Center for a Free Cuba

October 31, 2003 | The Grand Folks Herald
and
November 3, 2003 | The Miami Herald
by Frank Calzon

A few weeks ago, Cuba’s communist dictator Fidel Castro prohibited Cuban human-rights leader Oswaldo Payá from traveling to Germany to accept an international award. Payá responded by sending a message to the international community: “We have never supported [Cuba’s] isolation, but at this late date it is an insult to be told that foreign tourism and investment can lead to an opening in Cuba.

“Cultural exchanges in Cuba take place under rules set up by a government that in a true apartheid manner excludes, exploits and humiliates the Cuban people. Even if it is not their intention, those who take part in such exchanges help to maintain a government that denies all rights.”

Imagine the despair and sense of betrayal that Payá in Havana and the political dissidents imprisoned in Castro’s dungeons for their efforts to promote democracy will feel as they learn of the recent votes in the U.S. House and Senate prohibiting enforcement of the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba. Adding insult to injury, the prohibition was attached to a bill that finances much of this country’s anti-terrorism campaign and in disregard of the State Department’s listing of Cuba as a sponsor of international terrorism.

President Bush has said he’ll veto any legislation that weakens U.S. sanctions against Havana. He recently called for more aggressive enforcement of the travel ban, noting that tourist dollars help prop up Castro’s regime.

A House-Senate conference committee is now trying to reconcile differences in the appropriations bill involved. In Washington, some are saying that there is little chance the conference committee will drop the prohibition, and that the president won’t veto an appropriations bill which finances many projects that congressmen want to claim credit for in next year’s election campaigns.

The attached amendments do not abrogate the travel ban. As explained by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., they simply state, “The Office of Foreign Asset Control shall not use funds in this bill to enforce the travel ban with respect to Cuba.” Attaching do-not-spend amendments to appropriation bills is a slovenly way of legislating that, as U.S. Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., puts it: “Invite lawlessness! What a slippery slope that is when we begin a process that says the law is the law, but we are not going to allow it to be enforced.”

The right of Americans to travel to Cuba must be weighed against the wisdom and risk of subsidizing an openly venomous, anti-American regime. Not only does Cuba have a record of supporting international terrorists, it currently provides “safe haven” for more than 70 fugitives from American justice, including killers of American police officers.
Those promoting American tourism to Cuba suggest it will promote democracy and break down cultural barriers. But Cubans are already fans of American culture and democracy, and tourists have little opportunity to mingle with ordinary Cubans. That’s because the Castro government sets aside hotels, beaches, restaurants, and hospitals for foreigners. It prohibits Cubans from patronizing businesses and facilities reserved for tourists.

Under such conditions, the money that tourists spend goes directly to government coffers to support the internal apartheid the Castro regime imposes.
The sex trade is a nefarious exception that, according to a March 2002 report by researchers at John Hopkins University, has seen Canadian and American tourists contribute “to a sharp increase in child prostitution and in the exploitation of women in Cuba.” President Bush has denounced this sex trade as “a modern form of slavery that is encouraged by the Cuban government.
“This cruel exploitation of innocent women and children must be exposed and must be ended.”

After the Senate vote Oct. 23, the White House reaffirmed the president’s view that the Cuban-travel ban is “vitally important,” and that “lifting the sanctions now would provide a helping hand to a desperate and repressive regime.” A president is only as good as his word. Neither the House nor the Senate has sufficient votes to override a Bush veto. If the bill that emerges from the House-Senate conference committee still includes amendments prohibiting enforcement of the travel ban, it would be to President Bush’s credit to issue his first veto.

Frank Calzon is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes human rights and democracy for Cuba.

St. Paul Pioneer Press| October 24, 2003

By Frank Calzon

On Oct. 14, state legislators Sandy Pappas and Phyllis Kahn wrote that U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., should “for the sake of Cuba and the people of Minnesota” reconsider his position that “this is not the time to get rid of the embargo (against Cuba), not the time to get rid of the travel ban.”

At one time Sen. Coleman favored lifting U.S. trade restrictions on Cuba, but today he is absolutely right that lifting the embargo will not help Minnesota but will do great harm to those in Cuba trying to change Fidel Castro’s despotic, Communist government. Sen. Coleman made that judgment after traveling to Cuba and meeting with mothers of Castro’s political prisoners.

While some say U.S. policy toward Cuba is fashioned to curry favor with Florida’s Cuban-American voters, the issues are more complex than that. Nine American presidents have supported restrictions on trade and travel to Cuba.
Since 2001 Havana has been buying American grain, food and medicine on a cash-and-carry basis. But having destroyed Cuba’s economy, Castro’s Communist government is now broke but trying to bolster itself by campaigning to get the U.S. government to extend trade credits. That would mean American taxpayers pick up the bill when Cuba can’t pay for what it buys.

Cuban defaults are inevitable. Half of Cuba’s sugar mills are now closed and in 2001 Russia shuttered its Havana spy facility and cut off the $200 million a year it was paying Cuba. France, Spain and Italy have suspended official credits. In July 2002 Reuters reported that, “Direct foreign investment in Cuba plummeted to $39.8 million in 2001 from $488 million the year before.” Mexico’s Bancomext, which is owed more than $400 million by Havana, has recently taken action to freeze Cuban assets in at least three countries to pressure Havana to resume debt payments.

President Bush characterizes proposals that the U.S. finance Cuba’s purchases of agricultural commodities as “a foreign aid program in disguise” benefiting an openly anti-American regime. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently wrote to a congressional committee warning that “Trade by other nations with Cuba has brought no change to Cuba’s despotic practices, and it has frequently proved to be an unprofitable enterprise.” The simple fact is that all trade with Cuba, indeed all commerce in Cuba, is routed through the Castro government. Castro’s government sets prices, