think that there is any doubt in this room and I dare say anywhere in this country
including Miami, that lifting the travel ban would bring about change in Cuba. So if that is the
purpose of those who held that conference earlier this morning, let them come and join us to
change Cuba by supporting the removal of the travel restrictions.
The significance of travel is embraced in the Helsinki accords. It speaks about human rights
and the goal of facilitating free movement and exchange of ideas if we are going to deal with
humanitarian problems. So, this just isn’t a civil liberty enjoyed in most cases by Americans,
but a universally recognized human right.
How ironic it is that while the Cuban government has eliminated the visa restriction recently, I
heard Silvia Wilhelm speak to that today, our government is going backwards in eliminating
the category of people to people travel. That is embarrassing. America goes backward and
Cuba goes forward—that is not our America, I dare say.
In the past, the debate in Washington did not exist because there was deference, if you will, to
legislators from South Florida whom you know have a particular hard-line perspective. But
my folks, that has changed. That has changed with the advent of the Cuba Working Group.
There is now a debate.
In addition to that, not only are members of the House and Senate asking questions, but those
who have traveled—farmers from Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri who have gone to Cuba and
have experienced the bureaucratic maze necessary to get there. Then, they’ve started to reflect.
What do you mean we have a travel police in America? Well, they had a travel police in the
66
old Soviet Union but a travel police here in the cradle of democracy? So, those questions are
being asked all over this country, not just in Washington, Miami, New York, and Boston but all
over this country today.
Now, you’ve heard about the inconsistencies as they relate to normal trade relationships with
China and Vietnam, but not Cuba. But what about some of our allies? Let’s take a look at
Egypt for a moment. Free and fair elections? Our own State Department Human Rights
reports states the following: Citizens do not have a meaningful ability to change their
government.
What about freedom of association or the right to organize political parties? This is what the
American State Department reports on Egypt: The Law empowers the government to bring
felony charges against those who form a party without a license. A license? That sounds
familiar doesn’t it folks? And that recognition of political parties can be withdrawn…That is
Egypt. They get $2 billion per year from all of us who pay taxes. They are the second largest
recipient of American-foreign assistance in this world.
Now, what about Saudi Arabia where there are political prisoners? The State Department has
to acknowledge that they don’t know how many because the Saudi government prohibits
human rights organizations from even visiting their prisons. As for permitting labor unions to
exist outside of government control, the State Department says that the Saudi government
prohibits the establishment of all labor unions, even government labor unions. Then of course,
if you practice a religion other than Islam, you cannot do it in public.
Well, let me tell you something, I have been to mass in Havana and I have seen women drive
automobiles in Cuba. They can’t do that in Saudi Arabia. I would suggest to you in terms of
human rights abuses, go for yourselves and examine the Department of State review of the
human rights record of Saudi Arabia. They are without a doubt the most repressive regime on
Earth. But, they are our partners. By the way, while 15 Saudi nationals were on those planes
that attacked our country on September 11th, there was not a single Cuban.
Let me digress for a moment, I think this fact is so fascinating, back in 1982 when Cuba went
on the terrorist list, the Reagan and Bush administration was taking Saddam Hussein off it.
What a mistake. This is a policy that is angering the American people because they realize
now that it is a policy that is an anachronism. We did win the cold war and it is time to move
on. What I find particularly offensive are those that say to me, “Well if he has free elections, if
he allows freedom of the press…” If, if if…Those are worthy goals and everyone in this room
shares them. But, not just for Cuba, for Saudi Arabia, Egypt and a long list of countries. We
ought be working in that regard and listening to the call of true leaders like President Jimmy
Carter. That is who we should be listening to.
Don’t tell me as an American that you are going to use my constitutional right to travel as a
bargaining chip. No, no, no! Too many Americans have died, have spilt blood to defend those
core constitutional rights! Don’t use it Mr. President! It’s not a bargaining chip. That’s my
right, your right and every American’s right whether they be from California, Massachusetts or
from Miami.
I read the op-ed piece in the Washington Post by Mikhail Gorbachev entitled “The Last Wall”.
Well, to paraphrase and plagiarize a bit from former President Reagan, Mr. President it is time
to tear down the wall that prevents Americans from going anywhere they damn well please!
Tear it down!
67
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ)
Representative Flake was unable to attend and contributed written remarks read by Sylvia
Wilhelm.
“The crackdown (on dissidents in Cuba) provides all the more reason to change our policy
now. A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives understands this. For the fourth year in
a row, and in spite of the crackdown, the House approved an amendment to allow travel to
Cuba.”
Silvia Wilhelm: I am deeply honored to read a letter from one of our staunchest allies in
Congress, Representative Jeff Flake from Arizona.
Thank you to the organizers and to the contributors to this event. I regret that I am not able to
attend because this Summit demonstrates again the growing sentiment in the Cuban-American
community that it is time to change United States policy towards Cuba. The involvement and
enthusiasm of so many Cuban Americans on this issue is courageous, appreciated and
necessary.
Early this year, I joined my colleagues in the House of Representatives, from all sides of the
Cuba policy debate, in condemning the Castro government’s crackdown on human rights and
democracy activists, journalists, librarians and the dissidents. This crackdown was another sad
repeat of a cycle that has been going on for forty-three years. As long as we continue our
current policy, the cycle will continue, the Cuban people will suffer, American freedoms will
be limited, and Castro will remain comfortably in control.
The dissidents imprisoned in the crackdown were trafficking in ideas. The sentencing
documents of the dissidents cite possession of things like Time magazine, Miami Herald
articles, and the text of President Bush speeches as threats to Cuban national security. Clearly,
Castro is afraid of ideas. If magazines and newspapers are so threatening as to warrant a
massive crackdown, how could the Castro government handle the subscribers traveling to
Cuba!
The crackdown provides all the more reason to change our policy now. A majority of the U.S.
House of Representatives understands this. For the fourth year in a row, and in spite of the
crackdown, the House approved an amendment to allow travel to Cuba. One positive
development this year is that Senators are prepared to offer the same language in their version
of the bill. With identical language, House rules state that the amendment must remain in the
bill. (Editor’s note: although identical language was approved by the Senate and inserted in
the Treasury Appropriations bill, Congressional leaders subverted established practice over
loud protestations within both chambers and summarily removed the Cuba language from the
final bill.)
We need to increase the flow of ideas from ordinary Americans to ordinary Cubans. The U.S.
government’s policy of distributing materials to dissidents is too limited, and has even
backfired in some instances. We need a much broader effort in distributing ideas in Cuba.
What better way than to allow ordinary Americans to travel to Cuba and share their ideas and
values with ordinary Cubans.
Thank you again for your work and willingness to speak up for a new approach.
68
PHIL PETERS
VICE PRESIDENT, LEXINGTON INSTITUTE
FORMER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICIAL UNDER PRESIDENT REAGAN
“The transition is already underway in Cuba. The economy there is unrecognizable from the
economy that functioned there ten years ago. Post-Castro Cuba is also there right now. You
don’t have to study it here; you can go there and engage with Post-Castro Cuba.”
I am very proud to be with you all today once again at this Summit. I want to thank the
organizers for putting it together. I am asked to talk about the implications of travel to Cuba.
I, like General Sheehan, went to the other room this morning to hear Roger Noriega speak.
There you hear many things. Among them, you hear that if we allow travel to Cuba it will
provide dollars that will prolong the dictatorship there. If you allow travel to Cuba, none of the
benefits of travel will reach the Cuban people.
Now, I don’t need to go on at any length at all to you here because those of us who have been
to Cuba—within an hour of getting off of the plane— can see how Cubans mix with tourists.
You can see how Cubans benefit economically—the entrepreneurs who rent their homes, the
artists who sell to tourists, the taxi drivers, the people with paladares, and the tourist industry
workers themselves. If it were not beneficial to the Cuban people that foreigners travel to
Cuba, why is that jobs in the travel industry are among the most coveted jobs in the Cuban
labor force?
There is also the argument of how supposedly the dollars that travelers bring would prolong the
dictatorship and increase the resources to the repressive apparatus. To be sure, it is a
repressive country. To be sure, there is an oppressive apparatus in that government of great
efficiency and effectiveness, I’m sad to say. But, it’s not the case that money at the margin
from travel has anything to do with that.
Cuba ten years ago was in the worst conceivable economic shape. Those in the police and
security services weren’t lacking money or resources, nor was Cuba then on the brink of any
kind of revolt. So the idea of saying that somehow at the margin this is going to tip the scales
in favor of the government and the police power in Cuba, is really one more sad indication of
the distance and remove that our friends in the other room think about the situation in Cuba.
There are a lot of regulatory and legal issues involved with travel and the debate that
Congressmen Delahunt and Congressman Flake talk about and we all fight about all the time.
But I want to talk about this issue on a larger plane. In foreign policy, there is the nitty gritty
of things like NAFTA and arms control, etc. But there is also something that some of us refer
to as the music behind them.
When both Democrats and Republicans over the course of several administrations, decided to
embrace NAFTA with the Mexicans, it wasn’t just because of tariffs and trade and the different
industries that would benefit. It was because our leaders sensed that there was something
going on in Mexico, that we as a nation had the ability to play into a set of historical
circumstances that could move things for the better in Mexico—towards openness of a society
that had been closed and although you didn’t see it on the surface, dictatorial. We did that and
it’s had a good impact.
When President Reagan decided to change our policy toward the Soviet Union, he was dealing with
arms control and verification and a lot of lawyerly and technical issues, but what President Reagan
sensed was that there was something else going on in the minds of Mr. Gorbachev and others, that
69
gave us a chance to play into some greater forces of history and to move the Soviet Union and the
world towards greater security and greater peace by betting on our hopes and not on our fears.
So what is the music in Cuba now? I think you’ll find it by thinking for a minute about what is on
the minds of the people in Cuba who are thinking about their future—the people who are going to
govern Cuba in the future or aspire to govern Cuba. They are thinking, “What it is going to be like
when the generations change here and I am left holding the bag?” What do they have in mind?
They know that things aren’t working well right now and that they want a better life, as
General Sheehan pointed out. They know that when the generations change, the hard-line
faction inside the Cuban government is going to be weakened because their maximum leader
has moved along. So, there will be a new political equation at play. They know that they are
going to have to create some new kind of decision-making within their system.
It is like a series of spokes going to one hub and that hub will have disappeared. They are going to
have to invent politics where they actually mediate among different factions and reach decisions in
a different way. They know that the next government in Cuba is going to face a situation of rising
expectations. The next government of Cuba doesn’t have the option of assuring security and then
stepping out saying to the Cuban people that the economic policies for the next forty years are
going to be exactly the same as they have been for the past forty years. That option doesn’t exist.
They know that they will have to resolve some very serious issues. Not just relations with the
United States, but in creating an economy that provides growth—an economy that ends the sad
situation there now where so many kids want to leave their country permanently to have a
decent life. They have to deal with that. They also have to deal with this other idea rattling
around in that country—the idea of political freedom. They know that new doses of socialism
are not going to work. It doesn’t solve any of these challenges that they face.
So what are we doing now? In the face of this situation, with so much on their minds down
there, we, the beacon of freedom ,are saying: “No, we’re going to keep you at arm’s length.”
“Don’t call us, we’ll call you.” “When it’s over, you let us know. In the mean time, we don’t
want contact with you.” “Sure we’ll let family visits take place, but the exchanges and contact
that we could promote between our societies—no we’re not going to do that.”
“Tell us when it’s over and then we’ll talk.”
As we saw this morning, the vision that our friends in the administration have is that we’re not
just going to wait until it is over, but at that time when the generations change, we’re going to
apply maximum pressure and the U.S. government is going to step in and say how it is going to
be. I am not against advocating democracy or holding up those standards at any time, any
place or level of volume. But think to yourself about the history between our country and Cuba
and think how that is going to work. Obviously, we should build contacts now.
Congressman Delahunt mentioned the Helsinki accords—think back to that moment. It is a
very appropriate thing to mention. We didn’t enter into the Helsinki accords where we
demanded the freedom to travel in both directions across those countries because they were led
by nice people, quite the contrary. Those countries were led by a bunch of sell-outs, thugs and
Soviet stooges. There was nothing nice at all about them.
The point is that it was in our interest to promote that contact because that is how we thought
we could move the course of history in those countries. So, we don’t need to reinvent
anything. We don’t need any new theories. We need to start having exchanges, especially
conferences.
70
A Bishop in Havana told me two weeks ago how valuable U.S.-Cuba conferences are. We
need to have scholarships, not the odd program that Administration devised, which seemed
designed to fail, but a real scholarship program that brings Cuban and American students back
and forth in large numbers.
Our governments should dialogue about the security issues General Sheehan mentioned and the
environmental issues that Ken Lindeman mentioned. Of course, we need to have free travel of
our citizens. We spend millions of dollars planning for the transition and devising studies
about post-Castro Cuba. I think that as taxpayers, we probably spent some of that money in the
other room this morning. That’s fine, because I am the last person who is against studies.
I think we ought to whisper to our friends in the other room that the transition is already
underway in Cuba. The economy there is unrecognizable from the economy that functioned
there ten years ago. Post-Castro Cuba is also there right now. You don’t have to study it here;
you can go there and engage with Post-Castro Cuba. With whom? With the tourism worker
who has just figured out that if he (or she) learns customer service, they can make a little more
money.
Post-Castro Cuba is in the 10,000 people in Old Havana who are restoring that city—those
learning how to restore frescos, work iron, and repair tile and plaster. They are bringing back
the glory of that place. The 10,000 people doing that noble work are doing it for the future of
their country and to preserve it for all of us.
Post-Castro Cuba is in the young Cuban doctors trying to figure out how they can better care
for their patients. It is in the Cuban scientists working on vaccines in collaboration with
Cornell, Harvard and Yale, trying to figure out how they can go about these programs without
being treated like terrorists by the U.S. government.
Post-Castro Cuba is in the Vice-Minister in his forties, trying to figure out how he can create
more jobs within the terrible constraints of the current policies they have there. It is in the state
enterprise managers thinking about how they can turn these white elephants they govern into
enterprises that are going to make money. We should reach out to all of these people right
now.
Whether you’re Cuban-American who wants to do this because it repairs some of the damage
you’ve all suffered over the past forty years or for those of us who don’t have Cuban ancestry,
it is the right thing to do. Contact with Cuba is not a concession to Castro or anybody. It’s an
expression of our confidence and our own values and the basis of our country’s influence. We
should start exercising it right now. I’m so proud to be with all of you who are on the same
track. It gives all of us who work for this issue in Washington so much heart.
BRADLEY BELT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ASSOCIATION OF TRAVEL RELATED INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS
“Some members of Congress believe very strongly in matters of principle, most I would argue
do. Some believe very strongly in the power of campaign contributions. I would like to think
that is a small number, but it does matter. Others believe very powerfully in ideology. But the
one common thread through all members of Congress that I’ve worked with is constituency.
They all listen to the people of in their districts, particularly those who come from the business
community who employ people—that’s jobs, that’s votes.”
71
It’s truly a privilege and an honor to be here with you today and to witness first-hand the
commitment and passion that you and your colleagues bring to the issue.
Indeed I think that Secretary Noriega was unfairly criticized for his seemingly pejorative
comments about newcomers. I was standing in the back of the room when he said that near
another colleague who is also a newcomer to this issue, and I think that he saw us. I don’t
think that he intended ill toward anyone in this room.
Indeed, I am a newcomer to this issue from a substantive policy standpoint. ATRIP is a
relative newcomer as well and I want to come back to issues related to ATRIP in a moment. I
don’t however come into issues of economic development, international trade and finance cold
turkey. I have a long history with those. I have a long history with promoting international
trade, finance and economic engagements in other markets around the world.
Also, I have a long history working on issues related to economic sanctions and one of the
organizations with which I’m affiliated, the Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington, came out with a fairly comprehensive study demonstrating quite compellingly
that unilateral economic sanctions do not work to achieve their political aims and that they also
have a detrimental effect economically on the sanctioning entity. I certainly bring that
background to the issue.
But I can’t offer any particular insights and I don’t want to insult your intelligence in trying to
do so, about what’s happening politically in South Florida or ninety miles south. But, what I
can offer is some insight and analysis on what is happening in Washington. For better or
worse, I have been a creature of Washington politics, legislative and regulatory battles, for the
past two plus decades. I have a considerable experience in titling against windmills, fighting
battles that had long-time horizons associated with them, and putting in place strategies to
actually achieve certain objectives.
The fact that I don’t know you all very well, and I do hope to correct that over time, not very
much time at that, I will be perhaps less plain-spoken and blunt. From my perspective, what
needs to happen is a change in the political dynamic. That is occurring, but we’re not there yet.
There are a two or three points I would make in the outset. One is that we have to broaden the
range of issues brought to bear on this debate. Number two, I don’t think that it is particularly
fruitful or productive to go out of one’s way to criticize the Administration, particularly this
Administration, in large measure because as Secretary Rogers noted, this has been a policy
espoused by both Republican and Democratic administrations for the past 40 years. I think we
have to recognize and empathize with where they are coming from in that the perception in
Washington is that it is a vote-counting exercise. Until the dynamic in South Florida changes,
you’re not going to get any meaningful change at the level of Presidential politics. What you
need to do is elect Democratic and Republican members of Congress and Senate who support
lifting the sanctions or at least engaging Cuba first and foremost, before you’re going to change
the dynamic at the Presidential level.
But there are achievable wins at the Congressional level. From Congressman Delahunt’s
leadership in the House and with the House Cuba Working Group, we’ve made tremendous
progress in obtaining some very favorable votes. We’re building upon that progress, but we
need to do more. We need to do the same kind of thing in the Senate. We’re putting in place
the same kind framework and structures to do that with the Cuba Working Group in the Senate
that was more recently formed.
72
We have to also understand that simply couching this as a human rights tragedy, no matter how
profound it is, is not sufficient in my view to carry the day. It is not because members of
Congress are insensitive or unfeeling, although it may often seem that way. It is because
they’ve been reviled with so many human rights crisis around the world; it is often an
abstraction for them. What we need to do for them, is bring this home. I again refer to what
Secretary Rogers said, “heretofore the debate about Cuba has been a no win proposition—there
has been no upside for members of Congress.” We have to change that and we are starting to
change that.
What really catalyzed action in the House side and to a lesser extent in the Senate side is
getting the agricultural community behind us. We’ve got to add the economic analysis to the
human rights arguments and to the freedom to travel arguments. We need to get each and
every one of you and the organizations you work with, to engage directly with members of
Congress, wherever they are found. That is particularly in Washington and in their home
districts.
Some members of Congress believe very strongly in matters of principle; most I would argue
do. Some believe very strongly in the power of campaign contributions; I would like to think
that is a small number, but it does matter. Others believe very powerfully in ideology. But the
one common thread through all members of Congress that I’ve worked with, is constituency.
They all listen to the people of in their districts, particularly those who come from the business
community who employ people—that’s jobs, that’s votes.
What I do not believe is that there has been an adequate job thus far in bringing together the
different constituencies that have a stake in this debate and mobilizing them as effectively as
we could. What we need to do in a much more structured and organized fashion to match the
firepower of those who want to maintain the sanctions, is to reach out aggressively and
continually in a concerted fashion to members of Congress in their districts.
If you own a small business, go see your member of Congress and let them know how you
think. Go visit them in their office. Bring employees with you. They will meet with you.
That is what’s going to get traction. We’ve got to change the nature of the debate so that it’s
no longer a losing proposition, but a winning proposition for them.
Enough of the proselytizing. I can’t resist the temptation, now as I close, for a bit of crass
commercialism. As Mr. Zamora mentioned, what we’re trying to do at ATRIP is mobilize the
travel-related industry around this endeavor—the airline companies, cruise operators, travel
agents, charter companies and others— to put together this kind of business constituency to
match up against the NGO community and others that have done such an effective job up until
this point. What we are going to be doing in two to three weeks in Cancun is carrying on a
conference to try to bring together some of these constituencies. It is October 17-18th in
Cancun. We very much invite you to join us down there to continue this fight. I look forward
to engaging with many of you in the weeks and months to come.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Question: The first question I have is for Congressman Delahunt concerning the statement
some months ago by Under Secretary of State John Bolton about weapons of mass destruction.
This morning General Sheehan said that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Cuba and
this person would like to hear Congressman Delahunt’s opinion on this.
73
Rep. Delahunt: I agree with General Sheehan. I think that what is particularly interesting is
that a few months before Under Secretary Bolton made that statement, he was giving a speech
to the conference of the parties to the convention on bioweapons. He cited many countries that
were of concern to the United States. He did not mention Cuba.
The next day after he made that particular assertion, Secretary Rumsfeld, who certainly would
not be categorized as a dove, made the statement, “I have not seen intelligence that led Mr.
Bolton to make those remarks.” That comes from the Secretary of Defense. What I think was
particularly noteworthy was when President Bush made speeches around May 20th, only
several weeks later than the allegation by the Under Secretary, at no time did he reference
bioweapons and Cuba in the same sentence.
Mr. Bolton’s boss, Secretary Powell said, “Well, we didn’t say that he actually had weapons,
but he does have the capacity.” Well, I guess if you have a biotech industry, you have the
capacity. Another military leader, General Gary Spear who happened to be the head of South
Com, which includes the Caribbean area, said that he had seen no evidence that Cuba is
producing bioweapons from its biomedical research program. Simply said, in my judgment,
that is an assertion that was made for a political purpose. It has been refuted by the
Administration.
It was interesting that just recently, an individual in the Department of State, by the name of
Christian Westermann, when he testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
indicated that he had felt pressure from Mr. Bolton. That pressure had dated from a clash the
two had over his public assertions that Cuba had a biological weapons program. Mr.
Westermann, who should know since he was the State Department official in charge of looking
after the issue of weapons of mass destruction, said that those assertions were not supported by
intelligence. So, I think that it corroborates what General Sheehan said. Let’s get the facts out
and the truth. Simply because you repeat it, and I don’t care who you are—whether you are a
member of Congress or a newspaper reporter—repetition sometimes give you comfort because
you start to believe your own boloney.
Question: What are the chances of getting the Administration and OFAC to reverse the
decision to eliminate people to people travel to Cuba?
Bradley Belt: It’s an issue I touched upon earlier; changing anything through the
Administration without a Congressional mandate is going to be exceedingly difficult. I will
take this opportunity to mention where we are in the Senate right now. As you know, we
passed forward-moving language in the House that doesn’t end the travel ban, but it would defund enforcement. Our hope is to do the same thing in the Senate before the Congress goes
out. There is still a distinct possibility of that. We’ve done a preliminary WHIP count and
depending upon the strategies employed by the opponents, we think the votes are there. But
it’s going to be a fight. If anyone is interested, we can tell you where your member of
Congress is on the spectrum—who needs to be bolstered and who needs to be turned. So, if
you have any interest in getting that kind of information and actually helping out in getting a
favorable vote, please contact us at www.atrip.org.
74
THE U.S., CUBA AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY:
A MULTILATERAL PERSPECTIVE
MODERATOR: PATRICIA GUTIÉRREZ MENOYO
CAMBIO CUBANO
Patricia Gutiérrez Menoyo: Miami is changing and today is living proof of that new
mentality. Earlier today, a gentleman who used to be an assistant to Senator Jesse Helms—I
am referring of course to the Honorable Roger Noriega—came to preserve, as a museum
curator, a policy enshrined in its ineffectiveness. I am privileged to moderate this panel in
which we will try to add to today’s program in finding new alternatives and new horizons that
will extricate the United States from a misguided path of failed policies. It is important that we
are here—no longer alone, every day stronger. I also would like to acknowledge the presence
of two dear friends of peace and international development. I would like everyone to
acknowledge the Ambassador to Cuba of Sweden and the Ambassador to Cuba of Norway here
in our audience today.
A little over two hours ago, I was on the phone with my father Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo,
President of Cambio Cubano or Cuban Change in English. From his new/old home in Havana,
he told me to have faith and to keep on the struggle. He told me to tell the world that the one
thing that Cubans do not need more of is embargoes; for their past, present and future have
already been embargoed for much too long. Tell them that lifting the embargo is good enough,
even if it saves the life of one more Cuban child. Tell them that if they want to help a process
of democratization, they have to respect the struggle of these people, their sense of pride and
their rejection of more impositions.
I am proud to introduce the members of my panel. We will be speaking about the United
States, Cuba and the international community—trying to seek a multilateral perspective.
“Multilateral” is the key word. Can the U.S. seek the consensus through a unilateral policy that
irritates the rest of the world? Can it in fact serve the best interest of the United States when
the first thing that it does is negatively affects the best interest of the United States?
Before we start, let me loosely quote José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch after
having seen him last Thursday on CSPAN during the hearings (Editors note: A Senate Foreign
Relations Committee hearing was held the week prior to the Summit convened by Chair
Richard Lugar), “U.S. policy behavior sucks up so much energy around it that at in the end it
leaves everyone around it trying to come up for air.” Isn’t it time to rescue U.S. policy from
the hands that for so long have kidnapped it? I will not go on any further, but will move to the
panelists.
I will begin by presenting Professor Joaquín Roy, a writer and political analyst who is the Jean
Monnet Professor and Director of the European Union Center at the University of Miami.
Professor Roy is a law graduate from the University of Barcelona, his native country and is the
author of twenty-five books among them The Reconstruction of Central America: the Role of
the European Community and Cuba and the U.S.: The Helms-Burton Doctrine. I also welcome
him as an avid reader of his columns published in Spain, Latin America, and the United States.
I leave you with Professor Joaquin Roy.
75
JOAQUÍN ROY PH.D.
JEAN MONNET PROFESSOR
DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
“That attitude (of engagement while pushing for improved human rights) summarizes that the
European Union as a whole and most of the member states have an attitude not of regime
change but of constant presence to be able to help, especially during the transition period that
according to most European views has already started.”
I am speaking on my own, as an individual not as a professor of the University of Miami or as
an officer of the European Union, although I will be sharing with you some of the things that
Dr. Buck was going to say (Editor’s note: Karl Buck of the European Union Council of
Ministers was scheduled to appear but had to cancel last minute due to a personal injury). The
third thing that I would like to say is that I am for the embargo and the Helms-Burton law; they
helped me a lot in writing my books. In the preface of my books on the Helms-Burton, I left
out two people to whom I’m really grateful—Senator Helms and Fidel Castro. One is gone,
but I still have the other.
I could subdivide my presentation into three small parts; one about the European Union,
second about what some of the member states do with the Cuba and the United States, and
third - one specific country. I could do this in a more elaborate way and try to go through the
dozens of declarations and actions decided by the Council of the European Union, also known
as the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, and the European Union
Parliament—not to be confused with the Council of Europe.
The amazing thing, in spite of what you are reading in the press; that the European Union is
divided or is being divided sometimes by the United States—old Europe, new Europe—it’s
amazingly united on the issue of Cuba. Attitudes and perceptions of that whole body called the
European Union on the relationship between the United States and Cuba, or only on Cuba, are
significantly coherent and solid.
I have here materials that you can pick up for your inspection. But I will summarize them into
three parts. First, I quote, “the United States has enacted laws that purport to regulate activities
of persons under the jurisdiction of the member states of the European Union. This
extraterritorial application violates international law and has adverse effects on the interests of
the European Union.” This is not today. That was said in 1996 and it is a Council regulation
equal to a federal law of the United States.
Second, if Cuba wishes to receive a favorable treatment through a cooperation agreement it
must show progress in the democratic process. It was not said after Fidel Castro did what he
did in April (Editor’s note: the Cuban political crackdown in 2003), but it belongs to the
Common Position of the European Union approved in 1996 that conditions any kind of
cooperation agreements to issues of human rights and democracy.
“The European Union condemns the repeated violations of human rights in Cuba, in particular
in the political field. The EU believes that the U.S. embargo against Cuba is primarily a matter
that has to be resolved bilaterally.” That was not said yesterday, not in April, but in 1994 and
belongs to the explanation of votes in the United Nations before the approval of the HelmsBurton law.
76
In summary, the European Union is collectively against the embargo and, of course, the laws
codifying the embargo. Second, there is a solid record of putting pressure on Cuba in the field
of human rights through several measures like freezing a cooperation agreement since 1996,
putting conditions on membership of Cuba in the ACP countries and the benefits of Lomé and
the successor of the Cotonou Agreement.
Third, a constant solid record of criticizing Cuba at the United Nations Human Rights
Commission at Geneva—in contrast to the constant contradiction and ambivalence record of
the Latin American countries that sometimes abstain and at other times vote in favor. The
fifteen members of the European Union vote in unison and the ten candidate members,
although there is no law that forces them to do this, do exactly the same.
Finally, there is a constant record of engagement with Cuba, but that has been passing through
an evolution from a period of constant persuasion of Cuba into a state of frustration because
there is no change, leading into a final stage, which probably describes the attitude today, of
irritation. But this never ceases the policy which is called constructive engagement with Cuba.
All this can be seen in all those measures, declarations and actions that can be reviewed in
various documents. That attitude summarizes that the European Union as a whole and most of
the member states have an attitude not of regime change but of constant presence to be able to
help, especially during the transition period, that according to most European views, has
already started. If we analyze some of the member states individually then we would see that
some of them take a more active attitude either in trade or in pressuring human rights, etc, than
others. But in general, they are in tune with the common policy.
Finally, the specific case of Spain, the country I know best, would require more study. There
has been enough talk today about newcomers. Of course, we would never accept Spaniards to
be called newcomers on a Cuban issue. By the way, we were there first—not only in Florida,
but in Cuba too. I always said here in Miami, that the problem with Cuba today is that they
decided too early to leave Spain. I think that two or three decades under the crown of Spain
would have been a lot of help.
For Spain, Cuba is not a normal country. Cuba under Batista was not a typical dictatorship and
the Castro regime now is not a Caribbean Bulgaria. All this goes back many years. You can
find this in normal popular language. In Spain, when someone has a loss in the family or a loss
in business, Spaniards say, “no te preucupes, más se perdió en Cuba” which means “This is
nothing to compare with what we lost in Cuba.”
This goes back to the era of what was supposed to be the end of the colonial linkage. Years
ago when I came to this country, I discovered what in Spain is called “the Guerra Cuba” in
which my grandfather was sent to fight (and fortunately survived), is called the “SpanishAmerican War” in the United States. How arrogant! It was a quarrel between Spaniards in
Cuba and Cubans in Cuba. Later on, I discovered that in Spanish historiography it is also
called “el disaster,” which I think fits much better.
Cuba, for Spain over the century is not a colonial nostalgia, it is a human relationship. I will
share two facts with you. The first is that 250,000 soldiers were sent to Cuba five years before
the end of the colonial linkage. Historians today managed to unearth records and they
discovered that they were not accounted as killed, injured or deserted—more than 100,000
77
stayed in Cuba. Some of you are laughing, but you may be descendants of them. This is what
is called constructive engagement through the century.
The second fact: there is no other example in the history of mankind and especially in modern
times, that after a colonial dispute when the metropolis was kicked out and later more people
from the former metropolis go to the former colony. It never happened except in the case of
Spain and Cuba.
That was even encouraged by the Cuban government by an official policy called “blanca
amiento.” In other words, someone thought that there were too many blacks and mulattos, so
that the remedio was to encourage the immigration of more Spaniards. The problem is that
most of them were gallegos. That probably explains the relationship between Franco and
Castro.
In 1960, as some of you might recall, the Spanish Ambassador Lojendio incensed because
Fidel Castro on live television insulted Spain by claiming that Spain was doing something
against the regime, went on TV and called Fidel Castro un mentiroso. This is the only case in
history that Fidel Castro had to endure live on TV, en vivo y en directo, being called un
mentiroso. Of course the result was that he was expelled.
Lojendio thought that he was going to arrive in Madrid as a hero, and guess what happened:
Franco sent him to a bureaucratic position for a year and a half and told him indirectly “mire,
digale a Lojendio que con Cuba, todo, excepto romper.” This is rather a strange relationship
that explains a lot of things in the sense that the relationship between Cuba and Spain is not as
those with the United States and other countries.
More recently we see quarrels between Spain and the Cuban government, which can also be
summarized by another popular Spanish expression that some of you know that is reduced to a
simple “follón.” It’s a follón de baja intensidad, a low intensity quarrel. In more recent times,
that has been simultaneously done with a política de inversión: investment, and this is exactly
where we are, and of course irritating the United States, in recent years, after the subsidies of
the Soviet Union disappeared.
The situation we are in is a repeat of more of the same in the sense that the insults given by
Fidel Castro against the Prime Minister of Spain, who was called first cabellerito, then little
führer with bigotito (mustache), and that’s not a novelty because some years ago Fidel Castro
referred to the 12th of October as “ una fecha infausta inefausta.” He called the president of the
Congress of deputies of Spain “un facista inpresentable,” he called the Foreign Minister of
Spain more of the same with of course the result confirming the policy of constant engagement.
The response from Spain has been to keep it cool and not be provoked.
The polemic between a portion of the exiles and the Cuban government, etc., talking about the
Franco times reminds me a little bit, it could be illustrated a little bit by an expression used
very often in the first times of the transition in Spain, the political transition. At that time, the
ultra-right said, “With Franco, we used to live better.” Con Franco, vivíamos mejor. Some
months later, in the first real elections, the Communists started saying, “Against Franco, we
used to live better.” In other words they had more power clandestinely than in real elections.
I think that today, there are a lot of sectors in Miami that say they fear the time that they are
going to say “Against Castro, we used to live better.” And I think that in Cuba, there is a
78
person that is fearing the time that he or his successor will say, “Against the U.S. embargo, we
used to live better.” This is my opinion, and I would say, let’s help them both to say this very
soon. Thank you very much.
JOHN MCAULIFF
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FUND FOR RECONCILIATION AND DEVELOPMENT
“Even at the point the U.S. ended its embargo, Vietnam was still largely a command economy,
dominated by state enterprises and centralized bureaucratic controls.”
Immediately before coming to this Summit, I participated in a two-day conference in
Washington on the “Future of Relations Between Vietnam and the United States.” It was
opened by Vietnam’s Foreign Minister Nguyen Dy Nien and closed by Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly.
Vietnamese participants included the vice chair of the External Relations Committee of the
National Assembly; and representatives of the Ministries of Trade, Foreign Affairs, Public
Security, and Defense, as well as of the ruling Communist Party. On the American side were
present the U.S. Ambassador to Hanoi, Congressional staff, and representatives of the Defense
Department, the business community, non-governmental organizations, foundations, and
educational institutions.
Today, the U.S. is the largest purchaser of Vietnamese exports, totaling $4 billion this year;
and the largest source of tourists except for China, an immediate neighbor. The goal of the
conference, in the words of Vietnam’s Foreign Minister, was to “put in place a practical and
strategic foundation for our partnership in many years to come.”
Twenty-eight years ago a war ended that took the lives of 56,000 Americans and more than
2,000,000 Vietnamese. It left the U.S. deeply divided after the most profound fracture of our
body politic since the Civil War.
Until nine years ago the U.S. enforced a rigid economic embargo against Vietnam,
implemented zealously by some of the same people who lead OFAC (The Department of
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control) today. The U.S. and Vietnam did not have
diplomatic relations until eight years ago. We did not exchange ambassadors until six years
ago when Floridian, former Congressman, and former prisoner of war Pete Peterson took
office.
What happened? Has Vietnam stopped being Communist? Has it become a multiparty
democracy? Does it allow public opposition to its political system, in person, in the press or on
the internet? No, none of the above. What happened was that during the first Bush
administration the two governments began to see the futility and mutual disadvantage of noncommunication and non-cooperation. President Bush was blocked from making much concrete
progress by Republicans, still embittered by the loss of the war (such as Henry Kissinger), but
he did end travel restrictions in 1991 and laid the bipartisan foundation on which President
Clinton built the structures of normalization.
79
The process required compromise on both sides, and a lowering of the rhetorical temperature,
but it did not require a change in the political or economic system of either country or do
damage to their self-perceived national interests. Vietnam had to cooperate with the
emotionally charged task of the resolution of some 2,600 cases of American military missing in
action (MIA) even while it had little ability to accommodate domestic demands for the
accounting of at least ten times that number of Vietnamese MIAs. (While Americans care
strongly about securing our war dead, the treatment of remains within Vietnamese culture has
even greater significance because of religious reverence for ancestors.)
MIA identification and retrieval was accomplished through the permanent stationing of U.S.
military teams in Hanoi and exhaustive joint searches of crash sights for remains and secret
military archives for information. The Vietnamese received more than adequate compensation
for the use of their helicopters and labor force. More importantly, they obtained official U.S.
acknowledgement that Vietnam too had humanitarian needs created by the war and
subsequently some financial assistance for children and other victims.
Vietnam was also required by the “road map” to normalization to withdraw its remaining
military forces from Cambodia. However, that posed no problem because Vietnam had
accomplished its goal of eliminating the threat posed by the Khmer Rouge and was in the
process of reaching an accommodation with the Khmer Rouge’s primary ally China.
What did the U.S. give up? Fundamentally American leaders lost the emotional and political
satisfaction of punishing Vietnam for winning the war through a largely unilateral economic
embargo (does that sound familiar?) and partial political isolation. U.S. officials also had to be
willing, based on Vietnamese cooperation on the real issue of MIA remains, to walk away from
the fervent belief among some veterans and conservatives that Hanoi still held living prisoners
of war (POWs).
This process of mutual accommodation was assisted by a change in the international political
situation. The transformation of the Soviet Union into the weakened Russian Federation meant
that the U.S. no longer received strategic advantage from using Cambodia and Vietnam to
inflame the conflict between the Soviets and Chinese. Moreover, the withdrawal of
Vietnamese forces from Cambodia in 1998 and the subsequent Paris Agreement were already
opening the door to trade, investment and stronger political ties of Vietnam with Europe,
Japan, and its neighbors in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Vietnam had also made a fundamental internal decision at the Sixth Party Congress in 1986, a
year before the end of the Soviet Union, to move away from a command economy and to enter
the capitalist world market. It carefully introduced small-scale private enterprise at the family
level, in both urban and rural settings. The most dramatic result was that in a year or two
Vietnam went from a country with food shortages and pockets of starvation to the third largest
rice exporter in the world.
It should be noted that at no point did the Communist Party contemplate giving up its
monopoly on political power and leadership, although it did strive with some success through
the economic reforms and a process of “doi moi,” or renovation, to restore its credentials and
popularity with the people and party members. It is also important to recognize that in the
initial years of reform strenuous and sometimes paradoxical efforts were made to fit changes
into the official ideological rhetoric of Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh thought.
80
The process of change in the U.S. owes much to the election of the first President who had
been part of the anti-war movement, although he had not been a leader or even a prominent
activist. Bill Clinton moved quickly through the stages of normalization of relations beginning
with the end of the embargo soon after taking office, and ending with the signing of a bilateral
trade agreement and official visit to Vietnam shortly before the end of his second term. In this
process, he received indispensable assistance from Vietnam War veterans in the Congress.
Some like Senator John Kerry had been part of the veterans’ movement against the war; others
like Senator McCain had not. But for a variety of reasons, they wanted the kind of closure on
their war time experience that could only come from ending the hostile atmosphere that still
existed between the U.S. and Vietnam.
Only a few veterans in Congress opposed normalization, although some supporters justified
their position on the familiar grounds that opening the door would inevitably lead to a free
market and political change within Vietnam and in that sense a kind of victory for the U.S.
While some leaders in Vietnam echoed China’s warning of an American plot to achieve
peaceful evolution, others saw normalization as an affirmation of their success in achieving Ho
Chi Minh’s dictum that, “Nothing is more precious than independence and freedom.”
The process of normalization received important support from U.S. based multinational
corporations that did not wish to be closed out of the thirteenth largest country in the world.
U.S. NGOs also played a noteworthy role with public opinion in both countries. Their style of
work allayed suspicion within Vietnam as they carried out a growing number of programs of
humanitarian and development assistance and helped to humanize the Vietnamese to skeptical
Americans.
Vietnamese-Americans were divided about normalization. The official position of their
newspapers and political and social organizations was largely against reconciliation between
their adopted and native countries, but in practice many Vietnamese were already coming to
terms with separation from their homeland.
During the first two decades after the refugee arrival in the U.S., violence had been directed
against members of the community who advocated normalization. However, that largely
dissipated as more and more Vietnamese visited home and Vietnam’s government made
greater efforts to establish positive contact with them. Today Vietnamese Americans form the
largest segment of the stream of U.S. tourists. They are investing in small and large
businesses.
Vietnamese Americans are moving home after retirement. Their children and grandchildren
are rediscovering their roots and finding jobs with foreign companies where bilingual bicultural
skills are very welcome.
The process of normalization between Vietnam and the U.S. has been multidimensional. In
addition to diplomatic ties that included an exchange of trade offices and military attachés, the
U.S. has had a very active Fulbright scholarship program that predated full establishment of
relations. Many American educational institutions have links with Vietnamese counterparts
and there are some 2,500 Vietnamese studying in the U.S. today.
Economic evolution in Vietnam was gradual and saw both advances and retreats. The political
and economic atmosphere outside the country played a role in the process, but more significant
was Vietnam’s commitment to remain in control of the process of change. Having paid such a
high price to achieve national independence and freedom, they were not about to see their
country dominated by foreign investors and corporations.
81
The late 80’s were a period of experimentation, learning by doing, and gradual broadening of
the realm of market economics. Even at the point the U.S. ended its embargo, Vietnam was
still largely a command economy, dominated by state enterprises and centralized bureaucratic
controls. While the foreign investment code was in theory quite liberal, practice lagged far
behind. Foreign companies could only enter the Vietnamese market in cumbersome joint
venture arrangements. Many individual entrepreneurs from the U.S. as well as large
companies jumped into Vietnam only to find their expectations frustrated by cultural and
institutional barriers. Some withdrew in the late 90’s. Others stayed and eventually prospered.
The Vietnamese learned from both failures and successes, responded to criticisms from
international business, and extended to indigenous companies the same legal rights afforded to
foreigners.
Vietnam only completed a law providing an adequate legal framework for local business in the
year 2000, but the National Assembly enacted it in close consultation with the emerging
private sector. Today Vietnam has over 30,000 private companies and they are acknowledged
by the government as the primary source of economic growth and job creation. Inefficient
state enterprises are being shut down or liquidated. Vietnam’s economy is growing at a steady
and impressive rate, and it is seen as the success story of Southeast Asia.
There are also substantial changes within Vietnam’s civil society and political institutions that
parallel and may be responsive to changes in political and economic relationships with other
countries. Domestic NGOs, the press, personal freedom, election reform, and the role of the
national assembly are all evolving positively in a Vietnamese way. This is not to say that
Vietnam is without problems domestically or in its bilateral relations with the U.S.. The two
countries have obvious disagreements about political systems and concepts of human rights.
The U.S. House of Representatives has adopted “human rights” legislation that Vietnam finds
an unacceptable interference in its internal affairs. While the practice of religion is completely
free in Vietnam, the social and political role of religious institutions and leadership is regulated
and supervised. This prompts harsh criticism from conservatives and evangelicals in the U.S.
Vietnam has more Catholic bishops today than at any time in its history, but is angry at the
Vatican for appointing a cardinal without prior consultation.
However both sides at the conference I attended in Washington expressed amazement at how
far and how fast the relationship between the U.S. and Vietnam had progressed. While
government to government partnership today is more aspiration than reality, it is not
impossible to envision. Needless to say the whole process offers intriguing hints of what could
develop between the U.S. and Cuba if the current irrationality, fear, distrust, and boneheadedness on both sides were put to rest.
Last but not least the Honorable Mark Entwistle who was the former Canadian Ambassador to
Cuba from 1993 to 1997, and is currently finishing a major book on Cuba for Penguin Books.
Ambassador Entwistle was the key negotiator for the bilateral relationship that put human
rights, transparent government, and law reform on the agenda for the first time between his
country and Cuba. Ambassador Entwistle guided all elements of the delicate relationship with
Cuba under the observant eye of Washington, including political, commercial and security
relations. Described as a tireless negotiator, he is currently Vice President of International and
Government Affairs at ExecAdvice Corporation. I leave you with Ambassador Entwistle.
82
THE HON. MARK ENTWISTLE
FORMER CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO CUBA
“If Canada was to withdraw in reaction to those aspects of authoritarianism on the island we
did not like, we would also repudiate what there is to support in Cuban society. The fact that
Castro's Cuba as a developing country even survives without any access to the many billions of
donor dollars from international financial institutions, nor to large-scale credit from
commercial lenders, defies the odds and demands some respect.”
History and geography have made Canada's policy toward Fidel Castro's Cuba a particular
construction quite unlike that of the United States, Spain or the Latin Americans. Canada has
its own two-century old relationship with Cuba, where, for example, Canadian banks helped
finance the sugar industry and had scores of branches across the island before 1959. The
historic presence provides current legitimacy.
Yet, at the same time, Canada has no former colonial relationship - economically, politically or
culturally. It is not Spanish speaking and is a North American culture. In this sense, it is
naturally more neutral.
In terms of objectives, the contemporary Canadian approach to Cuba is not dissimilar to the
basic goals of most other friends and allies - to pursue better protection for human and political
rights in Cuba and to facilitate its successful integration in the world economy while
recognizing its sovereignty.
Where Canada differs fundamentally from the policy and attitude of successive U.S.
governments is that it views the Castro government as legitimate under international law until
such time as the Cuban people themselves decide to change it. According legal legitimacy is
not synonymous with support or agreement, but trumps it. Canada's focus is not on Fidel
Castro but rather the safe and successful transition after Castro - the future, not the past.
Four principal features characterize, in my view, the complexion of Canadian Cuba policy.
Firstly, it is an expression of interests, but at several different levels. In the international
relations sense, Canada has an abiding national interest in the stability of Cuba and, in more
practical and immediate terms, in ensuring the best possible prospects for a peaceful and
orderly transition to a post-Castro life for the country.
A collapse scenario accompanied by violence would create a crisis for global security and,
especially in the event of any military intervention by the United States, wreak havoc on hardfought progress in hemispheric cooperation and integration in the Americas. The best way to
help stabilize transition is to be there, to know the political players, both real and potential, to
understand the dynamics of the situation with a clear eye.
In the arena of politics, every Canadian government of the day has an abiding domestic
political interest in demonstrating to the Canadian public its willingness to protect sovereignty
and the independence of its foreign policy, especially in the often over-sensitive atmosphere of
the relationship with the United States. Cuba policy allows the Canadian government of the
day to claim when required that it walks the walk. Canada's Cuba policy is, therefore, in a
limited but real way also a function and aspect of its U.S. policy.
Partly for this reason, there are no formal bilateral consultations between the United States and
Canada on Cuba, as there are with a number of other interested countries; the Government of
83
Canada is quite content to keep distance from the U.S. on Cuba. The other part of the reason
for no bilateral consultations on Cuba is who in their right mind , would of their own free will,
ask to be lectured and chastised? The more formal the circumstance, the more aggressive the
message from the State Department.
This is a shame because there is much of value both countries could contribute constructively
toward an approach to a Cuban future that puts first the interests of the Cuban people.
The second feature of the Canadian approach lies in recognition of the complexity of the
Cuban reality. For those who know contemporary Cuba, everything and nothing is possible
simultaneously. Contradiction exists without questioning and is even celebrated as further
proof of cubanía to a degree that baffles more linear-thinking foreigners.
The good, the bad and the ugly all cohabit. Violations of basic civil and political rights exist
alongside universal literacy and recognized world leadership in family medicine. There are
political prisoners, but there is also a Cuban-style political correctness among the leadership
class that keeps them in blue jeans and Ladas and as connected with their communities as any
politician in Canada.
If Canada was to withdraw in reaction to those aspects of authoritarianism on the island we did
not like, we would also repudiate what there is to support in Cuban society. The fact that
Castro's Cuba as a developing country even survives without any access to the many billions of
donor dollars from international financial institutions, nor to large-scale credit from
commercial lenders, defies the odds and demands some respect.
Thirdly, Canadian policy reflects an assumption of consistency. There are numerous
governments with which Canada disagrees on issues or does not share values, but maintains a
relationship because we recognize the state itself and have an investment in its people. For
example, Canada is having a difficult spat with Iran right now but keeps its lines of
communication open as a matter of principle. If the default position were not to withdraw from
other countries, why would we do so in Cuba? The Canadian people have shown no
inclination to abandon their relationship with Cubans on the island.
One of the few exceptions to Canada's instinct to stay on the ground was apartheid South
Africa, but, in that case, the black South African community -- the victims themselves -- asked
us to impose sanctions because of the egregious degree of the moral evil. This is certainly not
the case in Cuba, and in fact Cubans on the island - from the leadership of the Cuban Catholic
Church to most political opponents of Fidel Castro - have asked Canada explicitly to stay the
course and not isolate them.
Lastly, the Canadian approach is characterized by a much lower "emotionality quotient" on the
question of Castro's Cuba. Certain Cuban actions, such as the harsh imprisonment of the 75
dissidents in March, offend Canadian values and cause government-to-government relations to
cool in response.
For example also, the failure of the 1998 visit to Havana by the Canadian Prime Minister
chilled the official relationship for four years until recently. But these decisions are taken
primarily on policy grounds and after quite cold-eyed assessments of national interest, and far
from the hurly-burly of daily partisan politics. This is quite different from the case in the
United States, or in Spain, or even in Mexico, where family connection and history, domestic
84
politics, sentiments of Latin fraternity and even leftover ideological dreams combine in a
sometimes volatile but always emotional mix. The net result for Canada is a naturally and
comparatively a more neutralist perspective.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question: Does the European Union’s political conflict with Cuba have any repercussions on
trade investment with Cuba? The media interpreted recent Italian and Spanish actions within
the European Union as a call for a European embargo against Cuba. Is that correct? What
chances does it have to succeed?
Joaquín Roy: I don’t think there’s going to be an effect on trade. There is an effect on
diplomatic relations.
Question: Can you elaborate on any examples of political or economic reforms resulting from
concrete European Union policy of constructive engagement?
Joaquín Roy: You would have to ask the people in Cuba. I think this is one problem we have;
there are no surveys as to how the people in Cuba have been affected by this constructive
engagement.
Question: For many years Canada over-charged Cuba for goods sold to the island. Now that a
more competitive market exists, why hasn’t Canada contributed humanitarian aid?
Ambassador Entwistle: That’s an interesting one. I have no idea what the questioner is
asking about “overcharged.” Trade is done under market conditions and the price is paid. I’ll
tell you one thing, the Cubans are extremely astute commercial businessmen. They’re pricedriven as well because of the cash flow. The Cubans don’t over-pay for anything, and in fact if
anything, they would nickel and dime a supplier to death to get the best deal, so I would
challenge the premise on that. And in terms of humanitarian aid, we of course have a large
program of our international development agency which works in Cuba that was reestablished
a number of years ago after a 20-year absence. We do a heck of a lot of work in Cuba and put
a fair amount of work in there as well as the non-state players, the churches and Canadians are
very involved there on humanitarian grounds.
Patricia Gutiérrez Menoyo: We still have six questions but we are pressed for time so we are
going to have to cut it here.
John McAuliff: Could I say one more thing on a parallel? As significant as problems may be
in Vietnam having to do with human rights, or in China, no U.S. ambassador would have
behaved the way James Cason did in Cuba in the last year. And as much as I think the ultimate
and principal responsibility for what happened with the arrests, either Cason was incredibly
naïve, incredibly stupid, or deliberately provocative, and there are 75 people sitting in prison
because of what he did.
85
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. WILLIAM LEOGRANDE, PH.D.
DEAN, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
“A policy originally designed to isolate Cuba from the international system now isolates the United States.”
I’d like the thank all of the organizations and people who put this conference together. The
role of the closing speaker is to recap the highlights of the conference and to draw conclusions
from the wealth of information that we’ve heard over the course of the day and to do it quickly
since people have been sitting for a very long time listening to all of our panels.
It seems to me there were two recurrent themes that we could really see throughout every panel
that we’ve heard today. The first was why U.S. policy ought to change and the second was
how that change could be brought about. That is to say we’ve talked about both policy and the
policy debate and we’ve talked about politics and the nitty-gritty of how one brings about a
political shift.
The reasons the policy ought to change are manifest and well-known and all I’m going to do is
run through a quick catalog of them because I suspect that all of you could do this just as easily
and quickly as I.
Cuba no longer poses a significant national security threat to the United States as General
Sheehan explained to us this morning.
The embargo has been an ineffective instrument of U.S. policy in terms of bringing about
change in the Cuban government even though we’ve had it in place now for forty-five years.
No U.S. ally supports the current policy of hostility.
A policy originally designed to isolate Cuba from the international system now isolates the
United States.
And finally, the policy harms ordinary people in both countries; it impinges on the right of
Americans to travel and do business in Cuba; it suppresses the standard of living of ordinary
Cubans by hurting the economy; and it divides, as it has for forty-five years, Cuban families on
both sides of the straits.
These are compelling arguments for change in policy, so compelling in fact that we’re called
upon to ask, “why hasn’t the policy changed in forty-five years?” And the answer, of course,
we know, is that second theme that we’ve talked about today: it’s the politics of this issue.
And in particular it’s the ability of the most conservative wing of the Cuban-American
community to monopolize the policy debate until recently.
For years, they convinced official Washington that they alone spoke for Cuban-Americans.
It’s no wonder that they don’t want any newcomers to this debate. But times change.
Today, thanks to the hard work of many of the people who have spoken today and many of the
people in this audience, the political diversity of the Cuban-American community has become
clear.
We know from the polls that have been taken that a majority of Cuban-Americans favor free
travel to Cuba. We know that a majority of Cuban-Americans favor the right to send
remittances to family members on the island. We know that most Cuban-Americans now
86
would prefer to see some sort of process of dialogue leading to peaceful change on the island,
rather than a continuation of U.S. policy of hostility that denies economic resources not just to
the Cuban government, but to every single Cuban on the island.
Changing the politics of this issue and in particular, changing official Washington’s view of the
political status of the Cuban-American community is a political precondition for changing U.S.
policy.
We can have the very best policy arguments in the world, but as several people have said over
the course of the day, if the politics of this issue are bad for members of Congress or for
Presidents of the United States, the policy is not going to change. The political work that
people in this community do is absolutely essential to changing U.S. policy towards Cuba.
There are two other important political dynamics at work besides the politics of CubanAmericans, and we’ve heard about those today as well. First, there’s a growing interest in
doing business with Cuba. That’s why Congress lifted the embargo on the sales of food and
medicine, and that’s why Congress has voted repeatedly to lift the ban on travel, and that of
course is due to the very good work of Congressman Delahunt and the Cuba Working Group.
Second, there has been an enormous growth in people-to-people contact, and I believe that that
contact has created a political constituency in the United States that favors a change in U.S.
policy on humanitarian and on human grounds, as James Early described to us earlier today.
I think it’s an irony that a policy put in place in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the
Soviet Union, a policy put in place with the hope that it would create a constituency in Cuba
for change, has in fact created a constituency in the United States for a change in policy.
That’s why the Bush administration is working today to make it harder for Americans to travel
to Cuba, and I think that’s a shame, because, as José Latour said this morning, there is no better
ambassador we could send to Cuba than the American people.
So in short, the policy arguments favor a change in U.S. policy, and the politics of the issue are
realigning in a positive way.
I’d like to end on a personal note. Unlike many of you, I don’t have family in Cuba, but in
studying and writing about Cuba over the past thirty years, I’ve come to know many Cubans,
and I know the hardship that they’ve endured, especially in recent years.
The purpose of the United States embargo is to damage the Cuban economy, to retard its
recovery from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of the socialist camp. It
is to make life more difficult for ordinary Cubans in the hope that this will feed the end of Fidel
Castro’s rule. I think that is a morally reprehensible policy. It’s a policy unworthy of a great
nation and it’s a policy that has to be changed.
It’s been a great pleasure for me to participate in this conference today, a conference which has
brought together so many people, both old-timers and newcomers, determined to forge a new
policy toward Cuba, a better relationship between not just our two governments, but more
importantly, between our two peoples.
Thank you all very much for coming.
87
MIKHAIL GORBACHEV KEYNOTE ADDRESS
INTRODUCTION: MICHAEL PUTNEY
ABC TELEVISION NETWORK NEWS ANCHOR, MIAMI
Good evening. Let me take a moment, if I may, to salute Silvia Wilhelm and Puentes Cubanos,
Cambio Cubano, and all the groups that are cosponsors of the second National Summit on Cuba.
I know, and my colleagues standing across from me in the media know that most, if not all of you
attending this, are not newcomers to the issue of Cuba. (applause)
On a piece that appeared a short time ago on Channel 10 General Sheehan responded to that in
fact as he had eloquently this morning and I know, as indeed my brothers and sisters in the press
know, that your discussion here this second year is an important, I would even say, a critical part
of the dialogue that is going to help formulate U.S. Cuba policy in the future.
First let me say, on each of the tables there are pads of paper and pencils and I know that every
one of you has a question for President Gorbachev. I know that as we had dinner we all had
questions and our conversation was fascinating. It is a privilege for me to introduce Mikhail
Gorbachcv this evening.
We are all affected by history. Very few of us change history. Mikhail Gorbachev changed
history. (applause) Without him the Cold War would not have been ended I think. He put a
human face on Communism. He taught the west and entered into our lexicon Perestroika and
Glasnost. And I’d like to say this conference is a welcome blast of Glasnost in our community.
One of my memorable conversations with one of my heroes, the late congressman Dante Fassel
of Miami, was about Mikhail Gorbachev. When he was the chairman of the house Foreign
Relations Committee he returned from I think his first visit to Moscow to meet with Mr.
Gorbachev. And Dante, if you knew him, in his own exuberant way he said, “Mike, this is a great
guy, a great guy. I said to Gorby one time, I said Gorby, you’re’ just doing the right thing.” And
the seal of approval from Dante Fassel, Mr. President, was good enough for me.
When Mr. Gorbachev resigned in 1991 he said in his resignation speech this: “The country
received freedom, was liberated politically and spiritually and that’s the most important
achievement.” Perhaps this evening, Mr. President you can give us, Washington and Havana and
our community a blueprint for Cuba to achieve its freedom. Please welcome Mikhail Gorbachev.
MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
I have to be sure whether my assistant, my advisor, Pavel Palazhchenko is here for the
translation. I have a number of people always with me who speak English and that is in order
to be sure like President Reagan said, “Trust but verify.”
Good evening, the National Summit on Cuba is an extremely interesting and unique event.
The fact that this Summit is taking place for a second time indicates that it is generating ideas,
that it is raising issues that it is inviting for consultation and discussion on these very
important, urgent issues various people. I think the fact that it is happening at all is another
sign of change, of change in the world and, as was said at the beginning, this Summit may be
an example of Glasnost in America.
88
Well, I always thought that in America there was a lot of Glasnost. I have recently written an
article that was published in an Italian Newspaper and that article was about America and it
said America needs its own Perestroika. And this is something I believe; the emphasis is its
own not just Perestroika. Not our Perestroika. It’s your Perestroika. That is to say responding
to change - change in the world.
The world is changing and we too must change. The biggest contradiction is that the
developments in the world are out-pacing politics. Politics is lagging behind the events. Too
many mistakes are being made and we have to pay the price for those mistakes.
That is why, recently, together with a number of political leaders last May, I created the World
Political Forum. The World Political Forum whose goal is to discuss global developments and
the role of politics and policy makers in a global world in which we are living, in which we are
learning to live and in which we are learning to manage. And of course we have to.
We cannot ignore those problems those issues, those conflicts that we inherited from the past,
that we inherited from the Cold War, that we inherited from the confrontation in which we
lived for decades. Among those issues are issues of particular importance today. I would in
particular mention the situation in the Middle East. That conflict, which despite the peace
process that President Bush and I inaugurated in Madrid in 1991, this peace process which after
some initial steps, after developing its first successes, is now stalling and the results of that
slow down are a lot of tragedies in that region and beyond it.
One of the conflicts that is the legacy of the past or, let us put it this way, a conflict situation
that we inherited from the past, is all that relates to the Cuban embargo, all that related to the
blockade of Cuba. This is not an easy issue. I would like first to talk about the historical
background. I would like to recall some discussions that I as the Soviet leader and the United
States leader had on this problem. Here in this city of Miami, which I have visited on several
occasions, I was often asked what I thought of Cuban-U.S. relations.
So let me first go to the historical background, and that is 1989, December 1989, when I first
had a meeting in Malta with President George Bush. It was on that occasion that we shook
hands and announced that we no longer regarded our countries as enemies. This was the
statement that ended the Cold War. It was the symbolic end of the Cold War.
Before the beginning of our negotiations, the President asked me to have a one-on-one talk. So
we went to a separate room and we talked in the presence of just two persons, General
Scowcroft and my international affairs advisor. At that time the civil war in Nicaragua and in
El Salvador was still on and we supported different sides. At that time we agreed that we
would stop arms supplies because our own Cold War had ended.
In that same conversation George Bush talked to me of Cuba. He asked me: What do you
need Cuba for? You are spending six billion dollars a year for Cuba. You need that money for
reforms in your own country. And Fidel Castro is actually criticizing you. He is criticizing
Perestroika. Your assistance, your position on Cuba are irritants for the American people, an
irritant in the attitude of the American People toward the Soviet Union.
I answered that, first of all, we helped Cuba. We continued to help Cuba because of the
embargo. I said people need to survive there so that is why we are helping.
89
Secondly, I said Cuba is making-up for our assistance by the supplies of products such as
sugar, citrus, fruit, nickel and some other raw materials. Of course this is less than what we
spend, but that’s why we call it assistance, that’s why we call it aid.
Thirdly, I said, we have begun to reconsider our economic relations with Cuba and also with
the countries of Eastern Europe and with the Third World. We are gradually putting them on a
regular commerce basis.
And finally the most important thing I said was, “George, you are misinterpreting our political
relationship with Cuba.” I said, “Fidel Castro is not our puppet. He never was a puppet. He is
a sovereign and independent political figure. He has never asked for any directions from me or
my predecessors and he would reject any directions from us. Our relationship and his
dependence on us is purely economic as a result of the embargo. People do not have enough to
eat. Therefore Castro takes it from where he can. And of course,” I said, “our relationship was
mostly dictated by the logic of the Cold War.”
George Bush agreed that Castro was no longer a puppet. After all, he refused to accept the
same course as the USSR.
I also shared with the President impressions from my visit to Cuba a few months before. My
impression was that Fidel was inclined to look for a way to normalize relations with the United
States. He understood that the world was changing and that he too had to change.
President Bush said that he would think about it, but again he said and I quote: “There is a
great emotional rejection of this dictator on the part of the Cuban community in southern
Florida.”
So my signal after all was not pursued. But it is very important to recall the context in which
that conversation between me and the U.S. president took place. The context was the end of the
Cold War and of course the United States had normalized its relationship with China with
Vietnam, with the Eastern European countries, with all of those who were involved in that
great confrontation. But Cuba remained a problem for the United States.
I understand that Cuba, for the United States, is a special case. But certainly the time has come
after more than 40 years to change things. I cannot accept that Cuba today would be a threat to
U.S. national security. And actually the U.S. Department of Defense recognized in 1991 that
Cuba was no threat to the United States. The Cuban problem as an international problem was a
result of the Cold War. But unlike other countries involved in the U.S.-Soviet confrontation,
Cuba was a special case.
We did not incorporate Cuba into the Soviet block by force. The revolution there happened
without us. It was not led by communists. Initially they rejected any alliance with the
communist party of Cuba.
It was a revolution of young members of the intelligencia who were able to fire-up the people
who were resentful of one of the worst dictatorships of that time. And the revolution won
relatively easily because the grapes of wrath against Batista were ripe among the people.
Some people in America did not like it. Let us not go into the details. The diplomatic relation
was broken off and the Bay of Pigs invasion happened. That invasion was defeated, but the
90
hostility that emerged after the revolution became permanent after the Bay of Pigs. By
supporting that action, the Unites States of America took a certain stand. And although we
have seen nine presidents of the United States pass, the situation remains and the attitude
remains the same as at the height of the Cold War.
There was a real threat to the independence of the country and therefore the Cuban government
started to look for support. And that was natural because it was facing a superpower; a small
island republic was facing a superpower. With the Cold War raging, the choice was obvious.
And as soon as that choice was made Cuba became part of a global confrontation.
I would say that it was caught in a global confrontation of the Cold War and during the Cuban
Missile Crisis Cuba came close to becoming a trigger for nuclear war. As part of the blockade
situation and ideologically belonging to the Socialist camp, it was inevitable that Cuba chose
that particular economic and political path.
In order to solidify political links to the USSR, Fidel Castro became a communist. He created
the Communist Party. He announced his commitment to Marxist Leninist ideology. But let
me say, we knew very well that he never became an orthodox communist. Let me remind you
of one example; the attitude of the Cuban government toward the Catholic Church and toward
religion.
The U.S. isolation of Cuba was the main reason for the whole thing developing according to
the logic of revolution, according to the logic of endless irreconcilable struggle in the context
of hostility and mutual intolerance. A number of things happened. A lot of cruelty happened
and I have to say that both sides did certain things. We in the Soviet Union understood that.
But this is all history, recent history, with all its mistakes and injustices and absurd things and
bitterness, expulsions and jails.
Let me say, as an ordinary Russian citizen who is not familiar with behind-the- scenes political
dealings, I cannot understand why Americans had a tolerant attitude toward people like
Samosa, the so-called “Our son of a bitch” as Franklin Roosevelt called him, or Pinochet, or
the Paraguayan dictator Stroessner, and why they so much dislike (to put it mildly) Fidel
Castro as a person, as a leader.
I never knew Pinochet. I cannot regret that I never knew him. But I have spoken with Castro
many times. I would say that our relationship was quite active and friendly. Let me assure you
he doesn’t at all resemble the kind of monster he is depicted as by the propaganda.
Recently, I was told about an international conference that took place recently in Havana, Cuba
to discuss the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The conference was attended by
many Americans, by former military people and by former officials who were involved in that
dangerous episode. In a very friendly way, they participated in that conference, shared their
experiences and had a very good exchange with Russian and Cuban participants, they spent
time together.
This meeting is another proof that one can leave behind conflicts; that one can leave conflicts
behind in history. The world has changed so much.
Fidel Castro spent three days with the participants in that conference. He spoke many times.
He was open to all kinds of contacts. He behaved as an ordinary participant in that conference
91
with no prejudice against the Americans. This is just a detail to characterize that person. I
have many other such details.
So let me tell you that there is something that is even more important. First of all this is a
person with a lot of pride and self esteem and he never, ever allows himself not to keep his
word. He was always a reliable partner in international affairs. I can confirm that whatever he
promised, whatever we agreed, specifically and precisely he always did.
He always followed through, This I saw when we worked together on the international aspects
of the situation in El Salvador, in Nicaragua and in Angola. Our negotiations were with the
United States but because Cuba was involved, we also were talking to the Cubans. Fidel
Castro supported all commitments and he kept those promises.
Also bear in mind that of all the European leaders, Asian leaders and Latin American leaders,
most of them regard him as an interlocutor and a political partner with whom they can deal.
The European countries who have the same values of democracy as the United States have a
comprehensive political and economic relationship with Cuba. Recent worsening of those
relations does not change that fact in principle.
It has becoming increasingly clear today that the time has come to change the relationship
between Cuba and the United States. I am saying this because I am the person who was
involved in the dialogue; who was involved in developing a new relationship between my
country and the United States.
This new relationship has affected the world. We have been able to close the book on
practically all old conflicts. Those discussions that we had with the President of the United
States did encompass Cuba and I always said what I am saying today.
I do not want to interfere either in Cuban affairs or American affairs. But I have the moral right
to say what I am saying and particularly to say this to you at this very important gathering
where you are discussing this problem, which is of such importance for the United States and
for international politics.
I believe that the relationship, the current relationship between Cuba and the United States, is
totally anachronistic. The changes that have occurred in the world in the past twenty years are
truly remarkable. We have left behind the Cold War and the confrontation between two
irreconcilable ideological systems.
The symbol of divided Europe, the Berlin Wall, which Ronald Reagan famously urged me to
tear down in 1987, has long since been destroyed. But one relic of the Cold War remains the
wall of the economic embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba 43 years ago.
The lack of relations between the U.S. and the Cuban Government, enshrined as it is the
unilateral U.S. policy of economic and diplomatic isolation of Cuba, has not allowed for an
understanding that can benefit the citizens of both countries; the citizens of the United States
and the citizens of Cuba.
The burden of isolation of Cuba has been borne by ordinary citizens on both sides of the
Florida straights - the divided Cuban family.
92
Very often I had to respond to the various appeals of the President of the United States to help
the unification of divided families when a part of that family lived in America and another part
of that family lived in the Soviet Union. I received piles of letters from the president, from
congressman etc., and we always helped.
Here again we have a divided family we want to help. To help at a time when the Cold War
has ended, at a time when the world is changing. We recognize that this current situation is
abnormal and that the embargo policy is counter productive and increasingly recognized as
such throughout the world and within the United States. That is my impression.
In this context, I would like to like to recall the visit to Cuba of Pope John Paul II. This visit
symbolized the willingness of the international community to open to Cuba and of Cuba to
open to the world.
Former President Jimmy Carter’s trip to that country was also a significant development.
Many other U.S. political leaders have spoken in favor of normalizing relations and I think that
the only way to get out of this anachronism – out of this time warp -- is to replace the current
U.S. policy with a policy of constructive engagement similar to the one being pursued toward
other so called communist countries.
This view is shared not only by most members of the international community, it has support
by those most effected by the U.S. policy, namely the Cuban people and Cuban Americans in
the United States.
I think that the continuation of the current policy is quite damaging to the United States. If you
look at it from the standpoint of real political leadership, this policy should have been lifted a
long time ago.
I believe that the Cubans and Cuban Americans would benefit most if the United States were to
liberalize its policy starting by opening the door to travel to Cuba.
Let us remember the expanded contacts and exchange agreed to by President Reagan and me at
our 1985 summit in Geneva. The very first meeting in Geneva did very much to increase
mutual understanding between our two countries. So you look at this issue from whatever side
and you see that it’s amazing that this issue still exists. It’s not right – it’s not normal.
Many Cuban-Americans who traditionally backed punitive measures against Cuba are
increasingly calling for dialogue between the two nations. Polls show that most Cuban
Americans would like to take the first steps to heal the wounds of the past 43 years.
I think the leaders of both states should recognize that true courage is demonstrated by a
willingness to engage in a difficult but honest dialogue, to admit mistakes, and to seek common
ground for the good of future generations.
I believe that certain encouraging signs have emerged recently. You know for example that
Cuba is cooperating on issues related to the jailing of Taliban in Guantánamo. You know this
was a very constructive step that made Cuba a member of the coalition against international
terrorism. I have not heard that the United States has expressed its appreciation to Cuba for
this decision of the Cuban government, but this is very important.
93
Also a contract has been concluded to sell food from the United States to Cuba and meat is
being delivered to Cuba and that is a good thing. Tourism to Cuba is becoming a very
prosperous industry and the American Society of Travel Agents is very involved in this
process. Congress in fact has recently voted in favor of free travel to Cuba.
If the president supports free travel we know from surveys that during the very first year one
million Americans could visit Cuba and soon that number would reach five million people a
year. That would be a tremendously important development.
The American National Council of Churches of Christ is working to increase exchanges in
culture and education. And I’ve of course already mentioned Jimmy Carter’s visit. I have read
his letter to your Summit. I believe this is a wonderful letter. It is a very honest, candid and
constructive letter and I believe that it contains a number of important suggestions that your
Summit should bear in mind in trying to build a new relation with Cuba.
I am also familiar, and you of course are also familiar, with the initiative of President Bush for
a New Cuba. Generally, we cannot yet speak about a breakthrough, but we can say some things
are being done; that there is movement in the right direction. When I read of that new initiative
by President Bush - one can see that, even though the political tone of that initiative is totally
unacceptable to the Cuban leadership, there are some positive aspects in that initiative and that
means that the efforts of the Cuban people and the efforts of the Cuban Americans have borne
some fruit.
Let me now mention another aspect. I know from my own experience that incomplete and
selective and particularly distorted information is extremely damaging and dangerous. I am
saying this because it is my impression, from what I know from the U.S. media, that the
American public is not really well informed about what is happening in Cuba.
In the Russian Academy of Sciences we have the Institute of Latin American Studies. The
scholars in that institute are studying Latin America as a whole and also specific countries such
as Cuba. When I was preparing for this trip, when I was preparing for this talk I asked them to
give me information about what’s happening in Cuba today. Cuba has a steady growth of
gross domestic product - at one year eight percent. The factories that were built by Soviet
engineers or with the help of the help of Soviet Union are again working at full scale, including
in areas such as petrochemicals, mining industry, metals, pharmaceuticals, textile, sugar
processing energy, and also the production of agricultural equipment.
It is very important that the Cuban economy is open to the world market, that there are no
obstacles to international trade on the part of Cuba. The Euro will soon become a free floating
currency in Cuba. Companies and banks from Canada, Japan, Germany, Spain, Italy, China,
France, Holland, Mexico and Brazil have formed joint ventures and they invest substantial
amounts of money in different parts of the Cuban economy.
The Cubans are also expanding investments in traditional and new products. In managing their
economy the Cubans are obviously using the experience of China. Again the amazing thing is
that the United States has a tremendously active intensive relationship with China but not with
Cuba. That is a double standard - that’s what I call it - double standard.
I don’t know whether Americans are aware of this growth in the Cuban economy. You
probably know it, you who are sitting here in this room. But I think that this should be borne in
94
mind by the policy makers when you discuss the prospects of relations between the United
States and Cuba.
I can see there is a growing desire in America to change U.S.-Cuban relations for the better.
The fact that you are meeting here for the second time at this Summit conference I believe
shows that there is this willingness to work for improvement.
I believe that the time has come to develop a policy that would reflect new realities. A policy
of constructive engagement with Cuba would make it possible not only to normalize relations
between two neighbors but also improve chances for an evolution in the domestic situation in
Cuba, including creating a different set of conditions for raising human rights issues.
I believe that the embargo makes it possible for those who would like to preserve the
authoritarian regime in Cuba to solidify their position. Imagine yourselves in Fidel Castro’s
shoes. When your close neighbor is so very much against you, you have to mobilize because
you never know what the northern neighbor will one day do or might one day do.
I believe that the Cuban people are the least to blame for this current situation. Their vigor and
tenacity and ability to overcome difficulty and hardships really deserve respect and admiration.
I have a lot of admiration and respect for the Cubans. I believe that the Cuban revolution was a
people’s revolution. It was not imported from anywhere.
The first step is necessary, the first step that would start building a new relationship. A
relationship that would be totally different from the one now. I believe that this first step
should be made by the United States, a great country that can afford to act with respect, to act
with understanding. It should make that first step.
I urge President Bush to take that first step. I am urging President Bush to break the wall of the
embargo, to tear down that wall, to lay the foundation for a new relationship with Cuba, to
make it possible for Cubans on both sides of the straights to extend a hand of friendship to each
other. I believe that should happen. I believe the time for it is now. Thank you.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question: Many people would like to know your view on President George W. Bush and his
administration, on how can we take a first step towards normalizing relations just a few months
after the Castro government has jailed 75 journalists, independent librarians, and political
dissidents, simply for speaking out against the regime?
Mikhail Gorbachev: Well, I believe that this step could have been taken sometime within
these 43 years. Now that this happened a couple of months ago, does that mean that the
embargo should continue forever? I believe that an end to the embargo could well result in the
release of those people. And the Cuban government, I think, could do a number of things,
once the United States takes that first step and lifts the embargo. Actually, I am convinced that
the first step—the lifting of the embargo—should be taken by the powerful nation—by the
United States of America. Perhaps this step should be prepared in a certain way and
discussed, but that is something that I will not go into the detail of because it is up to the
95
Americans and the Cubans to see how this could be best done. The time is good—the time is
right to do it.
Question: With your close understanding of the thinking of President Castro, do you believe
that a Perestroika can begin in Cuba?
Gorbachev: I am convinced that if the embargo is lifted and if Cuba becomes open to relations
with all other countries of the world, then developments in Cuba will go along the path that is
now generally being followed in the world. In the world, generally there is a process of
democratization and I believe that Cuba will be in that mainstream. It has to be a transition—it
cannot be any easy transition. It hasn’t been an easy transition for my country; it hasn’t been
an easy transition for dozens of other countries. And so, any kind of ultimatum saying that we
do something today and tomorrow Cuba should be a totally different kind of country, will not
work. It will not work anywhere, not just in Cuba.
Question: Do you agree that it should be easier for United States citizens to travel to Cuba and
should Cubans be able to travel more freely out of Cuba?
Gorbachev: I believe this is exactly right. I believe that freer travel should have been done a
long time ago. I believe that there is no doubt that this is probably the step that should be taken
even before the most important step. I have no doubt about that.
Question: How much does Russia today correspond to your vision of it in 1991 and had you
been elected President in 1996, what would have been the most important initiative that you
would have undertaken?
Gorbachev: After I stepped down as the President of the Soviet Union, and the Union broke
up, what happened was very different from the gradual step-by-step evolutionary approach that
I believed was good for our country. Instead of that approach, a rather reckless approach was
chosen—shock therapy was chosen as our economic policy. As a result of that, even though it
was not prepared for total openness to the international market, the Russian market was opened
and because most of our industries were not competitive in those markets, they collapsed as a
result of that reckless policy. Today Russia must act, recognizing the realities that we are
dealing with. You cannot rewrite history. But, the goals remain the same—those are the goals
of freedom, democracy, market economy, and openness. The important immediate goal was to
overcome the chaos that resulted from the 10 years of the rule of Boris Yeltsin. That has now
been mostly done by President Putin during his first Presidential term. And now our next task
is modernization of our economy. The educational, scientific and cultural potential of Russia is
still quite high and quite sufficient to address the task of modernizing our economy and we
have tremendous natural resources. I believe that the coming four years, after the
parliamentary election this fall, and after the presidential election will be decisive in shaping
the future of Russia.
Question: Mr. President, what do you think of U.S. efforts to increase funding to dissidents in
Cuba?
Gorbachev: I think that what would really work best, is not only lifting the embargo, but also
stimulating U.S. investment in Cuba. That would work very well. If however, the emphasis is
on funding and stimulating dissidents, this might throw into question the best intentions that
the U.S. might have. I really do not want to offend those people in Cuba who are trying to do
96
something for democracy in that country in the current situation. But, we should make sure
that they are not seen as a kind of fifth column.
Question: The lack of compensation for confiscated properties in Cuba is a sticking point in
the negotiations that might lead to lifting the embargo. Based on your experiences in Europe,
particularly in East Germany, do you have any suggestions on how this issue could be
resolved?
Gorbachev: I believe that this is something that should be negotiated by the governments—the
U.S. administration and Cuba. They should sit down and compute and make calculations. I
don’t know who owes what to whom and who owes more. It’s a little hard now to know what
the balance is going to be. Because if you look at the disadvantages and the damage caused by
the embargo, you don’t know how that will balance out the other aspects. This is to be
negotiated by the two governments. And the Congress will be involved for sure.
Question: What overriding interest should the Bush administration consider regarding Cuba?
Many people in the United States argue that we can afford to continue this current policy
toward Cuba because there is no overriding interest to change it.
Gorbachev: I believe there is an interest and I cannot really agree that there is no overriding
interest in changing this policy. I think that the very fact that this Summit is taking
place—that you have gathered here, that you are concerned, shows that there is a real interest
on the part of the people in ending this current situation. This interest on the part of the people
should not be ignored. Also, if such a great power as the United States is treating a small
neighboring country like this, can this country be a world leader? That is what I am asking. Of
course, on issues like this, there are no simple recipes, no simple prescriptions.
Question: How much money in dollars did the Soviet Union give to Cuba between 1969 and
1989. If it hadn’t given Cuba the money, would it have hastened democracy?
Gorbachev: There is no doubt that saving that money and using that money for our own
purposes would have been useful for us. But let us ask another question: and that is how much
money was used during the Cold War by the Soviet Union and by the United States for the
arms race? The answer is $10 trillion each. And we are now using tens of billions of dollars as
General Sheehan knows, in order to destroy those weapons that we built during the Cold War.
So that is the legacy of the Cold War. Those are the consequences of the Cold War. We could
have done a lot of good things, a lot of useful things had we not had a Cold War after
WWII—had we continued the cooperation that Russia and the U.S. had during the Second
World War. Instead, we started a conflict, a confrontation that was extremely damaging to all
of us. By the way, Congress is looking for $87 billion and has to do it quickly. I believe that
this whole issue will look very differently once we understand that we live together in a
different world and that we have to work together to build a better world a world that is more
just. His Holiness, the Pope, was once asked whether he believes in a new world order and
what kind of world order he believes in. His answer was very succinct and very important. He
said, “We need a new world order—a world order that would be more secure, more just and
more humane.” I believe that this is the agenda for us—for all political and business leaders. I
believe that this is a great agenda. Thank you.
97
EXCERPTS FROM MIKHAIL GORBACHEV’S PRESS CONFERENCE
Mikhail Gorbachev: I very much appreciate the fact that the National Summit on Cuba is
being held and is supported by Cuban-Americans. I believe Cuban-Americans, the people who
are divided from the Cuban family, are raising these issues and have invited me to be here.
That is why I am here. I am here to speak out. I believe that steps should be taken that meet
the aspirations of the Cubans that are here and Cubans in Cuba. Certain steps have been taken
by the U.S. government. Certain steps have also been taken by the Cuban government. I think
that the process is very slow, but that the process has been taken. I believe that if we could
hold the promise of ending the embargo in the near future that it would change the perspective
of the people in Cuba and the perspective of the government of Cuba. I believe that those who
have a moral right to make suggestions to Cubans and to Americans should do so. That is why
I supported the mission of President Jimmy Carter to Cuba and therefore, I support what Havel
and Walesa are recommending as well (Editor’s Note: Vaclev Havel and Lech Walesa in an
open letter in 2003 praised dissidents in Cuba and asked for the end of the U.S. embargo).
Financial Times: I would like to ask about your personal experience in transition--particularly
about international broadcasting. As you know the U.S. spent a lot of money broadcasting to
the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Do you think that this is useful in transition or a waste
of money and time?
Gorbachev: That’s an interesting story. As you know, America broadcasts throughout the
world and has been broadcasting to Russia and continues to broadcast to our country. But I
don’t think that the United States wants to really hear from Cubans. There was a time in the
past, when the Soviet Union wanted to put up a radio station in Cuba to broadcast to the United
States and the Americans were quite concerned. I do believe that the media play a
tremendously important role. I do believe that information is very important and it’s very
important that there be free information, there should be free media. But, sometimes the
media play a role that is not just informational, rather an inciting role.
There was a time, when in the Soviet Union, whenever a dissident opinion accidentally found
its way into a newspaper and discussed, this was cause for tremendous concern and there was a
lot of fuss and the bureau would discuss how this type of thing could happen. Now we have
hundreds of thousands of media both nationally and regionally and you can read a lot of things,
true or not true, but certainly it’s free. In Russia today, people listen to the voice of
America—to the Dutch, French, and the BBC. Radio Liberty is an American radio station
which is financed by the U.S., but has a bureau in Moscow and they travel throughout Russia.
I believe that without free media, it is not possible to address the challenges that we are facing.
When we started reform in the Soviet Union, as one of our first steps, we declared Glasnost
and our press became free. If all the media says that the regime in Cuba is terrible, then I say
that this is wrong, that is not true because I know the real achievements of Cuba in education,
medical science and technology. And I’m sure that if the embargo is lifted or even eased, that
this will give an impetus to Cuba and the Cuban people. I am here to ask the question: why is
it that so many years after the Cold War, so many years after the Berlin Wall crumbled in 1989,
this wall of the embargo against Cuba is still there?
98
Cuba Trade and Investment: Mr. President, there is no wall of between Russia and Cuba
today, but there is a slump of unresolved issues; first and foremost the pending debts issues.
Could you comment on why these issues are not resolved?
Gorbachev: Overall the developing countries owed the Soviet Union up to $150 billion and
only a very few of these countries have been in a position to pay those debts. This is the legacy
of the Cold War. These are the kind of expenditures that were made during the Cold War.
Miami New Times: Thinking strategically, does the continuance of the embargo enhance
Fidel Castro’s power?
Gorbachev: I would agree with you. Certainly, while the embargo is still there—that is an
argument rather in favor of authoritarian methods. When the country is being besieged, under
an embargo, any political leader is entitled to use all kinds of methods. I believe that if the
embargo were lifted, the situation would be quite different and then of course, there would be
no need for this Summit. Let me also add, that you should not demonize Fidel Castro. Let us
not think that the Cubans in Cuba reject what’s happened in the forty plus years because they
have been able to achieve and accomplish a great deal. We are working together to resolve the
Middle East crisis. The parties of the Middle East, their leaders are all people who used to be
militant fighters, they used to be combatants. By the way, they are also Nobel Peace Prize
winners.
U.S.-Cuba Policy Report: Do you believe that at this time, the Cuban government should
adopt policies of Perestroika and Glasnost?
Gorbachev: When I came to Cuba on a state visit in 1989, the Cuban leadership at that time
and also the leadership in some other countries were concerned about what was happening in
our country and particularly concerned about the results of our first free elections. But in my
very first meeting with the Cuban leaders, I told them that what we are doing we are doing for
ourselves. We need Perestroika for ourselves. It is for you to decide what Cuba needs. I said,
“We fully trust you to make those decisions and that we have no intentions to interfere in your
affairs.” This is what I also said to all the leaders of the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe on my very first day in office—on the day my predecessor was buried. When they
came to Moscow on that day, I said to them we fully trust you to decide and to be responsible
to your countries—you are absolutely free to act, we will not interfere. And nowhere did we
interfere when the process of velvet revolution started in those countries—nowhere, even when
approached, even when asked, we did not interfere. Believe me, we certainly could have
interfered, if we had, perhaps we could have stopped that process, or have put a break on that
velvet revolution. But of course, that could have resulted in a terrible danger for the world.
Even today, I am sometimes asked both in my country and on my trips abroad: Why did I give
away Poland? Why did I give away Czechoslovakia or the GDR or Hungary?” My answer is,
if I did, who did I give it to? Who did I give Poland, Czechoslovakia or Hungary? I think I
gave those countries to the Poles, to the Czechs, and to the Hungarians, and to all those who
live in those countries and to those to whom those countries belong. Similarly, we never
intervened, never interfered, in the government of Cuba. We started at a certain point, to
change our economic relationship with Cuba, along the lines of regular commerce rather than
supplies of aid.
99
El Nuevo Herald: Do you think it’s possible for Cuba to transition from the current
government to a government that is more democratic?
Gorbachev: Certainly it is possible, but not overnight—not by using some cavalier methods.
It has to be a step-by-step method, not by what I call cowboy methods. We know from our
experience from the past decade that today dozens of countries in our part of the world and in
Latin American, and other parts of the world, are making that transition from an authoritarian
regime to a more democratic regime, from a centralized command economy to toward a freer
market economy. We know that this is a difficult process. We have seen that this cannot be
done overnight. This is a process that will be continuing for years.
Question: Do have a message for those imprisoned in Cuba about human rights, freedom of
speech, freedom of assembly freedom of press?
Mikhail Gorbachev: My message for both the Americans and the Cubans is that there should
be cooperation between the two countries and they should respect one another. Yes, I am in
favor of democracy and democratic institutions and I believe in respect for the rights of
citizens. I believe that it would be a great thing if this great country—the United States of
America, the only remaining superpower, were take the first step to lift the embargo. That
would have far-reaching consequences—far-reaching consequences for the Cuban people. I
would be the first to salute the liberation of America from fear of Cuba. When I say that it is
up to the United States to take the first step in the right direction, let me again reiterate what I
mean; lift the embargo, lift the blockade.
Question: Do you think that the exile community should have any role at all in the transition
in Cuba?
Gorbachev: I believe that the Cuban community in this country is already playing a role. I
know that the Cuban government has recently decided to ease certain restrictions on Cubans
who live in this country—they will be able to more easily visit Cuba. I think this is a good
step. I think that this will make it possible for the Cuban community here to play a greater role
in developing links between this country and Cuba. I believe that this will be good for
business, all kinds of exchanges, cultural exchanges. This holds out a very good prospect.
Unfortunately, as I know, it is the government of the United States that allows its citizens to
visit Cuba only once a year. Allowing more travel would be a very positive step that would
help the people.
100
INFORMATION ON NATIONAL SUMMIT ON CUBA: FLORIDA 2003
COSPONSORS
THE WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE
The World Policy Institute at New School University in New York City is a research and
education policy center that seeks innovative solutions to critical problems facing the United
States and the world. WPI has been a source of informed policy leadership for close to 40
years. It is renowned for its cutting-edge analysis on managing the global market economy,
constructing a workable system for collective security, and fostering civil society.
The Institute focuses broadly on the preservation of democratic values, the protection of civil
rights, the advancement of tolerance, fairness, and the rule of law, and the support of a
capitalism tempered by social justice. A roster of more than thirty senior fellows and programs
staff, who are among the nation's most accomplished analysts, journalists, and writers in the
public policy field, ensures the Institute a distinctive voice in national and international affairs.
In addition to its policy research, the Institute publishes World Policy Journal, a leading
quarterly devoted to international affairs, and conducts an extensive program of lectures and
other policy forums to broaden understanding of our complex geopolitical and geoeconomic
landscape.
WPI was founded in 1948 in Washington D.C. as the Association for Education in World
Government. In 1952 it changed its name to the Institute for International Government. In
1954 it was named the Institute for International Order which set up the World Law Fund. The
World Law Fund was later reconstituted in 1973 as the Institute for World Order, an
independent non-profit educational organization focusing on global affairs. In 1982, it became
the World Policy Institute. A part of New School University since 1991, it is the university's
premier policy and research center for international affairs.
WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE: CUBA PROJECT
The Cuba Project at the Institute is at the cutting-edge of educational outreach on the
domestic and international repercussions of the unilateral U.S. embargo on Cuba. The
project, initiated by Project Director Lissa Weinmann in 1997, examines the impact of U.S.
policy on state and society in Cuba and the United States.
On Sept. 17, 2002, the World Policy Institute co-sponsored the first National Summit on
Cuba at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The National Summit brought together
more than 380 national leaders and 48 speakers to explore how changes in U.S. policy
toward Cuba could better serve our national interests. Bush administration representatives
attended and spoke at the conference. On day two of the summit, 500 Cuban-Americans
participated in a day-long educational effort to share their views on U.S. policy with
members of Congress, the administration and the media in the form of a large Capitol Hill
rally and press conference.
The Cuba Project was a primary source of information regarding the impact of food and medical
restrictions on the health and wellbeing of Cubans as well as American agricultural producers.
101
The project sponsored a major Capitol Hill conference in June 2000, "The Domestic
Economic Impact of U.S. Unilateral Food and Medical Sanctions: Case Study Cuba." More
than 120 members of Congress, staff and representatives from corporations, labor and the
media attended the conference in the Longworth House Office Building in Washington, D.C.
The conference was hosted by then U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO), who was a leader in
the successful legislative effort to ease the embargo on sales of U.S. food and medical
products.
For that conference, the project commissioned the first study of the domestic economic impact
that lifting the food and medicine embargo would have on specific regions, states and actors in
the U.S. economy. “The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Lifting the Food and Medical
Embargo on Cuba,” carried out by former International Trade Commission chair and respected
economist Dr. Paula Stern, found that allowing unrestricted sales of food and medical products
alone would bring $1.6 billion and 20,000 jobs to the U.S. economy. The study also found that
these economic gains would primarily benefit the Gulf Coast and Mississippi Basin areas, some
of the most economically depressed regions of the United States.
The study and conference provided the information and analysis that ultimately led to
passage of the 2000 law that greatly liberalized the sale of U.S. foodstuffs to Cuba. The law
represented the first legislative victory to roll back the U.S. embargo on Cuba since it was
instituted in 1962.
The project has developed close ties with the Cuban-American community. Research and
outreach within that community has enabled the project to carry out one of the World Policy
Institute’s central missions: allowing the voices of all Americans to be heard when it comes
to the making of foreign policy.
Working with a U.S. Department of Treasury license to travel to Cuba, The Cuba Project has
periodically arranged fact-finding trips for a variety of organizations, corporate heads,
medical professionals and local, state, and federal government officials. Newspapers and
radio programs across the United States and abroad have also interviewed and quoted project
personnel on numerous occasions. Project staff are currently engaged in identifying the U.S.
and international actors contributing to the debate on policy change toward Cuba and how
Cuba and the U.S. influence Latin American politics. Another project focuses on increasing
exchanges between U.S. and Cuban women leaders to explore the value differences in our
respective societies.
BIOGRAPHIES OF CUBA PROJECT STAFF
Lissa Weinmann, Project Director
As director of The Cuba Project at the World Policy Institute since 1997, Ms. Weinmann has
led an educational campaign on the impact of the embargo in Cuba and the U.S. Prior to her
work with Cuba, Ms. Weinmann was Vice President in charge of advising Latin American
governmental and private sector clients on media and public policy strategies at the
Abernathy MacGregor Group in New York. She has worked as a reporter for various New
York City newspapers and as a media and legislative staffer at the New York City Council.
She is a founder and board member of Americans For Humanitarian Trade With Cuba
(AHTC), the first national coalition seeking to end restrictions on sales of food and medicine
to Cuba and the free travel necessary for such trade to occur. Ms. Weinmann has a Masters
Degree in International Affairs from Columbia University’s School of International and
Public Affairs and a Bachelors Degree in Journalism from the Newhouse School of Public
ommunications at Syracuse University. She speaks Spanish and has two wonderful children.
102
John Loggia, Assistant Project Director, Communications Director
Mr. Loggia has worked with the Cuba Project since it’s inception in 1997, researching,
framing messages and designing our systems. He is primarily responsible for carrying out
communications support, with a focus on web-site design and the Voices on Cuba video, as
well as logistical support on every phase of the Project’s work. Mr. Loggia has a BFA from
Sarah Lawrence College and has produced / directed / written various films and videos. He is
an accomplished musician and speaks French.
Michelle Wojcik, Assistant Project Director
Ms. Wojcik has been working with the Project since January 2001 and was the Assistant
Coordinator of the first National Summit on Cuba in 2002. She has provided research on
international investment in Cuba as well as the international human rights implications of the
U.S. embargo and organized a delegation of former U.S. surgeon generals and other medical
leaders to Cuba in 2001. She has a Bachelors Degree in Sociology from Providence College,
a Masters Degree from American University in Applied Anthropology and is currently a
Ph.D. candidate in Anthropology at New School University with a focus on Cuba.
Emily Myers, Florida National Summit Intern
Ms. Myers has provided valuable assistance on the preparation and follow up for the Florida
National Summit on Cuba from June through December, 2003. She is pursuing a Bachelors
Degree at New York University’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study, studying
International Politics and Economics with a regional focus on Latin America and the
Caribbean. She speaks Spanish and French.
PUENTES CUBANOS, INC.
Puentes Cubanos was incorporated as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization in the State of
Florida in June of 1999. Its mission is to improve the lives of the Cuban people and to
promote knowledge, understanding, trust and reconciliation by creating links between the
people of the United States, Cuba and the Cuban diaspora. Puentes Cubanos recognizes the
need for Cuban Americans to take an active role in this endeavor and focuses on developing
programs that are of mutual benefit to the peoples of Cuba and the United States.
Projects that have been sponsored by Puentes Cubanos since its creation in 1999:
The Young Cubans Professional Exchange, now in its fourth year of operation, continues to
foster dialogue between young Cuban American professionals and their Cuban counterparts.
This Exchange is conducted in cooperation with the Center for Migratory Studies (CEMI) at
the University of Havana. The dialogue focuses on identity issues and helps to empower the
young generation on both sides of the Florida straits. The program has helped to bring young
Cubans and Cuban Americans closer together through respectful dialogue and engagement.
A medical project was set up linking The Foundation for Women’s Health of the United
States with the Asociacion Nacional de Medicos de Familia de Cuba in order to establish
collaborative, women-centered, educational health care programs which would explore ways
to share knowledge and approaches to primary care for women in Cuba and the U.S.,
redevelop the curriculum used for women’s health education, and identify variables that may
affect Cuban women’s perception and use of health care services. As a result of these
workshops a gender focused symposium, the first of its kind, was sponsored in Santiago de
Cuba in September 2001.
103
Puentes Cubanos, in cooperation with the University of Havana and Cuba’s Bufete de
Abogados Independientes, took eight American attorneys to Cuba in January of 2003 for
three-day workshops that focused on topics like Family Law, International Business Law,
Immigration Law, Property Law, etc. This was the second encounter between this group and
its Cuban counterpart.
Puentes Cubanos cosponsored the first theater production bringing together artists, directors
and playwrights from both sides of the Florida Straits. The production of Parece Blanca
played to a packed audience at the Teatro Nacional in Havana last September. This
exchange was a first step toward much-needed reconciliation between Cubans and Cuban
Americans in the arts community.
Puentes Cubanos, in collaboration with the Boca Raton Museum of Art, sponsored a study
tour on Cuban art in collaboration with the Ludwig Foundation and Casa de las Americas.
The participants engaged in workshops at different museums and artists’ studios in Cuba. A
long-term collaboration with the museum and artists in Cuba is planned.
Cuban Committee for Democracy (CCD)
The Cuban Committee for Democracy (CCD) is an organization founded in 1993 by the moderate
Cuban-American community in the United States.
The CCD was created to facilitate the necessary environment for a peaceful transition in Cuba to a
society that unequivocally favors political pluralism and respect for civil, social, and political rights. In
doing so, the Cuban Committee for Democracy will (1) promote and protect the sovereignty of the
Cuban nation, (2) encourage the reconciliation of Cuban society, and (3) promote the moderate and
progressive sector of the Cuban-American population.
The CCD focuses its work on the importance of dialogue and mutual respect, and applies these
principles to its work with Cuba as well as within the Cuban-American community in the United States.
Working within the Cuban-American community, the CCD encourages political tolerance for all opinions
within the community, a basic tenet that has been missing for many years.
Since the end of the Cold War, many Cuba analysts have agreed that U.S. policy towards Cuba is not
driven by international concerns, but rather by domestic ones. Those domestic concerns reflect the
success of conservative Cuban-Americans in mobilizing political support for an agenda that favors the
isolation and punishment of the Cuban people because of their government.
For many years, there has been a general impression throughout the U.S., and especially with
policymakers, that the Cuban-American community is a monolithic, uniformly conservative one that
opposes all change to current U.S. policy towards its homeland. While a large number of CubanAmericans support this position, there are numerous and diverse opinions within the community.
Recognizing that U.S. policy reflects the perceived opinion of this diverse community, the CCD was
established to demonstrate to the Cuban-American community, to policymakers, and to Cuba that there
is growing support for a reevaluation of U.S.-Cuban relations.
104
What We Stand For
The CCD believes in the sovereignty of the Cuban nation, and works to eliminate all threats to the
island’s sovereignty. In the United States, these threats include official government positions and
rhetoric from the Cuban-American community that condition our relationship with Cuba on specific
governmental reforms. The CCD believes the Cuban people have the right to decide their future,
independent of threats from other nations and communities.
The CCD believes in the reconciliation of the Cuban nation. Cubans who live on the island and Cubans who
left Cuba must begin to forge a common agenda based on the future of Cuba rather than focus on differences
if the nation is to progress. To do so, the CCD encourages Cuban-Americans and Cubans to forgive past
wrongs, to respect political differences, and to celebrate the common links of our history and culture.
The CCD believes in promoting a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. Though the CCD will not
make proposals for this transition, as we feel that Cubans must make such decisions, we advocate for a
system that respects political, civil, and social rights. The CCD works to promote these same criteria in
making democracy among the Cuban-American community a reality as well.
CCD's Principles
The right of any person to hold or express opinions on any subject without fear of intimidation.
•
The right of every person to associate freely and peacefully with others to advance opinions on any
public matter.
•
The right of every person to equal treatment before the law without regard for race, gender, or
sexual preference.
•
The right of any person to worship without governmental interference.
•
The right of every group to gather peacefully in public to manifest opinions on any civic matter.
•
The right to resolve political conflicts through peaceful debates and democratic procedures: that
is, with respect for the will of the majority as expressed in free and secret ballots cast by legally
qualified citizens, and with safeguards for the rights of minorities.
Like many Cuban-Americans, CCD members have had to confront the issue of the U.S. economic
embargo. Our position is that the goal of promoting a democratic Cuba would be better served by
constructive engagement rather than by fruitless isolation that contributes to the misery of the Cuban
people. We strongly believe that an end to the embargo would deprive the Cuban government of a
scapegoat for its many failures. Finally, we believe that relations between Cuba and the United States
should be based on mutual respect for the sovereignty and security of each country.
The CCD is Committed to:
•
•
•
•
Expanding the public space for expression and discussion of alternative proposals concerning
the future of Cuban and the Cuban-Americans.
Promoting an end to all forms of terrorism and contributing to the creation of a climate of public
opinion that categorically rejects these acts.
Encouraging fair media coverage for all points of view as well as fair access to the media by
representatives of varying points of view.
Collaborating with other organizations within and outside the Cuban-American Community to
further our goals and principles.
105
FUNDACIÓN AMISTAD
Fundación Amistad is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization that promotes mutual understanding and
respect between the peoples of the United States and Cuba. We achieve this mission by sponsoring
and organizing educational exchanges, research projects, and community outreach initiatives in the arts
and culture, the environment, and human development. Fundación Amistad performs this unique work
on a collaborative basis with a variety of cultural, academic and non-governmental institutions in the U.S.
and Cuba, and within the appropriate travel and operating regulations of both countries.
María de Lourdes “Luly” Duke, President and Founder
Luly, a Cuban-American, also serves as Executive Vice President of Boys Harbor, Inc., a multi-service
educational organization for inner city children in East Harlem, New York. In addition, she forms part of
the Board of Directors for the Child Study Center at New York University, Americans for Humanitarian
Trade with Cuba, and the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. Luly is on the
Advisory Board of Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC), and she is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations Cuba Task Force and the International Rescue Committee Cuba Task
Force. Luly holds a bachelor’s degree in Art History from C.W. Post College, Long Island University.
Matt Sholler, Administrative Director
Matt has broad, interdisciplinary project experience in community and regional planning in the U.S., Latin
America and Europe. He has provided consulting services in watershed management, transportation
systems planning and stakeholder participation to the Barcelona Development Authority, the Highway
Concessions Control Administration of Argentina, and the Chicago Transit Authority. Matt is also a
Returned Peace Corps Volunteer, having served as coordinator of a Bolivian pilot program for
decentralized water resources management and municipal development. He holds a master’s degree in
Urban Policy and Planning from MIT with an emphasis on International Development and Regional
Planning, and a bachelor’s degree in Spanish Literature from the University of Michigan.
Celene Valcárcel, Project Director
Celene, a Cuban-American, has considerable experience in urban revitalization and historic preservation
initiatives in Havana. She has a bachelor’s degree in Psychology with a specialization in Education and
Child Psychology, and a master’s degree in Historical Areas Management and Community Planning.Celene
has designed, directed and coordinated several projects that have improved the living conditions and vitality
of Havana’s historic center.
THE TIME IS NOW COALITION
The Time is Now Coalition had its origins in the group of organizations and individuals that put together
"TheTime is Now to Reassess U.S. Policy Toward Cuba Conference" on March 28, 2002 at the Biltmore
Hotel, Coral Gables, Florida. On November 25, 2002, the fifteen individuals who organized the March 28th
Conference entered into an agreement creating The Time is Now Coalition as a Florida unincorporated
association.
The Coalition is comprised of Cuban American civic leaders from the South Florida area, including many
leaders of other Cuban American organizations such as the Cuban American Defense League, US/Cuba
People for Friendship and US/Cuba Legal Forum. The Time is Now Coalition is in the process of
incorporating as a Florida Not-For-Profit corporation.
106
CAMBIO CUBANO
Cambio Cubano (Cuban Change) is a political organization that seeks change in Cuba through peaceful
means. It was created ten years ago by its founder, Eloy Gutiérrez-Menoyo, and a group that included
many other Cuban American leaders. The announcement of its creation was made at Washington’s
National Press Club on January 20, 1993.
During its first years the organization developed a work agenda intended to bring a process of
democratization to the island and molded itself as a social democratic institution with commitment and
activism on international issues such as world peace, a planet environment, women and gay rights, the
fight against racism and discrimination, and an array of progressive and humanitarian efforts that span
from international solidarity in favor of the disenfranchise to campaigns against war, land mines and the
evils of globalization.
In 1995, its founder, Mr. Gutiérrez-Menoyo, became the first and only opposition leader and former
political prisoner of 22 years to be received by Cuban President Fidel Castro. In this meeting, Cambio
Cubano asked the Cuban government for a legal space for the independent opposition. By the end of
the year 1995, observers of the Cuban situation began to see the possibility of Cambio Cubano being
permitted a legal space by the Cuban government. However, the downing of the planes in February of
the following years brought a halt to negotiations that had taken place.
While being extremely critical of the Cuban government and the one party system, Cambio Cubano has
been equally severe in its denouncement of U.S. policy towards Cuba and has lobbied in Washington
and around the world for change in favor of a new approach that would do away with the remnants of the
Cold War. For it’s courageous activity in the sometimes hostile ambiance of Miami, the organization and
Mr. Gutiérrez-Menoyo were recognized with the American Civil Liberties Union, Freedom of Expression
Award. Working along with other moderate groups, however, the Miami political climate has become
less asphyxiating. The message of openness was equally brought to Havana by several members of
Cambio Cubano who have consistently and openly engaged Cuban officials, artists, intellectuals, and
dissidents in a campaign for national reconciliation. Perhaps the strongest evidence of Cambio Cubano’s
message of transparency was given by Comandante Menoyo himself when he, once again, surprised
the foreign press and participants of the Nation and Migration Conference held in Havana where he read
a speech asking for liberties that have long been denied and for a general amnesty of all political
prisoners and a call to new constitutional assembly. Even though the speech caused an uproar at the
Havana event and was deemed by some Cuban officials as irritating and controversial, ceasing the
opportunity to deliver it was not only a shrewd act of political timing and an act of courage in itself, but
also served to give credence and optimism to the possibility of a new chapter in Cuba’s political life.
The organization has risked its prestige by insisting and carrying the banner of the need for total
independence of the Cuban opposition movement. Even after a recent injury that further affected Mr.
Menoyo’s eyesight (the eyesight in his other eye had already been damaged during an incident while
imprisoned in Cuba), thus nearly blind, the leader of Cambio Cubano decided to move his place of
residence from Florida to Havana. Not content with the way the talks with the Cuban government have
gone in recent years, he announced his decision to stay in Cuba, to continue working for a legal space
for Cambio Cubano and determined to seek and find, by peaceful means, new ways and alternatives to
a process of democratization. Invoking the revolution that had brought faith to Cubans in 1959, and in
the spirit of the same struggle for peace, development and tranquility that the island had sought since
the beginning, Eloy’s document on behalf of Cambio Cubano, called on all Cubans of good faith to travel
a conciliatory road towards a better future.
107
Americans For Humanitarian Trade With Cuba
MISSION STATEMENT
We are proud of the historic tradition of Americans meeting the needs of hungry and sick
people wherever they are found. The cause of the suffering has never mattered,
Americans are recognized – with reason – for being generous and giving. Few people
have stronger historic, cultural and particularly family ties to Americans than the people
of Cuba. For humanitarian reasons alone, they deserve our support.
In this spirit, we are concerned that the unilateral embargo on providing food and
medicines to the people of Cuba – the only such embargo existing – runs counter to our
historic tradition. First-hand documentation by medical, religious, humanitarian and
Cuban-American leaders confirms that ordinary Cubans are paying a bitter price for the
severe restrictions on the sale of U.S. food and medical products.
For our country to continue to deny this one group of people the food and medicines that
are needed to sustain life achieves nothing. Forty years of the strongest embargo in our
history has resulted in increased misery for the people of Cuba while making no change
whatsoever in the political makeup of the Cuban government. We can no longer support
a policy carried out in our name which causes suffering of the most vulnerable – women,
children and the elderly.
We call upon the President of the United States and the U.S. Congress to lift all
restrictions on the sale of agricultural products and medicines to Cuba including
restrictions on travel to Cuba, which hinder the ability to meet with Cuban counterparts,
block efforts to achieve humanitarian trade and violate Americans’ fundamental right to
freedom of movement. These changes would be totally consistent with current U.S.
policy as expressed by the Department of State and spelled-out in the Cuban Democracy
Act and the Helms-Burton laws to “support the Cuban people.”
108
BIOGRAPHIES OF SPEAKERS
Holly Ackerman, Ph.D.- Amnesty International
Holly Ackerman is a faculty member and librarian at the University of Miami in Coral Gables,
FL. She has written extensively on Cuban national Reconciliation, the Cuban Diaspora, post1980 Cuban immigration and moderate politics in Cuba and the Cuban exile. She is currently
completing an annotated bibliography on Moderate Politics in Cuba: 1952-1965. Since 1965,
Dr. Ackerman has been an advocate both for domestic and international social justice working
for improved prison conditions, children's rights and human rights.
Robert Bach, Ph.D.- former INS Official and Inter-American Dialogue
Dr. Robert Bach is currently a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, the
premier Washington-based think tank focusing on U.S.-Latin American relations, and a
Research Professor at the School for International Service, American University, Washington,
D.C. He is also working with the Global Equity Initiative, of the John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University.
From 2000 to 2002, Dr. Bach was Director of the Global Inclusion Division of the Rockefeller
Foundation, where he focused on poverty and social exclusion in transnational and global
issues, including migration, trade, intellectual property rights, international labor, and
democratic participation. He helped develop the Foundation’s new North American
transnational initiative. He also served as Deputy Director of the Foundation’s Working
Communities Division.
From 1994 to 2000, Dr. Bach served in the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the U.S.
Department of Justice as Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning and
Programs. He worked extensively on border and international issues, especially with Mexico,
Canada, and the Caribbean including work along the borders to facilitate economic
development while increasing security. He is currently writing a book on these experiences
and their lessons for future North American integration.
Dr. Bach’s scholarship concentrates on employment, immigration and public policy both
inside the United States and around the world. He has published widely on Mexican and
Caribbean migration, refugees, and labor policies, and has conducted fieldwork throughout
North American, Cuba, China and Vietnam. Bach was a professor at the State University of
New York at Binghamton, earned his doctorate from Duke University, and graduated summa
cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania.
Cynthia C. Barrera - University of Miami
Born in Cienfuegos, Cuba in 1973. Cynthia attended the University of Havana and received her
Master's degree in Urban Studies from the Colegio de Mexico (COLMEX). She is the recipient
of the Heinrich Bell, North-South Dante Fascell and several University of Miami Scholarships.
She is currently a PhD candidate in International Studies at the University of Miami. Her
research centers around Latin American migratory and political issues. In the past year, Barrera
has been a producer for America Te Ve Channel 41's Spanish-language news analysis shows
"Maria Elvira Confronta" and "A Mano Limpia." In addition, she is the host of Transición, a
popular radio program in Miami sponsored by the Cuban Committee for Democracy.
109
Bradley D. Belt - Association of Travel-Related Industry Professionals (ATRIP)
Mr. Belt serves as executive director of the Association of Travel-Related Industry
Professionals (ATRIP), a trade group committed to protecting the right of all Americans to
free, safe, and secure travel. He also is President the Washington Capital Group, Inc., a
consulting firm to corporations, financial institutions, and non-profit organizations on policy
matters and business strategy.
Mr. Belt has had a distinguished career in both the public and private sectors. His prior
private sector roles include serving as a member of the executive management team of
FOLIOfn, a financial services and technology company that was named by Red Herring as one
of the 50 private companies “most likely to change the world,” and Managing Director of The
Commonwealth Group, a government relations consulting firm. Mr. Belt also has held a
number of senior government posts with the U.S. Congress and the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). Mr. Belt also served as Senior Vice President for Policy at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a prominent Washington-based think tank where
he was responsible for program management, policy planning, and corporate development.
While at CSIS, Mr. Belt oversaw the International Finance and Economic Policy program,
working closely with international financial leaders to develop private-public partnerships to
address a broad range of business initiatives and policy matters. He also served as executive
director of the National Commission on Retirement Policy (co-chaired by Senators Gregg and
Breaux and Reps. Kolbe and Stenholm).
He remains as a Senior Adviser to CSIS, serves on the boards of directors of Neptune.com and
advisory board of Human Resource Services, Inc., is vice-chairman of the American Bar
Association’s SEC subcommittee, and recently was nominated by President Bush to serve on
the Social Security Advisory Board.
He has written and lectured extensively on financial services and national policy issues, and
has appeared as a commentator on CSPAN, CNBC, and CNNfn. Recipient of an Eisenhower
Fellowship, Mr. Belt completed the senior executive fellows program at the Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard University, received his law degree from the Georgetown
University Law Center, and obtained his undergraduate degree in business administration
from the University of Nebraska. Mr. Belt is a member of the New York State, District of
Columbia, and U.S. Supreme Court bars.
Representative Annie Betancourt - Former Florida State Representative
Former member of the Florida House of Representatives (1994-2002) and Democratic
nominee for Florida’s 25th Congressional District, Ms. Betancourt epitomizes the consummate
change agent. Her astute strategic planning skills, leadership talent and consensus-building
savvy have enabled her to transfer her experience across diverse political, social, cultural and
economic lines.
She has been both a catalyst and a strong voice for education reform, economic development
and environmental protection. Her years in the Florida Legislature were highly productive
where she championed laws that foster job opportunities and economic development,
promoted changes that facilitate access to higher education through scholarships and fought
public corruption in several fronts along with law enforcement agencies.
110
Last year, as the Democratic nominee for the new 25th Congressional District in Florida, Annie
was not afraid to address thorny issues that have far reaching impact at the national and
international level, including a revision to current U.S. policy on Cuba.
Ms. Betancourt is a graduate of the University of Miami, and attended the Senior Executive Program
in State and Local Government at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. On a personal note,
Ms. Betancourt is a widow and breast cancer survivor who enjoys risk taking and outdoor activities.
Peter G. Bourne, M.D.- Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC)
Peter Bourne is currently a Visiting Scholar at Green College, Oxford, England, and Vice
Chancellor Emeritus of St. George’s University, Grenada, West Indies. He is also chairman of
Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC), a program which, over the last five
years, has sent more than 500 medical and public health students from over 100 U.S.
universities to Cuba for electives. It has also sent a number of residents in pediatrics, family
practice, and emergency medicine to Cuba for the same purpose.
Peter Bourne was special assistant to the President for health issues in the Carter White House.
Subsequently he served as an Assistant Secretary General at the United Nations. As chairman of
the American Association for World Health, he directed, in the mid-1990s, a foundationsupported study entitled “Denial of Food and Medicine: The Effect of the U.S. Embargo on
Health and Nutrition in Cuba.” The study drew worldwide attention, being translated into several
languages, and was the catalyst for subsequent legislation in this area in the U.S. Congress and
the creation of such organizations as Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba.
Dr. Bourne, who has an M.D. from Emory University and an M.A. in anthropology from
Stanford, has published more than 100 papers and is the author of widely recognized
biographies on Fidel Castro and Jimmy Carter. At present he is working on a book dealing
with the Cuban health system and its global impact as a model for developing nations as well
as a documentary film on the same topic.
Karl Buck, Ph.D.- European Union Council of Ministers
Dr. Karl Buck, Head of Division for Latin America, EU Council of Ministers. German,
Studied Political Science and Languages in Tuebingen (Germany), Lyon (France), Santiago de
Chile, post-graduate studies 1970-71 at the University of Florida, Gainesville; Dr.rer.soc. 1973
"The Socialist Party of Chile"; Assistant Prof. in Political Science, Univ. of Tuebingen 197378; since 1978 European official at the General Secretariat of the EU Council of Ministers
(relations with the European Parliament 1978- 84,Budget 1984-87, Mediterranean countries
1987-91,Latin America 1991-99, ACP 1999-2002, since 2002 HoD Latin America and
Caribbean); various publications on development aspects, the accession of Greece to the EC,
Eurocommunism, European institutions and political parties,
President Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.), thirty-ninth president of the United States, was born
October 1, 1924, in the small farming town of Plains, Georgia, and grew up in the nearby
community of Archery. His father, James Earl Carter, Sr., was a farmer and businessman; his
mother, Lillian Gordy, a registered nurse.
He was educated in the Plains public schools, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the
Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval
111
Academy in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and
Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the
nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, N.Y., where he took graduate
work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer
of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf.
On July 7, 1946, he married Rosalynn Smith. When his father died in 1953, he resigned his
naval commission and took his family back to Plains. He took over the Carter farms, and he
and Rosalynn operated Carter's Warehouse, a general-purpose seed and farm supply company.
He quickly became a leader of the community, serving on county boards supervising
education, the hospital authority, and the library. In 1962 he won election to the Georgia
Senate. He lost his first gubernatorial campaign in 1966,
but won the next election, becoming Georgia's 76th governor on January 12, 1971. He was
the Democratic National Committee campaign chairman for the 1974 congressional elections.
On December 12, 1974, he announced his candidacy for president of the United States. He
won his party's nomination on the first ballot at the 1976 Democratic National Convention,
and was elected president on November 2, 1976.
Jimmy Carter served as president from January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981. Significant foreign
policy accomplishments of his administration included the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp
David Accords, the treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II treaty with the Soviet
Union, and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China.
He championed human rights throughout the world. On the domestic side, the administration's
achievements included a comprehensive energy program conducted by a new Department of
Energy; deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and finance; major educational
programs under a new Department of Education; and major environmental protection legislation,
including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
Mr. Carter is the author of fifteen books, many of which are now in revised editions: Why Not
the Best?, 1975, 1996; A Government as Good as Its People, 1977, 1996; Keeping Faith:
Memoirs of a President, 1982, 1995; Negotiation: The Alternative to Hostility, 1984; The
Blood of Abraham, 1985, 1993; Everything to Gain: Making the Most of the Rest of Your
Life, written with Rosalynn Carter, 1987, 1995; An Outdoor Journal, 1988, 1994; Turning
Point: A Candidate, a State, and a Nation Come of Age, 1992, Talking Peace: A Vision for
the Next Generation, 1993, 1995; Always a Reckoning, 1995; The Little Baby SnoogleFleejer, illustrated by Amy Carter, 1995; Living Faith, 1996; Sources of Strength:
Meditations on Scripture for a Living Faith, 1997; The Virtues of Aging, 1998; and An Hour
before Daylight: Memoirs of a Rural Boyhood, 2001.
In 1982, he became University Distinguished Professor at Emory University in Atlanta,
Georgia, and founded The Carter Center. Actively guided by President Carter, the nonpartisan
and nonprofit Center addresses national and international issues of public policy. Carter
Center fellows, associates, and staff join with President Carter in efforts to resolve conflict,
promote democracy, protect human rights, and prevent disease and other afflictions. Through
the Global 2000 program, the Center advances agriculture in the developing world.
Elizabeth Cerejido - Florida International University Art Museum
Elizabeth Cerejido was born in Cuba in 1969 and raised in Miami, FL. since 1970. Upon
graduating from junior college, Elizabeth immersed herself in photography – developing her
own artistic vocabulary while initially also working for commercial agencies and publications.
112
She has exhibited in New York at the Throckmorton Gallery and is represented in Chicago by
Schneider Gallery. In addition, she has had numerous national and international solo and
group exhibitions which include Galeria Pancho Fierro en la Municipalidad Metropolitana
Centro Cultural, Lima, Peru, Bologne Art Fair, Italy, Lehigh University Art Galleries,
Bethlehem, PA., Museum of Art, Fort Lauderdale, FL., among others. In 2000, Elizabeth was
a recipient of the Florida Consortium for Visual and Media Artists Fellowship.
She is currently assistant curator at The Art Museum at Florida International University and
has worked as an independent curator for the Centro Cultural Español where she organized the
exhibition titled The Parallax Effect featuring the work of 6 photographers of Cuban heritage
– living and working on either side of the Florida Straits.
Elizabeth ‘s artistic work initially began as portraiture. She also developed a black and white series
on the body titled Escucho (I Listen) and in 2000 began an ongoing series, The Persistent Image,
working with the idea of the multiplicity of the photographic image, as opposed to a single, fixed
Elizabeth’s current work also includes photographs that are at times combined with video and
Super 8mm film loops. Untitled (Today My Father Dropped His Body) is a personal response
to the passing of her father in 2001. The photographic images that accompany the video are
related to Elizabeth’s absorption by her mother’s life. Presently she continues to develop a
body of work titled Absence – combining color photographs, text and video projections, which
continue to be informed by personal experiences involving her mother’s Alzheimer’s
condition. That experience has made her revisit her own sense of identity - both personally,
and in a larger sense culturally - and view familiar people and places with a renewed
sensibility.
U.S. Representative William D. Delahunt - (D-MA, 10th District)
William D. Delahunt represents the Tenth Congressional District of Massachusetts -- which
includes Cape Cod, the Islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, and Boston's South
Shore, from Quincy to Plymouth.
Rep. Delahunt came to Congress in 1996 with a distinguished career in public service and law
enforcement, and as a pioneer in combating the crimes of domestic violence and sexual
assault. He has since been reelected twice with more than 70 percent of the vote.
Congressman Delahunt serves on two House committees, each with important ties to
Massachusetts. On the International Relations Committee, Mr. Delahunt draws on his long
interest in international trade and human rights, global fisheries and overseas business
opportunities. Delahunt serves on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, where he has
become a leading advocate for promoting democracy and the rule of law in Latin America;
and on the Europe Subcommittee, which has focused on the evolving relationship between the
United States and the European Union.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Delahunt brings two decades of
experience as a District Attorney -- and lifelong commitment to safeguarding civil rights -- to
the federal arena. As District Attorney, he established the first prosecutorial unit on domestic
violence in the United States. He also pioneered work in the area of violence against women,
launching programs that became models for prosecutors nationally and abroad.
Mr. Delahunt now serves on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, which
shepherds a wide range of new technologies, from the Internet to marine-biotech -- areas of
113
enormous commercial potential. The Subcommittee oversees the federal court system, as
well as patent, copyright and trademark law. In addition, Representative Delahunt serves on
the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, to which he brings first-hand knowledge of law
enforcement.
Rep. Delahunt co-chairs the bipartisan Coast Guard Caucus, and also co-chairs the House
Older Americans Caucus. He also serves on the Democratic Steering Committee, which
makes appointments to House committees.
As former Assistant Majority Leader of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Mr.
Delahunt sponsored the first Civil Rights Act in the Commonwealth. He represented the City
of Quincy in the State House from 1973 to 1975, when he became District Attorney. In 1971,
Mr. Delahunt was elected to the Quincy City Council. During the preceding two years, he
served as Assistant Clerk of the Norfolk Superior Court, and as Legal Counsel to the Quincy
Police Department. He was in private practice from 1971 to 1975.
A 1963 graduate of Middlebury College in Vermont, Mr. Delahunt later went on to earn a
law degree from Boston College in 1967. He served from 1963 to 1971 in the Coast Guard
Reserves.
The Congressman is the son of the late Ruth and Bill Delahunt Sr., a sales manager. He is a
lifelong resident of Quincy, and the exceedingly proud father of Kirstin and Kara.
Mayor Michael Dow - Mobile, AL
Mayor Dow is a three-tour Vietnam veteran having served as a helicopter door gunner in the
173rd Airborne Brigade from 1966-1968. He is a recipient of the GI Bill and a graduate of the
University of South Alabama with a BS degree in Economics and a Master's Degree in
Business Administration and Accounting. Prior to his election, Mayor Dow was a co-founder,
director and senior vice-president of sales and marketing for QMS, Inc., a 1977 high-tech,
start-up electronics manufacturing company listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1985
and purchased by Minolta, Inc. in 1999.
Dow, first elected to office in 1989, has served as Mobile's mayor for over a decade and was
recently elected to serve a fourth four-year term. His major accomplishments to date include
organizing and implementing a successful downtown revitalization and tourism effort referred
to as "The String of Pearls," upgrading and modernizing the City's technology, business
management and training systems, and implementing total quality management and in-house
strategic planning functions in City government. His administrations have reorganized
streamlined and strengthened City departments and operations making them stronger, more
responsive and customer-service oriented.
Under Dow’s administration, the City has greatly expanded in the areas of sports, recreation,
entertainment, arts and culture, to include new and renovated stadiums, recreation centers and
parks. During the past decade, the City has recruited the GMAC-sponsored NCAA bowl
game and the following Mobile teams BayBears AA baseball, Mysticks ice hockey, Revelers
NDBL basketball and Wizards indoor football. The City has also created a 50-court tennis
tournament site, a Robert Trent Jones 54-hole golf course, a fishing tournament infrastructure
and many other quality venues.
114
Mayor Dow actively participates and contributes to the area's economic development efforts to
attract foreign and domestic investment and to create jobs in the Mobile area. He serves as a
member of the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce and serves on the State of Alabama
Commerce Commission as chairman of its Subcommittee on Trade. He also serves as a
member of the Alabama State Port Authority, the Alabama World Trade Association and
numerous other state and local boards.Mayor Dow is married to the former Patsy Busby and
they have three children: Shawn, Steele and Anna. Mobile, Alabama and Havana, Cuba have
maintained a Sister City relationship since 1993.
María de Lourdes “Luly” Duke - Fundación Amistad
Luly, a Cuban-American, is President and Founder of Fundación Amistad. She also serves as
Executive Vice President of Boys Harbor, Inc., a multi-service educational organization for
inner city children in East Harlem, New York. In addition, she forms part of the Board of
Directors for the Child Study Center at New York University, Americans for Humanitarian
Trade with Cuba, and the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. Luly is
on the Advisory Board of Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC), and she is a
member of the Council on Foreign Relations Cuba Task Force and the International Rescue
Committee Cuba Task Force. Luly holds a bachelor’s degree in Art History from C.W. Post
College, Long Island University.
Alfredo G. Duran - Cuban Committee for Democracy
Alfredo G. Duran is a lawyer practicing law in Miami, Florida. Mr. Duran has a long standing
record of participation in Democratic party politics including chairmanship of the Florida
Democratic Party, 1976-1980 and membership in various DNC party committees and
commissions. He has also served as member of the Dade County School Board, chairman of
the Community Relations Board, member of the Board of Directors of Mercy Hospital
Foundation, Inc., NAFTA and Beyond Commission and other civic and community
organizations. He is a former member of the Bay of Pigs Invasion; a prisoner of war in Cuba
for 18 months; former president of the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association and is presently
secretary of the Cuban Committee for Democracy (CCD).
James Counts Early - Director Cultural Heritage Policy Smithsonian Institution
Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage
A long-time advocate and supporter of cultural diversity and equity issues in the nation's
public cultural and educational institutions and cultural democracy in global affairs, James
Early is the Director of Cultural Heritage Policy at the Center for Folklife and Cultural
Heritage at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Since 1984, Mr. Early has served in
many positions at the Smithsonian Institution including Assistant Provost for Educational and
Cultural Programs and Assistant Secretary for Education and Public Service. Over the course
of a nearly 30-year professional career, Mr. Early has consistently recognized the integrity of
historically evolved values and cultures of African-American, Latino, Native American, and
Asian-Pacific American communities, and investigated and participated in mediated cultural
encounters which inform national and global policies.
Mark Entwistle - Former Canadian Ambassador to Cuba
Mark Entwistle was Ambassador of Canada to Cuba for four years from 1993 to 1997 and is
currently finishing a major book on Cuba for Penquin Books. He is Director of several
115
Canadian and British companies with interests in Cuba, advises others and travels to the island
frequently.
Mark Entwistle guided all elements of the delicate relationship with Fidel Castro's Cuba under
the vigilant eye of the United States, including political, commercial and security relations. He
negotiated an action plan for the bilateral relationship that put human rights, transparent
government and law reform on the agenda for the first time, and was the architect of a
dynamic trade development strategy. Canada's trade with Cuba increased markedly, doubling
year-over-year for two years in a row and, during his tenure, Canada became Cuba's largest
trade and investment partner.
In a 1997 book on the Canada-Cuba relationship, Mr. Entwistle's tenure as Ambassador is
described in the following words: "Of particular importance is Mark Entwistle ...A tireless and
extremely talented negotiator, he is undoubtedly the most dynamic and successful
Ambassador to Cuba during the revolutionary period."
After sixteen years in the professional Canadian diplomatic service, he is now Vice-President,
International and Government Affairs with ExecAdvice Corporation (www.execadvice.ca)
and special counsel on international trade to Murphy, Frazer & Selfridge in Washington, D.C.
(www.murphyfrazer.com).
Patricia Gutiérrez-Menoyo - Cambio Cubano
Patricia Gutiérrez-Menoyo was thrown into the political arena at the very early age of 15
when she joined an international campaign on behalf of her father Eloy Gutiérrez-Menoyo
who was at the time a political prisoner in Cuban jails.
Born in Miami, Florida, on September 6, 1962, she gained prominence in 1994 when she,
along with her husband, Sergio Sanjenís, met privately with President Fidel Castro while
presiding Cambio Cubano’s (Cuban Change) delegation during the First Cuban and the
Migration Conference held in Havana.
Ms. Gutiérrez-Menoyo studied Business Administration at the Univerisity of Puerto Rico and
later went on to study Hotel Administration at Cornell. Upon completing her studies she held
management positions at various hotels in Puerto Rico and later entered the book publishing
business. In 1990 she became owner/president of Editorial Plaza Mayor, a leading book
publishing company in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
She is a founding member of Cambio Cubano and occupies a seat on the organization’s Board
of Directors. During her various trips to Cuba she has obtained a space for he opposing views,
according to her “through frankness, total transparency, independence and respect.” Patricia
lives in San Juan with her husband of 17 years and her two children, Fernando (age 13 ) and
Manuel (age 10 ). Her most recent encounter with Cuban officials took place in New York last
Saturday when she met with Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Felipe Pérez Roque.
Alvaro F. Fernández - Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
Alvaro Fernández is the Florida director of the Southwest Voter Registration Education
Project. Since 2000 he has instituted the Latino Vote Project in the state, which has included
get out the vote efforts in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach Counties and areas of Central
Florida. Fernández was also involved in the most recent redistricting efforts in several
counties in Florida. These were followed by voter registration drives and GOTV campaigns
116
for a number of crucial local races as part of the Latino Vote 2001 and 2002 Projects. As
SVREP director, he also appeared as plaintiff in several lawsuits against the state of Florida
and Miami-Dade County in search of better future political possibilities for many of the new
minority communities throughout Florida.
Fernández was also president and founder of Citizens’ Accountability Network (CAN): a nonprofit organization with a government reform agenda, which dealt with voter apathy and
accountability in local South Florida governments. Since 1998 he has espoused several reform
platforms that have now been adopted or are being debated in the City of Miami Beach and
Miami-Dade County. A community activist, he served as volunteer director of Miami Beach
Second Thursdays, a monthly celebration of the arts he founded as former vice chair of the
City of Miami Beach Cultural Arts Council. During that period he was instrumental in the
successful fight to eliminate a non-constitutional law that prohibited Cuban musical groups
and artists from appearing in county-owned venues. Through his efforts, the Council became
the first public organization to condemn – with a unanimous vote – the Miami-Dade
ordinance. Months later it was removed from the books.
His experience with how local government works is extensive. Not only is he a critical
observer, but he also served as key advisor and assistant to Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez
during the 1980s. At that time the city grew to become the fifth largest in Florida and one of
the most important industrial areas in the state. In the year 2000, he ran an unsuccessful
campaign for Miami-Dade County Commissioner.
He is a graduate of the University of Florida with a degree in Journalism. During the second
half of the decade of the ‘70s he served as reporter and then managing editor of a small daily,
The Miami Beach Sun Reporter. He has written many freelance articles on a host of issues and
is also editor and columnist for Progreso Weekly, a weekly bilingual Internet magazine.
U.S. Representative Jeff Flake - (R-AZ, 6th District)
Jeff Flake, presently serving his second term in Congress, represents the Sixth
Congressional District of Arizona. This district includes parts of Mesa and Chandler
and all of Gilbert, Queen Creek, and Apache Junction. Jeff serves on three
committees in the House of Representatives: the Committee on the Judiciary,
including the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee and the
Immigration, Claims, and Border Security subcommittee; the Committee on
International Relations, including the Asia and the Pacific subcommittee and the
Africa subcommittee; and the Committee on Resources, including the Forest and
Forest Health Subcommittee.
Since taking office, Jeff has been active on a number of issues. One of his top
priorities has been tax relief. Consequently, several of his first pieces of legislation
were efforts to maximize President Bush's tax relief in 2001. His next challenge will
be working to decrease taxes on dividends and capital gains in order to spur
investment and fuel economic growth.
Just as he did in Arizona, Jeff has continued in Washington to work for local control,
choice, and competition in education. His very first piece of legislation introduced in
the House of Representatives was designed to ensure that the federal government does
not discriminate against innovative educational programs like those at the Thomas J.
117
Pappas School for the Homeless in Phoenix. Jeff also introduced legislation to give
states more freedom to replace failed bilingual education programs with innovative
alternatives. Both of these important measures were adopted as part of President
Bush's education plan and are now law.
Jeff has also been one of Congress’s most outspoken advocates of free trade. In fact, a
report conducted by the Cato Institute found that no other Member of the House of
Representatives voted more consistently against trade barriers and trade subsidies than Jeff.
Through his position on the Judiciary and International Relations Committees, Jeff has
been working to find solutions to Arizona's ongoing problems with illegal
immigration. Jeff has been one of the House's most outspoken advocates of a
temporary worker program and will work during his term to establish such a program.
Jeff has also introduced commonsense legislation to reduce the threat of devastating
wildfires, such as the Rodeo-Chediski fire that burned 469,000 acres in the White
Mountains.
Jeff is a fifth-generation Arizonan, born and raised on a ranch in Snowflake, Arizona
(the town was named, in part, after Jeff's great-great grandfather). After serving a
Mormon mission in southern Africa, Jeff graduated from Brigham Young University,
where he received a B.A. in International Relations and an M.A. in Political Science.
More importantly, was at BYU that Jeff met his wife, Cheryl. In 1992, Jeff and his
family moved back to Arizona where he was named Executive Director of the
Goldwater Institute. In this role, Jeff worked to promote a conservative philosophy of
less government, more freedom, and individual responsibility. Jeff and Cheryl have
been married 17 years and live in Mesa with their five children.
Pat Frank - Hillsborough County Commissioner
Pat Frank’s long career in public service began in 1972 with her election to the School Board.
In 1976, she was elected to the Florida House of Representatives, and was a State Senator
from 1978 to 1988. She was the first woman admitted to the Georgetown University School
of Law, and has a degree in finance and taxation from the University of Florida. Elected to the
BOCC in 1998, she is serving her third term as chairman.
She also serves on the Arts Council of Hillsborough County, the Metropolitan Planning
Organization, the Port Authority and the Tampa Bay Convention & Visitors Bureau.
President Mikhail Gorbachev - Nobel Peace Prize-Winner
Mikhail Gorbachev served as leader of the Soviet Union from 1985-1991. He is worldrenowned and admired for streamlining and decentralizing the oppressive system he inherited.
In an effort to secure relations with the West, Gorbachev signed two broad disarmament pacts,
and ended Communist rule in Eastern Europe. He taught the world two new words:
Perestroika (governmental restructuring) and Glasnost (political openness). As a result of his
extraordinary achievements, Gorbachev was the recipient of the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize, the
Orders of Lenin, the Red Banner of Labor, and the Badge of Honor.
118
In 1992, Gorbachev became President of the Gorbachev Foundation, known as the
International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies. The Gorbachev
Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation. Its purpose is to articulate
and address the challenges of the post Cold War world, through the revisioning of global
priorities.
In 1993, Gorbachev founded the environmental organization, Green Cross International. This
is a non-governmental group with chapters in the United States, Russia, The Netherlands,
Japan, and Switzerland. Green Cross International is a three-pronged program with a mission
to clean up military toxins, assist in the creation of global ecological law, and foster a value
shift on the environment.
After graduating from Moscow State University with a law degree, Gorbachev joined the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1952, and acted as First Secretary for the Stavropol
Komsomol City Committee from 1955 to 1958. He then gained reputation and experience in
Stavropol politics. In 1971, he was elected as a member to the Central Committee, Communist
Party (CCCP) of the Soviet Union. From 1978 to 1985, he served as Secretary for the CCCP
with the responsibility for areas involving agriculture. Gorbachev also served as Deputy of the
Supreme Soviet from 1970 to 1990, and acted as Chairman for the Foreign Affairs Committee
of the Soviet Union from 1984 to 1985. From 1985 to 1990, he was President of the Presidium
of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
Donna Hicks, Ph.D.-Harvard University
Dr. Donna Hicks is an Associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard
University where she chairs the Seminar on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution
and conducts her research and practice in advancing the understanding of international and
interethnic conflict. Dr. Hicks has been involved in numerous unofficial diplomatic conflict
resolution efforts including projects in the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Colombia and Cuba. Her
research interests are focused on the "human dimension" of conflict, examining the effects of
violent conflict on human development and designing ways to restore human dignity to
conflict ravaged relationships. In addition to teaching conflict resolution at Harvard and Clark
Universities, Dr. Hicks conducts educational and training seminar in the U.S. and abroad.
José Latour- Paradise Entertainment Group
José Latour is an A/V Rated immigration attorney, journalist and commentator whose website,
www.usvisanews.com, was named "One of America's Top Ten Internet/Virtual Companies"
by Inc. Magazine and Cisco Systems in the 1999 Growing With Technology Awards and one
of fifteen Inc. Web Award Winners for 2002.
Mr. Latour, a former U.S. State Department Officer who served in Consular and
Administrative capacities in Mexico and Africa, is a frequent writer and speaker for the
American Immigration Lawyers Association and a media source for commentary on matters
of immigration law, policy, and international affairs. www.usvisanews.com is the most
visited immigration-topic website on the World Wide Web. In addition to his legal
commentary, Mr. Latour writes for aviation, travel, and music-related publications and
webzines.
In addition to his legal background, Mr. Latour is an accomplished singer and songwriter with
CD's released by Polygram Latin, Sony Discos, and his own Paradise Records label. His
119
production company, Paradise Entertainment Group, is engaged in the production of television
programming for both U.S. and export markets. He is a private pilot who resides in the
Florida Keys, where he writes and records at his home-based recording studio.
William M. LeoGrande, Ph.D.- American University
Dr. William M. LeoGrande is Acting Dean and Professor of Government in the School of
Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C., where he has been on the faculty
since 1978. He also served as Acting Dean of the school from 1997 to 1999, Chair of the
Government Department from 1992 to 1996, and Director of the Political Science program
from 1980 to 1982. From 1976 to 1978 he was Assistant Professor of Government at Hamilton
and Kirkland Colleges in Clinton, New York.
Professor LeoGrande received his A.B. (1971) and M.A. (1973) degrees in Psychology and
Political Science from Syracuse University in Syracuse, New York. He received his Ph.D. in
Political Science with Certificate in Latin American Studies from the Maxwell School at
Syracuse University in 1976.
In 1982-1983, Dr. LeoGrande was an International Affairs Fellow of the Council on Foreign
Relations in New York, and worked with the Democratic Policy Committee of the United
States Senate. In 1985-1986, he served on the staff of the Democratic Caucus Task Force on
Central America of the United States House of Representatives. He has also been a consultant
to a variety of Congressional committees, Executive branch agencies, and private foundations.
In 1994-1995, Dr. LeoGrande was a Pew Faculty Fellow in International Affairs.
Professor LeoGrande has written widely in the field of Latin American politics and United
States foreign policy, with a particular emphasis on Central America and Cuba. He is the
author of Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992 (University
of North Carolina, 1998) and Cuba's Policy in Africa (University of California, 1980). He is
co-author of Confronting Revolution: Security Through Diplomacy in Central America
(Pantheon, 1986), and co-editor of The Cuba Reader: The Making of a Revolutionary Society
(Grove, 1988) and Political Parties and Democracy in Central America (Westview, 1992).
His articles have appeared in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Latin American Research
Review, American Political Science Review, The New Republic, New York Times, Washington
Post, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and other journals and newspapers. He is a member
of the American Political Science Association, the Latin American Studies Association, and
the Council on Foreign Relations.
Ken Lindeman, PhD - Environmental Defense
Dr. Ken Lindeman, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Oceans Program, has published
over 30 applied journal articles and book chapters on coastal resource management in the
northern Caribbean since 1985. He has worked in Cuba since 1995 and eight publications
involve Cuban coastal resources. These include the award-winning Smithsonian Institution
Press book, Ecology of the Marine Fishes of Cuba, and the first comprehensive inventory of
Caribbean marine reserves. He has consulted for FAO, NOAA, National Geographic, and
many private interests. He serves on primary regional advisory bodies, currently including the
World Commission for Protected Areas – Caribbean, National Center for Caribbean Coral
Reef Research, Habitat Panels of both the Caribbean and South Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils, and the 55-yr old Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute.
120
J. Kenneth Lipner, Ph.D.- Florida International University
As a semi-native Floridian, Kenneth Lipner, born and raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
came to Florida in the early 1960’s and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in
Business Administration from Florida State University. After a brief stint with the
Department of Defense, Ken Lipner obtained an M.B.A. degree from the University of
Memphis. Professor Lipner taught at Le Moyne – Owen College in Memphis, Tennessee; and
in Europe and Asia with the University of Maryland and with the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas.
Prior to coming to Miami, Kenneth Lipner obtained a Masters degree in City and Regional
Planning from Rutgers University, where he obtained his Ph.D. with his emphasis being in
urban economics.
Dr. Lipner was recruited from New York City’s Human Resources Administration to become
the Dade County Model Cities Program’s Chief Planner for Economic Development and
Employment. He went on to hold similar positions with Metropolitan Dade County before
becoming Economic Development Coordinator for Miami’s Downtown Development
Authority and was actively involved in assisting in developing many of the projects that came
to fruition downtown.
Dr. Lipner then joined the Department of Economics at Florida International University where
he is a tenured member of the faculty. In addition to writing and lecturing about International,
Urban, Labor and Human Resources Economics, Professor Lipner has a strong research
interest in international trade and has visited over one hundred countries worldwide. As for
recreation, Ken Lipner is a lifelong avid baseball fan and has attended games in forty-three
different major league stadiums nationwide.
Joe McClash - Manatee County Commissioner
Joe McClash is presently serving his fourth term as a Manatee County Commissioner. He was
elected in 1990 as the first Countywide Commissioner.
Commissioner McClash is the past Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners,
Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization,West Coast Inland Navigation District
and Environmental Action Commission.
He currently serves as Chairman of the Port Authority; Chairman of the Tourist Development
Council, Treasurer for the West Coast Inland Navigation District and Vice Chairman of the
Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization. He also serves on the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program and Joint Planning Committee.
Born in Astoria, New York, Commissioner McClash moved to Manatee County in 1969 and is
a graduate of Manatee High School. He was honorably discharged after serving four years in
the United States Marine Corp.
He and his wife Casey have 2 children.He was past owner of McClash Heating and Cooling, a
company he purchased from his father in 1982 and managed until 2002.He is a licensed solar
contractor and an air conditioning contractor.He is a member of the Bradenton Kiwanis Club
and has coached youth soccer and baseball. When he has spare time you can see him enjoying
his favorite hobbies, sailing along the tranquil waters of Tampa Bay or flying.
121
John McAuliff – Fund For Reconciliation and Development
John McAuliff is the executive director of the Fund for Reconciliation & Development, a nonprofit educational organization based in New York. He is a widely acknowledged expert on
Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, and on the history of U.S. relations there. McAuliff founded
the Fund’s U.S.-Indochina Reconciliation Project (USIRP) in Philadelphia in 1985 to improve
understanding and foster people-to-people exchange between the U.S. and Indochina. He also
coordinates the Forum on Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, an informal network of aid and
development non-governmental organizations ("NGOs"), universities, foundations and
corporate philanthropies with interest in the region. The Forum has held ten international
conferences on Indochina development, most recently in Vientiane.
Shelley A. McConnell- The Carter Center
Dr. Shelley A. McConnell is currently the Associate Director of the Americas Program (AP)
at The Carter Center in Atlanta, GA, an action-oriented, interdisciplinary, non-profit institute
chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. She tracks issues in inter-American relations,
and plans and implements conflict resolution, anti-corruption and democratization projects in
coordination with an affiliated 32 member Council of current and former heads of state from
the Americas. She is also a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department of
Emory University. Dr. McConnell earned both her Ph.D. and her M.A. in Political Science
from Stanford University. She was an Assistant Professor of Political Science for four years
and a Bard Center Fellow at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, NY. Her publications
include Centrifugal Politics in Ecuador, Current History February 2001, Nicaragua: Beyond
the Revolution, Current History February 1997 co-authored with Jennifer McCoy; Institutional
Evolution in Nicaragua Without Illusions: The Chamorro years, edited by Thomas Walker;
and Nicaragua's 1990 Elections: A Postmortem, Latin American Research Review February
1996. In addition, Dr. McConnell authors conference papers and participates in roundtables,
presentations and community education
Philip Peters - The Lexington Institute
Philip Peters, vice president of the Lexington Institute, is a Cuba expert who has traveled
throughout the island covering economic and political issues, and is also an analyst of U.S.Cuba relations. He has published detailed studies of the main sectors of Cubas economy and
his articles have been published in The Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Tribune, The
Christian Science Monitor, Barrons, The Miami Herald, National Geographic Traveler, and
specialized publications. He serves as an advisor to Cuba Working Group that formed in
January 2002 in the House of Representatives and has testified before congressional
committees. Peters also writes on trade and immigration policy. Prior to joining Lexington,
Peters served as a State Department appointee of Presidents Reagan and Bush and as a senior
aide in the House of Representatives. He holds bachelors and masters degrees from
Georgetown University. The Lexington Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy
research organization based in Arlington, Virginia
Mayda Prego- Hugues, Hubbard and Reed
Civil, criminal, and appellate litigation, including intellectual property, commercial disputes,
international extradition, money-laundering, and employment discrimination.
122
Education Information: Yale University, B.A., 1988. University of Michigan Law School,
J.D., 1992, Michigan Journal of Law Reform (Associate Editor 1990-91; Contributing Editor
1991-92) Bar Admissions: New York, 1993 Massachusetts, 1993 Texas, 1994 Florida, 1995.
Court Admissions:
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit United States
Supreme Court. Language Expertise French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish. Professional
Activities: Liaison, Young Lawyers Division, Litigation, American Bar Association, Death
Penalty Representation Project Member, Hispanic National Bar Association Member,
American Bar Association
Michael Putney – Anchor, Channel 10, Miami
Michael Putney came to Channel 10 in 1989 to become senior political reporter and host of
"This Week In South Florida with Michael Putney." He is Channel 10's lead reporter on
politics and government, and writes a semimonthly column on politics for The Miami Herald.
Michael was born in New York City, spent his early years in St. Louis, and when he was 14years-old, he moved with his family to Berkeley, Calif. Following graduation from Berkeley
High School, he attended Deep Springs College in California. After two years, he entered the
University of Missouri and received a BA in English Literature. He later completed course
work toward a master's degree at the University of Missouri.
Michael began his career in broadcast journalism in 1966 while a graduate student, first as a
radio reporter and then as a news director at KCGM in Columbia, Missouri. He transferred
across town to KFRU radio and was quickly promoted from assistant news director to news
director. Between newscasts, he worked for The Columbia Daily Tribune as city editor.
In 1970, Michael moved from the Midwest to Washington, D.C. There he worked for The
National Observer -- the first two years as general arts writer, then five years as general
assignment reporter and national feature writer. A promotion to West Coast bureau chief in
1976 took Michael to Los Angeles. When the Observer closed in 1977 he worked in New
York for Time Inc., then The Miami Herald lured him to Florida to write for its Sunday
magazine, Tropic. He later wrote a column for the paper.
In 1981, Michael returned to broadcasting, this time in television. At WTVJ in Miami, he
reported on a wide variety of stories but with a heavy emphasis on government and politics. In
1986, he became weekend co-anchor. By the late '80s, Michael Putney had achieved "most
valuable reporter" status in the South Florida broadcast community. Michael has been to Cuba
dozens of times. His knowledge of, and experience with Cuban political issues is virtually
unmatched among South Florida news professionals. The myriad of stories he has covered
includes the Mariel boatlifts; Immigration Accord talks in Havana, Washington D.C. and New
York; and an in-depth interview with Cuban National Assembly President, Ricardo Alarcon.
Michael reported from Havana when the remains of Che Guevara were returned to the island
from Bolivia. He was part of the Channel 10 team that covered the visit to Cuba of Pope John
Paul II.
Michael's superior reporting skills have won him two Emmys. The State Supreme Court also
appointed him to the Florida's Judicial Management Council. He said his favorite part of being
123
a reporter is talking to newsmakers and trying to pull out the facts, some of which, he said, is
occasionally the truth. He's has tried to forget any embarrassments he may have had during his
illustrious career. He has a lot of respect for the broadcasting profession and said he is most
proud just to have made slot the night before.
Michael enjoys spending time with his wife Marta and his daughter Mia, and a quirky cocker
spaniel named Zoe. When he is out on the town and looking for a place to dine, he often
chooses Cafe Ragazzi. He also enjoys cooking, reading, tennis, and traveling.
William Ratliff, Ph.D.- the Hoover Institution
William Ratliff is a research fellow and curator of the Americas Collection at the Hoover
Institution.
He is currently working on interpreting Latin American history, the traditional roots of
modern China, and U.S. foreign policy. Ratliff is coauthor of Report from Havana (Cato
Policy Analysis, 2001), with Jonathan Clarke; The Law and Economics of Development
(Hoover Press, 2000), with Edgardo Buscaglia; A Strategic Flip-Flop in the Caribbean: Lift
the Embargo on Cuba (Hoover Essays in Public Policy, 2000), with Roger Fontaine; and
contributing coeditor of The Law and Economics of Development (JAI Press, 1997), with
Buscaglia and Robert Cooter.
He is also coauthor of Inside the Cuban Interior Ministry (Jamestown Foundation, 1994), with
Juan Antonio Rodriguez Menier; The Civil War in Nicaragua: Inside the Sandinistas
(Transaction Publishers, 1993), with Roger Miranda; and three Hoover Essays in Public
Policy on legal reform and political/economic reform in Argentina, with Buscaglia, Maria
Dakolias, and Fontaine. Among his other books are Castroism and Communism in Latin
America and The Soviet-Cuban Presence in East Africa. He is contributing editor to The
Media and the Cuban Revolution and coeditor of Juan Peron: Cartas del exilio. For two
decades Ratliff was Latin American editor of the Hoover Institution's Yearbook on
International Communist Affairs and for four years a contributor to the annual Latin America
and Caribbean Contemporary Record. He has also been book review editor of the Journal of
Interamerican Studies and World Affairs.
Ratliff has interviewed two dozen foreign presidents and prime ministers, including Fidel
Castro, Carlos Menem, Alberto Fujimori, and Lee Kwan Yew. He has published articles and
commentaries from dozens of countries, among them Panama, Argentina, Colombia,
Venezuela, Greece, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, China, Vietnam, and Kazakhstan, in all major
American and many foreign newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the New York
Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the International Herald Tribune, El
Mercurio (Santiago), the Globe and Mail (Toronto), and the South China Morning Post (Hong
Kong). He wrote from Cuba on the 25th anniversary of Castro's revolution and from the war
zones of Nicaragua and El Salvador, for the Chicago Tribune.
On the Internet, he has written for the MSNBC "Opinion" section and contributed to the
award-winning Panama hand-over section of the on-line NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. He has
been interviewed on CNN, NPR, PBS, APR, BBC, Voice of America, Radio Marti, and many
other radio and TV stations around the world.
124
Ratliff's biography is included in Who's Who in the West and noted in Who's Who in
America. Between 1978 and 1986 he was a columnist and chief editorial writer for the
Chicago Tribune's newspaper Peninsula Times Tribune. In the mid-1970s he began writing on
classical music for the Los Angeles Times and the Metropolitan Opera's Opera News.
He has taught courses in English literature, Latin American and Chinese history, international
relations, and journalism at Stanford, San Francisco State University, the University of San
Francisco, Tunghai University in Taiwan, and other universities; monitored elections in El
Salvador, Costa Rica, and Chile; and conducted private lecture tours in Latin America, China,
and Southeast Asia.
Ratliff obtained his B.A. from Oberlin College; his M.A. (Chinese history) and Ph.D (Latin
American/Chinese history) are from the University of Washington in Seattle.
The Honorable William D. Rogers
Former Assistant Secretary of State, Vice-Chair, Kissinger Associates
EDUCATION: St. Andrew’s School, 1944, Princeton University with honors A.B. 1948,
Yale Law School J.D. 1951
PRIVATE PRACTICE: Law Clerk, Judge Charles E. Clark, United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit 1951-1952, Law Clerk, Justice Stanley Reed, Supreme Court of the
United States, 1952-1953, Associate and latterly Senior Partner, Arnold & Porter,
Washington, D.C. 1953-1961, 1965-1974, 1977-date: Trial and appellate litigation; Counsel
and arbitrator in International Chamber of Commerce and International Centre for Settlement
of Investment Disputes.
BUSINESS: Vice Chair, Kissinger Associates, 1988-date.
ACADEMIC: Lecturer on Public International Law and Member of the Law Faculty,
Cambridge University, England, 1982-1983, Writings on international policy issues.
GOVERNMENT: Special Counsel and Deputy U.S. Coordinator, Alliance for Progress, U.S.
Department of State, 1961-1965, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs,
Department of State, 1974-1976, Under Secretary of State for International Economic Affairs,
U.S. Department of State, 1976-1977, Special Emissary for President Carter to El Salvador,
1980, Senior Counselor to the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America 19841985
OTHER: Two-term President, American Society of International Law, Three-term Director,
Council on Foreign Relations, Co-Chair, Bilateral Commission on the Future of U.S.-Mexican
Relations, Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations Cuba Task Force, 1998-2001.
Vice Chair, Cordell Hull Institute, 2001-date.
Joaquín Roy, Ph.D.- European Union Center, University of Miami
Joaquín Roy, 'Jean Monnet' Professor and Director, European Union Center, University of
Miami
Joaquín Roy (Lic. Law, University of Barcelona, 1966; Ph.D, Georgetown University, 1973),
is Jean Monnet Professor (www.euroy.net) of European Integration, founding Director of the
European Union Research Institute, and Senior Research Associate of North-South Center, of
the University of Miami, and Co-Director of the newly established European Union Center.
(www.miami.edu/eucenter/). He is the author of over 200 articles and reviews, 25 books,
among them The Reconstruction of Central America: the Role of the European Community
(North-South Center, 1991), The Ibero-American Space/ El Espacio Iberoamericano
125
(U.Miami/University of Barcelona, 1996), La siempre fiel: un siglo de relaciones
hispanocubanas (1898-1998), Cuba, the U.S. and the Helms-Burton Doctrine (University of
Florida Press, 2000), Las relaciones exteriores de la Unión Europea (México: UNAM, 2001),
and Retos de la integración regional: Europa y América (México: UNAM, 2002). His over
1,100 columns and essays have been appearing in newspapers and magazines in Spain, the
United States and Latin America.
Rob Schroth - Schroth & Associates
President, Schroth & Associates (Washington, DC) 1993-present. Rob Schroth, directed the
consulting team for the PRCS in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, which led to the reelection of President of Joaquin Balaguer and elected Jacinto Peynado as Vice-President. Mr.
Schroth has served in presidential campaigns in Ecuador working with the PSC (Partido
Social Christiano), in Costa Rica with President Oscar Arias, and in Venezuela with Mr.
Eduardo Fernanadez of the Christian Democratic Party. Mr. Schroth has also worked for the
Univision Television NetworkÆs presidential campaign coverage in 1988, 1992, and 1996,
including co-producing and planning the networkÆs Democratic and Republican Convention
coverage, election night coverage, and publicizing the networkÆs polling program and
political research throughout the election season. Mr. Schroth has also served as pollster for
numerous political candidates, governments, and corporations in the United States.
General John J. Sheehan, USMC (Ret.)- Nato Allied Command
Born 23 August 1940, Somerville, Massachusetts. U.S.A. General Sheehan’s last active
service posts were NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and COMMANDER IN
CHIEF U.S. Atlantic Command.
After retirement in November 1997, he served for two U.S. Secretaries of Defense as their
Special Advisor for Central Asia. He was a member of the U.S. Defense Policy Board.
From October 1994 to November 1997, he served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander
Atlantic and Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command. While in the latter position, he
was responsible for the organization, training and deployment of 1.2 million men and women
to support U.S. worldwide requirements. As CINCUSACOM he was responsible for migrant
operations in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Peace Support Operations in Haiti, hurricane relief
operations in Florida, International Olympic support in Atlanta and the joint training and
integration for U.S. based forces.
As SACLANT, in addition to his Major NATO Commander’s responsibilities, he was
responsible for the development and support of the Central Asian Peace Keeping Battalion and
NATO’s Partnership For Peace training program for all former CIS nations conducting
peacekeeping training in the United States.
Prior to these positions, he served as the Director for Operations (J-3), U.S. Joint Chiefs of
Staff. As the J-3, he coordinated the worldwide deployments of U.S. forces. He also developed
and supervised a state of the art global information management and command and control
system for U.S. leadership.
His U.S. combat decorations include a Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars with Combat V and 2
Purple Hearts. He has also been awarded the French National Order of Merit; the Netherlands
126
Medal of Merit in Gold; the Portuguese Great Cross of Merit; the Hungarian Order of Merit
and the Great Cross of the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit. He holds an undergraduate
degree from Boston College and graduate degree from Georgetown University. He also is a
frequent lecturer at The Royal Institute Of International Affairs, London School of Economics
and Royal College of Defense Studies. He is married to the former Margaret Sullivan they
have four children.
José Miguel Vivanco - Human Rights Watch, Executive Director, Americas Division
José Miguel Vivanco holds a Master’s degree in Law (LLM) from Harvard Law School. He
previously studied law at the University of Chile, and then at Salamanca Law School in Spain.
During 1986 and 1987 he worked as an attorney at Human Rights Watch, then known as
Americas Watch. From 1987 to 1989, Mr. Vivanco was an attorney for the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS). In 1990 he
founded the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and functioned as its executive
director until August 1994. (CEJIL is an NGO that files complaints before international
human rights bodies (UN and the OAS) for human rights violations.) In September 1994, José
Miguel Vivanco became executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch.
Mr. Vivanco has also been an Adjunct Professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center
and the School of Advanced International Studies of the John Hopkins University.
Mr. Vivanco has received several scholarships and fellowships in the field of human rights,
and has authored numerous publications. A Chilean national, Mr. Vivanco was born in
Santiago on January 3, 1961
Lissa Weinmann - World Policy Institute, Cuba Project
As director of The Cuba Project at the World Policy Institute since 1997, Ms. Weinmann has
led an educational campaign on the impact of the embargo in Cuba and the U.S. Prior to her
work with Cuba, Ms. Weinmann was Vice President in charge of advising Latin American
governmental and private sector clients on media and public policy strategies at the Abernathy
MacGregor Group in New York. She has worked as a reporter for various New York City
newspapers and as a media and legislative staffer at the New York City Council. She is a
founder and board member of Americans For Humanitarian Trade With Cuba (AHTC), the
first national coalition seeking to end restrictions on sales of food and medicine to Cuba and
the free travel necessary for such trade to occur. Ms. Weinmann has a Masters Degree in
International Affairs from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs
and a Bachelors Degree in Journalism from the Newhouse School of Public Communications
at Syracuse University. She speaks Spanish and has two wonderful children.
Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski- Bishop of Orlando
Bishop Wenski, born in West Palm Beach on October 18, 1950 grew up in Lake Worth,
Florida where he attended Catholic school at his home parish, Sacred Heart. He studied at St.
John Vianney Minor Seminary in Miami and later at St. Vincent de Paul Major Seminary in
Boynton Beach and was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of Miami on May 15, 1976. He
earned a B.A. Degree in Philosophy (1972), and Masters of Divinity (1975), from the Boynton
Beach Seminary and in 1993 a MA from the School of Sociology of Fordham University in
New York. He has also taken summer courses at the Catholic University of Lublin (Poland).
127
He served three years as associate pastor of Corpus Christi Church, a mainly Hispanic parish
in Miami. In 1979, after briefly ministering in Haiti, he was assigned to the newly established
Haitian Apostolate of the Archdiocese. He was associate director and then director of the
Pierre Toussaint Haitian Catholic Center in Miami from that time to his appointment as a
Bishop in 1997. He also served concurrently as pastor of
three Haitian mission parishes in the Archdiocese—Notre-Dame d’Haiti in Miami, Divine
Mercy in Fort Lauderdale, and St. Josephin Pompano Beach. Through the 1980’s he also
conducted a circuit-riding ministry that led him to help establish Haitian Catholic communities
from Homestead in the south to Fort Pierce to the north, Immokalee to the West and Fort
Lauderdale to the east. In the early 1980’s his outreach to Haitians led him to preach in
migrant camps near Lake Wales and Winter Haven. The Pierre Toussaint Haitian Catholic
Center in addition to providing for the pastoral and spiritual needs of the Haitian communities
of South Florida also provided numerous social, educational, and legal services to newly
arrived Haitian immigrants.
He celebrated the weekly mass in English for shut-ins at the local ABC affiliate from 19921997. He directed the Archdiocese of Miami Ministry to Non-Hispanic Ethnic Groups.
In January 1996, the then Father Wenski was appointed the Archdiocese Director of Catholic
Charities, one of the largest Catholic social service agencies in the United States. In this
capacity he helped forge a collaborative relationship with Caritas Cuba, the social service arm
of the Catholic Church in Cuba. Since early 1996 he has traveled to Cuba on many occasions
on behalf of the Church. In late 1996, he spearheaded a relief operation that delivered over
150,000 pounds of food to Caritas Cuba for distribution to people left homeless by hurricane
Lily. This was the first time that Cubans in Miami participated in a humanitarian relief effort
directed to Cuba. In subsequent years, similar relief efforts were also directed to Haiti, the
Dominican Republic, and the countries of Central America and Colombia.
Appointed auxiliary Bishop of Miami on June 24, 1997, he was ordained to the episcopacy on
September 3, 1997 along with Bishop Gilberto Fernandez in the Miami Arena. Besides his
duties in the Archdiocese of Miami, where he serves on numerous boards including Catholic
Hospice, Catholic Charities, Catholic Charities Legal Services, and St. Thomas University, he
also serves as chair of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops Committee on
Migration and is a member of the Conference’s Secretariat for Church in Latin America and
CLINIC (Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.). On behalf of his work on these
committees, he has traveled to the Congo and the Great Lakes region of Africa, the Caribbean
and Central and South America. In 2001, Governor Bush appointed him to the Florida
Council on Homelessness. He is currently the Episcopal Moderator for Catholic Health
Services for the Florida Catholic Conference.
Bishop Wenski speaks Haitian, Creole, and Spanish fluently. His parents moved to Florida
from Detroit, Michigan shortly after their wedding in 1947. They are both deceased. His
sister and niece live in Lake Worth. He is the only Florida native serving as a bishop in the
state. Pope John Paul II appointed Bishop Wenski as coadjutor bishop of the Diocese of
Orlando on July 1.
128
Silvia Wilhelm, Puentes Cubanos
A native of Havana, Cuba, she came to the United States as an unaccompanied child in
January 1961 through the Operacion Pedro Pan, which eventually took over 14,000 children
out of Cuba.
Ms. Wilhelm attended Miami Dade Community College and American University School of
International Service. For many years she worked in various administrative positions at the
University of Miami School of Medicine. In 1986 she founded and operated her corporate and
meeting planning firm conducting the planning, operational and meeting arrangements for top
corporate clients' incentive travel in the Caribbean, Europe and the United States.
After returning to Cuba in 1994, after a 33 year absence, she became active in advocating for a
change of U.S. policy towards Cuba. From 1995 to 1999 she served as the Executive Director
of the Cuban Committee for Democracy with offices in Washington and Miami. From 1999
to 2000 she became the Executive Director of Americans for Humanitarian trade with Cuba,
where she continues to play an active role as a member of the Board of Directors.
Mrs. Wilhelm was the founder and serves as Executive Director of Puentes Cubanos, an NGO
licensed by the Treasury Department to conduct educational, professional and cultural
exchanges between the people of Cuba and the United States.
Ms. Wilhelm, along with other Cuban American leaders, is coordinating the Cuban American
Advocacy Day scheduled for tomorrow in Washington as part of the National Summit on
Cuba event.
Antonio R. Zamora - The Time Is Now Coalition
Latin American counsel of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, a New York law firm with offices
in Miami, Washington, Los Angeles and Paris. Mr. Zamora is based in the Miami office. A
native of Cuba, attended the University of Havana for a brief period before leaving Cuba for
the United States in 1960. Later, he was part of Brigade 2506 at the Bay of Pigs and a POW
for 20 months after the failure of the invasion. Upon his return to the United States he served
as an officer in the U.S. Navy. Upon leaving the Navy, Mr. Zamora obtained a Bachelor’s
Degree in Political Science from the University of Florida in 1965, a Masters Degree in
International Studies from the University of Miami in 1969, and a Juris Doctor degree from
the University of Florida in 1973.
Mr. Zamora specializes in international corporate law dealing primarily with Latin America.
This experience includes general corporate transactions, international litigation, mergers and
acquisitions, international joint ventures, international trade, public/private offerings and,
particularly, foreign investment. Mr. Zamora is a frequent lecturer on international matters.
He has written several articles on foreign investment, three of them about Cuba. From 1981 to
1992 was General Counsel of the Cuban American National Foundation. He returned to Cuba
for the first time in 1995. In 2000 founded the organization named US/Cuba Legal Forum,
Inc., of which he is President. US/Cuba Legal Forum, Inc. is a Florida not-for-profit
corporation that promotes the normalization of legal relations between the United States and
Cuba by means of personal contacts, seminars, conferences and workshops between U.S. and
Cuban attorneys. In 2003 he was elected Chairman of The Time is Now Coalition, Inc.
129
The Last Wall
By Mikhail Gorbachev
The Washington Post
Editorial; Pg. A19
October 4, 2003
The changes that have occurred in the world in the past 20 years are truly remarkable.
We have left behind the Cold War and the confrontation between two irreconcilable
ideological systems. The symbol of divided Europe -- the Berlin Wall, which Ronald Reagan
famously urged me to tear down in 1987 -- has long since been destroyed. But one relic of
the Cold War remains: the wall of the economic embargo imposed by the United States on
Cuba 43 years ago.
The lack of relations between the U.S. and Cuban governments, enshrined as it is in the
U.S. policy of economic and diplomatic isolation of Cuba, has not allowed for an
understanding that could benefit the citizens of both nations. The burden of the isolation of
Cuba has been borne by ordinary people on both sides of the Florida Straits: the divided
Cuban family.
That this situation is abnormal and that the embargo is counterproductive is increasingly
recognized throughout the world and in the United States. The high-profile visit of Pope John
Paul II symbolized the willingness of the world to open to Cuba and of Cuba to open to the
world. Former President Jimmy Carter's trip to that country was a courageous and
responsible step.
Many other U.S. political leaders have spoken in favor of normalizing relations. Yet the
U.S. government prohibits average Americans from even traveling to Cuba. While it calls for
human rights in Cuba, the United States prevents its own citizens from sharing free
enterprise, freedom of movement and free thinking with the Cuban people.
The only way to get out of this time warp is to replace the current policy with a policy of
constructive engagement similar to the one being pursued toward other so-called Communist
countries.
This view is shared not only by most members of the international community, it has
support among those most affected by the current policy, namely the Cuban people and
Cuban Americans in the United States. They would also benefit the most if the United States
were to liberalize its policies, starting with opening the door to travel to Cuba.
Remember that expanding contacts and exchanges, agreed to by President Reagan and
me at our 1985 summit in Geneva, did much to increase mutual understanding between our
two countries.
Many Cuban Americans who traditionally backed punitive measures against Cuba are
increasingly calling for dialogue between the two nations. Polls show that most Cuban
Americans would like to take the first steps to heal the wounds of the past 43 years. I think
the leaders of both states should recognize that true courage is demonstrated by a willingness
to engage in a difficult and honest dialogue, to admit mistakes and to seek common ground
for the good of future generations.
130
An end to the embargo would complete the unfinished business of the Cold War in the
Western Hemisphere. It is because of the Cold War that a country that saw an anti-dictatorial
revolution, which had nothing to do with Communist ideology, became involved in the
superpower confrontation. Isolated and belonging ideologically to the "socialist camp," its
choice of the path of socioeconomic development became all but inevitable. And during the
missile crisis Cuba nearly became the trigger for a nuclear war.
Yet it would be unfair to reduce Cuba's entire post-revolutionary history to that. The
achievements of the Cuban people in education, health, science and the arts have been widely
recognized. The Cubans withstood the consequences of the withdrawal of Soviet economic
subsidies, and the country's economy has recently shown an 8 percent growth in gross
domestic product. Cuba has pursued a responsible foreign policy, as I can confirm based on
my own experience working with Fidel Castro to defuse regional crises in Central America
and Africa.
The time has come to develop a policy responsive to those realities. Constructive
engagement would not just make it possible to normalize relations between two close
neighbors; it would also improve prospects for positive evolution in Cuba's domestic
situation and create a different set of conditions for raising human rights issues.
What's needed is a first step, and it is up to the United States to take it. I urge President
Bush to tear down the wall of the embargo now, in order to lay the foundation for a new
relationship with Cuba.
The writer is former President of the Soviet Union.
131
SELECTED PRESS CLIPS RELATED TO THE NATIONAL SUMMIT ON CUBA
Cuba to Lift Restriction On Visits by Exiles in U.S.
Associated Press
Wednesday, October 1, 2003; Page A17
MIAMI, Sept. 30 -- Cuban natives living in the United States soon will no longer need permission from the
government of Fidel Castro to travel to the Communist-ruled island if they hold a Cuban passport, a Cuban official
said today.
Lazaro Herrera, a spokesman with the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, said the change will take effect
early next year. Cuban exiles now wishing to visit their homeland must obtain special permission.
The proposed change was announced by Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque at a meeting with about 300 Cuban
Americans in New York on Saturday, Herrera said. The Cuban government is changing its policy to try to improve
relations with exiles, Herrera said.
"For many years, we've been making steps with the Cuban community abroad that haven't been able to advance
more" because of the opposition of Miami's Cuban Americans, he said. "Now there has really been a generational
change in Florida, where there is a majority of Cubans who support normal relations with the island."
The State Department had no immediate comment. U.S. policy allows Cuban Americans to visit relatives on the
island once a year without permission, but additional trips must be approved by the Treasury Department's Office
of Foreign Assets Control.
The Cuban American National Foundation supports the announced visa policy, executive director Joe Garcia said.
C 2003 The Washington Post Company
New Law to Grant Cuban Exiles Permission
to Visit Homeland without Havana's Blessing
Voice Of America News
01 Oct 2003, 14:33 UTC
A Cuban official says Cuban natives living in the United
States will soon be able to travel to the Communist island without permission from Havana.
Lazaro Herrera of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington told reporters Tuesday that the change would take
effect early next year. He said details of the change were still being discussed in Havana.
Currently, Cuban exiles who wish to visit Cuba must obtain special permission from the Cuban government before
making the trip.
* Cuba did lift restrictions in 2004
132
Active U.S. Role Vital For Cuba
Sun-Sentinel Of Fort Lauderdale
Monday - September 15, 2003
South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board
Up until Cuba's 1959 revolution, the United States wielded incalculable influence on the island.
It's time for the United States, which has worked to isolate Cuba politically and economically, to switch
gears and again play a role in the country's political, economic and social development.
There are those who believe the United States must maintain a hands-off stance until the time is
right -- meaning the moment Fidel Castro dies or a popular revolt erupts to dislodge him from power.
That's a mistaken approach.
The United States, and South Florida, have too much at risk to sit on the sidelines until events spin
out of control. Instead, U.S. policy-makers must seek opportunities now to guide, sway and encourage
groups, enterprises and institutions to adopt forward-looking approaches that embrace democratic and
marketplace driven ideas.
That's especially the case since important voices within Cuba are calling for broad internal reforms,
which the United States should support with constructive measures.
Last week, Cuba's Catholic bishops issued a letter to the Cuban government. The bishops
criticized the regime's intolerance for differing political views and the curtailing of reforms that permit
Cubans to run small businesses and hold private jobs. These actions have
set back aspirations raised by Pope John Paul II's January 1998 visit to the island.
While the bishops' landmark letter is aimed at the Cuban government, the choice it indirectly lays
out for Washington is clear. The United States, and its allies in the hemisphere and beyond, can sit on
the sidelines, or find ways to engage Cuba and play an effective role
in backing reform efforts in ways that promote needed and peaceful change.
The time for the United States to begin wielding its influence inside Cuba, not outside it, is now.
But Americans must do so across-the-board, not in piecemeal ways. Washington should lift its travel
ban. It also should permit multinational companies to engage in commerce and invest in the country,
permit the sale of a much broader
list of goods and services to Cubans and offer financial assistance to organizations in Cuba that promote
a peaceful transition to democracy.
Most importantly, it should do this not because it seeks to displace Castro and his brother Raúl or
to modify the Cuban government's behavior. Rather, it must do this because setting the stage for an
orderly transition in leadership is in Cuba's, America's and the Western
Hemisphere's best interests.
Anti-Castro groups and organizations oppose lifting the embargo on commerce and investment, as
well as a ban that prevents people, except journalists, Cuban-Americans and other select groups, from
traveling to Cuba. Their rationale on the travel ban is that tourists
will do little to prod needed reforms in Cuba, while simply putting dollars in the repressive government's
coffers. Their concern is the only Americans traveling to Cuba will be those stepping of a cruise ship for
an afternoon in Havana, or another port-of-call, or those sipping mojito cocktails on Varadero Beach.
Lifting the travel ban, however, could give a boost to the purchasing power of many ordinary
Cubans. Spending by Americans, via tips and purchases, would provide critical dollars to 100,000
Cubans who run their own businesses, including restaurants, art shops and taxis.
These entrepreneurs are precisely the economic class that America must reach out to, but that current
policy shuns.
133
Ditto for the restrictions placed on U.S. investment in Cuba under the decades-old embargo and the
1996 Helms-Burton law, which sought, among other things, to dissuade companies in other countries
from investing in Cuba.
U.S. companies, for example, should be encouraged to purchase from, and perhaps invest in, the
few Cuban state-owned enterprises that have gone through the government-sanctioned restructuring
program known
as perfeccionamiento empresarial. These companies have conducted aggressive top-down reviews of
operations and found ways to become more efficient and productive. In return, company managers are
granted greater autonomy from the government and ruling Communist Party.
U.S. investment or commerce with these companies might encourage greater utilization of this
strategy, bolstering higher-income employment for Cuban workers and prodding Cuba's economy
toward autonomy and efficiency.
This tactic asks a great deal of American companies, especially since many are still owed
reimbursement for properties and investments that were nationalized at the beginning of the Cuban
Revolution. But
taking the risk of investing in Cuba now could offer great rewards later on. Plenty of U.S. companies
have already shown an interest in the island's industries. And Castro, though openly and consistently
hostile to capitalist systems and beliefs, has frequently met with American
corporate chieftains who have visited the island to assess opportunities.
U.S. policy also should aid groups seeking to broaden political discourse in Cuba. This would help
lay the groundwork for the eventual transition to a multiparty state. Currently, only the Communist Party
is legal in Cuba.
Again, the goal shouldn't be to destabilize Cuba, but to put the blocks in place to support an orderly
transition. If constructive steps aren't taken now, Cuba could collapse into economic and political chaos
when the inevitable change in leadership does come.
A number of organizations in Cuba are working for electoral and economic change. These include
the Varela Project, a faith-based group that has petitioned the Cuban government for basic civil rights.
The bottom-up reform movement received a major blow in April when dozens of individuals in
these organizations were arrested, charged with subversion and sentenced to long prison terms.
Despite the risks, the United States should continue supporting the brave people involved in grassroots reform, though lessons should be learned from the crackdown. For example, U.S. diplomats in
Cuba, who
directly aided and publicly backed these organizations, should not be involved. Instead, financial aid
should be channeled through competent and effective non-government organizations around the world
that are committed to, and have experience in, fostering peaceful democratic and
entrepreneurial views.
The objective of such a comprehensive strategy would not be to turn Fidel Castro into a democrat.
That's not going to happen as a result of any U.S. policy. Castro chose his direction, destiny and fate in
1959. End of debate.
Nevertheless, there are 11 million other people in Cuba, many of whom think very differently than
Cuba's dictator. They, not Castro, should be the U.S. government's top priority. Elected leaders,
including those in South Florida, should not hesitate to travel to Cuba on
"fact-finding" missions to broaden their understanding of the challenges that will confront the Cuban
people following a change in leadership.
A foreign policy tailored to the Cold War will not engage the many free thinking and willing Cuban
citizens who hope for meaningful change in their country with the inevitable changing of the guard.
America must reach out with the best that it has: Its ideas, its entrepreneurial spirit and its faith in an
open society that grants opportunity to all.
Copyright (c) 2003, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
134
The Miami Herald published opposing editorials on the day of the Summit
Consensus, Openness Lead Toward A Free Cuba
Miami Herald
Posted on Sat, Oct. 04, 2003
By Patricia Gutierrez-Menoyo
On Aug. 7, my father, Eloy Gutiérrez-Menoyo, decided not to return to the United States from what was
supposed to be a short visit to Cuba. I can just see him when he said to himself: ``Why should I leave? This
is my country.''
His action symbolizes a break with the past. It reflects his unwillingness to accept current preconceptions that
the Cuban people cannot resolve their differences. It is a rejection of fear -- a new beginning. Above all it is
an expression of love, determination and of his belief in the future of a united Cuban people.
In this spirit, an event will be held today at the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables that will bring together
prominent national, international and local leaders from a variety of sectors who also seek to challenge our
habitual way of thinking and chart a new course for the Cuban community.
This event, the Florida National Summit on Cuba, is being led by Cuban-American groups, including my
father's organization, Cambio Cubano (Cuban Change), representing the new consensus: U.S. policy toward
Cuba must change before more people are thrown into prison, more bodies wash up on Florida's shores and
another generation of Cubans gets lost in the suspended animation that U.S. policy -- hand in hand with
Castro -- has led to all these years.
Current policy is a foul stew of unintended consequences, contradictions and double standards.
There is much being made now of the U.S. administration's ''new'' plans to step up funding of the internal
opposition in Cuba and attempts to create an American-led international fund for such activities. It is ironic
and a monument to double standards; the U.S. funnels an estimated $30 million a year of taxpayer dollars to
Cuban dissidents-- many of whom end up being agents of the Cuban security-- while I, by law, can only send
my father $300 dollars per quarter.
Ironies abound. While I can visit my father only once a year without U.S. authorization, members of Congress
and other VIPs can travel when they wish and enjoy a Cuba untainted by American tourists, who must not be
allowed to travel to Cuba because they might dare to go to the beach. Otto Reich, the former assistant
secretary of state, even warned that Americans might be ''corrupted'' if they are allowed to visit Cuba.
Demand change
In America, when an idea doesn't work, people demand something else. For four years, the U.S. Congress
has been blocked by its leadership from bringing an honest vote to the floor on whether to allow open travel
to Cuba. Now that the Senate is expected to vote again soon, the president has threatened to veto the entire
Treasury appropriations bill -- the source of funding for the war against terrorism -- if the travel provision
stands.
The goal of this National Summit on Cuba is to give voice to all groups who genuinely seek a proactive Cuba
policy, one that can better project U.S. values and the needs of the Cuban people. We must honestly assess
what policy will bring us, each day, closer to our goal of a free, independent and united Cuba.
As I prepared to take part in this summit, I was encouraged to hear that colleagues were in tune with some of
my personal feelings. As one of them told me: ''We will all be thinking of your father and his courageous
move.'' It is comforting to know that his call for reconciliation is being heard and that there is hope for a
change in U.S. policy and, most important, for the future of the Cuban people.
Patricia Gutiérrez-Menoyo is a member of the national directorate of Cambio Cubano, led by her father, Eloy
Gutiérrez-Menoyo.
135
Catering to Castro hurts Cubans
Miami Herald
Posted Oct. 4 2003
By Jaime Suchlicki
Opponents of U.S. policy toward Cuba continue to claim that, if the embargo and travel ban were lifted,
the Cuban people would benefit economically, the communist system would start crumbling and
transition to democracy would accelerate. Do they really believe that American tourists and businesses
would succeed where Canadians, Latin Americans and Europeans have failed?
For decades hundred of thousands of tourists from these countries have visited the island, and their
investments and trade have been welcomed by the Castro regime. Yet the end result has been little
prosperity and more repression for the Cuban people.
The assumption that tourism or trade will lead to economic and political change is not borne by empirical
studies. In Eastern Europe, communism collapsed a decade after tourism peaked. No study of Eastern
Europe or the Soviet Union claims that tourism, trade or investments had anything to do with the end of
communism. A disastrous economic system, competition with the West, successive leadership changes
with no legitimacy, anti-Soviet feeling in Eastern Europe and the failed Soviet war in Afghanistan were
among the reasons for change.
There is no evidence to support the notion that engagement with a totalitarian state will bring about its
demise. Only academic ideologues and some members of Congress interested in catering to the
economic needs of their state's constituencies cling to this notion. Their calls for ending the embargo
have little to do with democracy in Cuba or the welfare of the Cuban people.
The assumption that Fidel Castro and the Cuban leadership would allow U.S. tourists or businesses to
subvert the revolution and influence internal developments is at best nave. The repeated statement that
the embargo is the cause of Cuba's economic problems is hollow.
The reasons for the economic misery of the Cubans are a failed political and economic system. Like the
communist systems of Eastern Europe, Cuba's system does not function, stifles initiative and
productivity and destroys human freedom and dignity.
Lifting the embargo and travel ban without meaningful changes in Cuba's political and economic system
will:
• Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structures and delay any transition.
• Strengthen state enterprises, considering that money will flow into businesses owned by the Cuban
government. Most businesses in Cuba are owned by the state and, in all foreign investments, the Cuban
government retains a partnership interest.
• Perpetuate the rather extensive control that the military holds over the economy, including tourism.
Numerous tourist enterprises including the airline Gaviota is owned by the military.
The economic impact of tourism, while providing the Castro government with much-needed dollars,
would be limited. Few dollars will flow to the Cuban poor; state and foreign enterprises will benefit most
and a large percentage of the tourist dollars spent will be sent abroad by the foreign entities operating
hotels and nightclubs.
The travel ban and the embargo should be retained until there is a regime in Cuba willing to provide
meaningful concessions in the areas of human rights, democratization and market economics. To do
otherwise is to provide the Castro regime with a gift that it has not earned.
Jaime Suchlicki is Emilio Bacardí Moreau professor of history and international studies at the University
of Miami.
136
Castro's Mortality?
THE NATIONAL REVIEW
October 17, 2003
By William F. Buckley Jr.
Announcing his new initiatives in the matter of dealing with Cuba, President Bush (news - web
sites) proclaimed that "no tyrant can stand forever against the power of liberty." Mr. Bush
must have been making a biological point. Fidel Castro (news - web sites) is not going to live
forever, and therefore it is true that that tyrant's stay on Earth is limited by a congeries of
organic factors that include blood, heart and brain. A mortal development here would not
make his death a triumph of U.S. foreign policy.
Castro celebrated his 77th birthday last August. He had told the National Assembly in March
that he would remain in power "as long as I feel that I can be useful and if it is not decided by
nature before." By "nature," he doesn't mean U.S. policies. He completed his thought: "Now I
understand it was not my destiny to rest at the end of my life."
What Mr. Bush did, on Oct. 10, was to announce, or rather to re-emphasize, three policies.
There would be a commission set up to assist a Free Cuba -- i.e., motions to help Cuba when
Castro is ousted or dies. (One wonders whether these would include renouncing the claims of
U.S. corporations whose assets were confiscated by Cuba four decades ago.)
Bush will more strictly enforce travel restrictions to guard against American entrepreneurs
going to Cuba to do business, or Americans going there as tourists.
And Bush will continue to attempt to devise ways to get Cubans seeking refuge from Castro
entry to the United States without requiring them to "risk their lives at sea." The policy would
seek to cope with Castro's punishment (most recently, sentences of 10 years in jail) of Cubans
who seek to emigrate, are caught and repatriated. How? Castro reacted to the Bush initiatives
in a characteristic way. "Cuba again denounces these new provocations and aggressions by the
neofascist American government." These policies, said the official Communist Party daily,
Granma, "have an electoral stink" that shows "the unlimited commitment of the American
government to the extreme right and its obsessions with destroying the Cuban revolution's
example."
Now analysts of the political situation can't discount the whole of such condemnations of U.S.
policy simply because they issue from Castro and his retinue. Mr. Bush's reiteration of the
same old thing in respect of our treatment of Cuba can't be attributed to fundamental U.S.
attitudes toward tyrannical governments. If this were so, we would not have permitted trade
with the Soviet Union during 30 long years before that tyranny ended. The tyranny in China
shows no sign whatever of ending and does not, there, depend on the longevity of a single
person. Mao has been dead for a long time, and we are into the fourth generation of tyrannical
successions. U.S. policy urges trade with Vietnam, a tyranny we fought, in living memory, not
by restricting tourist visas to Hanoi, but by dispatching 500,000 American soldiers to shoot
North Vietnamese Communists and their sympathizers.
Policies toward China and Vietnam evolved, but not policies toward Cuba, even though the
worldwide threat of which Cuba was once a salient no longer exists. Why? Do those policies
have something to do with "an electoral stink"?
Well, yes. Minority exertions on foreign policy tend to have extortionate effects. This is true
137
of Jewish-American influence on Mideast policy, of Hispanic-American influence on
immigration policy, of Cuban-American influence on Cuba policy.
There is, in this case, something of national pride also at work. We have been terribly
humiliated by Castro for 40 years. We tried to invade his country and failed. We tried to
assassinate him and failed. He extended his hospitality to Soviet nuclear missiles, very nearly
precipitating world war. Add to this his personal odiousness in torturing and killing individual
Cubans who defy or displease him. I quote myself a few years ago, and reiterate that I would
volunteer to serve as hangman if Castro were caught and sentenced to death.
But U.S. pride, brandished in Little Havana policy, doesn't make sense. Castro lives on, the
penury of the Cuban people increases, and the only truth that survives is that socialist Cuba
cannot withstand one thing: capitalist intervention. But only Cuban-Americans, apparently,
can bring on such revisions in policy as would at least permit American enterprise (news web sites) to bring concrete relief to Cubans, through the capitalism that scorns the pretensions
of Castroism and the misery they have brought.
But this torch must be lighted by Cuban-Americans. That day is not advanced by political
fustian that has got us nowhere in the 13 years in which Castro has lived an isolated
salamander in what was once the oceanic threat of a Soviet enterprise.
Senate Votes to End Limits on Cuba Travel
By Jim Abrams
The Associated Press
October 23, 2003
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defying a threatened presidential veto, the Senate joined
the House Thursday in moving to end four-decade-old restrictions on travel to
Cuba.
``It is not constructive at all to try to slap around Fidel Castro by
imposing limits on the American people's right to travel,'' said Sen. Byron Dorgan,
D-N.D.
The Senate voted 59-36 to bar the use of government money to enforce current
travel restrictions. Last month a nearly identical measure passed the House,
setting up a showdown with the administration, which says President Bush will
veto a $90 billion Transportation and Treasury Department bill if contains the
Cuba language.
``The administration believes that it is essential to maintain sanctions and
travel restrictions to deny economic resources to the brutal Castro regime,''
the White House said in a statement.
The Treasury Department estimates that about 160,000 Americans, half of them
Cuban-Americans visiting family members, traveled to Cuba legally last year.
Humanitarian and educational groups, journalists and diplomats are also allowed
visits, but thousands of other Americans visit illegally, by way of third
countries, risking thousands of dollars in fines and imprisonment.
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who co-sponsored the amendment to the spending
138
bill with Dorgan, said the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control,
a key office in the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking, shouldn't
be devoting resources to American tourists going to Cuba.
``Ten percent of the OFAC budget is used to track down little old grandmas
from the West Coast who through a Canadian travel agency chose to bike in
Cuba,'' he said.
Opponents warned that the provision sent a wrong signal at a time when the
Castro regime has escalated its crackdown on dissidents. ``Why should we now
open up travel to Cuba to give additional cash flow to the Castro regime?'' asked Sen. Ted
Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The bill is H.R. 2989.
ROLL CALL VOTE OF SENATORS ON TRAVEL BAN MEASURE
Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion To Table Dorgan Amdt. No. 1900
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the enforcement of the ban on travel to Cuba.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 36 (THIS IS A VOTE AGAINST ENDING THE TRAVEL BAN)
NAYs 59 (THIS IS A VOTE IN FAVOR OF ENDING THE TRAVEL BAN)
Not Voting 5
YEAs ---36 (AGAINST
ending the travel ban)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Bunning (R-KY)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
NAYs ---59 (IN FAVOR of
ending the travel ban)
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 5
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Edwards (D-NC)
Kerry (D-MA)
Bush Passes on Cuban Exiles' Right
139
He panders to a narrow, reactionary slice of a politically diverse community.
The Los Angeles Times
By Ann Louise Bardach
October 26, 2003
Ann Louise Bardach writes for Newsweek International and is a commentator on the Public
Radio program "Marketplace." She is the author of "Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance
in Miami and Havana."
Earlier this month, President Bush gathered 100 Cuban Americans in the White House Rose
Garden to outline his new Cuba policy. Sprinkling his speech with a few words of wellrehearsed Spanish, the president announced a new commission, co-chaired by Secretary of
State Colin Powell and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez. Its mission:
to draw up a transition-to-freedom plan for a post-Castro Cuba and to "identify ways to hasten
the arrival of that day." But judging from the reception of the president's speech most notably
within the Miami exile community Operation Cuba could be as controversial as Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
The cornerstone of the president's initiative is to aggressively criminalize travel to Cuba by
asking the Department of Homeland Security to identify and punish those who visit Cuba in
violation of U.S. laws, whether they travel from the United States or via a third country. The
president also vowed to crack down on people sending money to Cuba. What this policy fails
to take into account is that it is Cuban Americans who will be most penalized by the
crackdown. Not only do they travel often to Cuba to see family, they also send an estimated $1
billion annually to the island.
Bush's speech was carefully calibrated to appeal to a narrow and extremely reactionary section
of the exile community. He spoke about Cuban dissidents jailed by Fidel Castro, but he failed
to mention Cuba's most prominent dissidents, including Nobel Peace Prize nominee Oswaldo
Paya, leader of the respected Varela Project; and human rights activist Elizardo Sanchez.
Dissidents like Paya are ignored because, although they would like to see the end of Castro's
reign, they also argue that the U.S. embargo is counterproductive. Moreover, such charismatic
and popular figures represent a threat to the ambitions of White House favorite Rep. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart, the Miami congressman who has made no secret of his desire to succeed his uncle
by marriage, Castro the sooner the better.
Perhaps the clearest signal of just how extreme the Bush policy is can be gleaned from the list
of those invited to the Rose Garden. Amply represented were members of the Cuban Liberty
Council, a group that broke away from the conservative Cuban American National Foundation
on the grounds that it was too moderate. Also present was Alberto Hernandez, an exile known
for his militancy who is profusely thanked for his support and friendship in the memoirs of
Luis Posada Carriles, currently in prison in Panama on charges that he attempted to assassinate
Castro.
Though the president spoke of his intentions "to hasten the arrival of a new, free, democratic
Cuba," it was the wind of political partisanship, not the spirit of democracy, that blew in the
Rose Garden. Miami's three Cuban American Republican congressional representatives chatted
with the president, but their colleague Robert Menendez, a fervently anti-Castro exile who
represents a district in New Jersey, was left off the list. He is a Democrat. More stunning was
the omission of representatives from the Cuban American National Foundation, a prominent
exile group. The slight was viewed by insiders as part of ongoing punishment for the group's
not having endorsed Bush (or any other candidate) in the 2000 presidential campaign. "These
140
guys have no equal when it comes to revenge," says one foundation board member.
Members of the Cuba Study Group, an exile organization made up of the most influential
Cuban business leaders in Miami, were also excluded. One of its founders, Carlos Saladrigas,
who describes himself as a "lifelong conservative Republican," attributes the snub to the
group's recent polling, which found that a majority of South Florida's exiles now favor a
nonconfrontational approach to Cuba.
Of course, the president's speech omitted mention that the sole point of consensus among
Cuban exiles has been their belief that the U.S. economic embargo has utterly failed to meet its
stated goals although hard-liners would advocate strengthening rather than eliminating it. "If
not for the embargo," says Saladrigas, "Castro would just be another tin-pot Third World
dictator. He is the one who really needs to keep it in place, because it gives him his best
excuse. And it really helps keep him in power."
Seeking to justify his hostile policy toward Cuba, the president peppered his speech with
incendiary allegations. "A rapidly growing part of Cuba's tourism industry is the illicit sex
trade, a modern form of slavery which is encouraged by the Cuban government," he charged.
Certainly, prostitution has flourished in Cuba since the advent of tourism, and that is
worrisome. But it is hardly comparable with the skin trade in Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City or a
dozen other Latin American cities, and there is no evidence that the government is complicit.
Nor is prostitution as prevalent as it was in the 1950s when Cuba was America's sex and sin
parlor.
The president's policies are not only at odds with public opinion on Cuba; he has squared off
against his own party. In September, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives
passed amendments to ease the embargo against Cuba. For the fourth time in three years, it
voted to ease restrictions on travel. Thursday, the Senate for the first time passed the measure
as well. The president has said he will veto such a bill if it comes to him.
Bush's hard-line policies are not without political peril. "It would be close to impossible for
President Bush to carry Florida if he does not get the 80% or 85% level of the Cuban American
vote," says pollster Sergio Bendixen, adding that the administration is "risking 15% to 20% of
the vote by listening only to the most extreme element who favor a confrontational approach."
Bendixen points out that more than half of South Florida's exiles are fairly recent émigrés "who
are basically economic refugees and who have family in Cuba." This group, he says, no longer
wants sanctions to be the focus of U.S. policy.
One might reasonably ask, then, what the Bush administration believes it stands to gain by
tailoring its policy to please only hard-liners. The answer may be that, though Cuban exiles
have a multiplicity of political views, the extreme right wing still controls the political
leadership and electoral machinery of Miami-Dade, along with the vitally important Spanishlanguage radio stations. Bush is unlikely to have forgotten that it was Miami exile radio that
summoned rowdy protesters to the canvassing board during the 2000 presidential recount. And
Miami-Dade County officials decided to shut the recount down.
The current U.S. stance toward Cuba has little to do with effective foreign policy and
everything to do with Miami-Dade politics. All of which may explain why Fidel Castro seems
so amused by George W. Bush, the 10th American president to face off against him. With
enemies like this, Castro hardly needs friends.
141
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
Havana Club
The Wall Street Journal
27 October 2003
Review & Outlook (Editorial)
The Bush Administration, more than most, contains people whose families have paid a
personal price for the horror that is Cuban communism. Which is why it's a little unfair, after
last week's Senate vote to lift the U.S. travel ban to Cuba, to dismiss the White House
objections merely as worry that signing such language would hurt the President's re-election
chances in Florida.
Yes, the Cuban-American vote is a big deal, as Bill Clinton recognized when he courted
Miami's anti-Castro community and cash in his election runs. And given that the Senate vote
approving the lifting of the travel restrictions was less than the two-thirds required to override
any veto, we'd be surprised if the White House doesn't make good on its threat. But the tension
here reflects what is a genuine argument among conservatives over what is the best way to
bring Fidel Castro down.
Otto Reich of the National Security Council staff and Housing Secretary Mel Martinez believe
that lifting such restrictions will breathe financial life into a decaying regime. Some of our free
market friends in Congress, notably Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, argue that after 40 years of
an embargo Fidel is still sitting pretty. So it's time to try something different.
We fall into the latter group, not least because one of the problems with the existing travel ban
is that it is applied selectively. Privileged groups of people -- academics, journalists, Cuban
Americans and left-leaning Christian groups -- can and already do travel to Cuba. Jimmy
Carter travels there and CNN more or less treats it like a state visit.
But we're also impressed by Oswaldo Paya, leader of Cuba's homegrown answer to Poland's
Solidarity movement, who wants to see the U.S. embargo lifted. Mr. Paya points out that the
heart of the Cuban crisis isn't the partial embargo the U.S. has imposed on Cuba but is the total
embargo Fidel has imposed on his own people: the limits on their speech, their ability to go to
church, to run their own enterprises, and so on.
As Mr. Flake has written, Fidel's three most obvious failures are "breakfast, lunch and dinner."
The more Americans are able to travel to Cuba, the more will be able to see for themselves the
suffering that Fidel and his commissars have wrought.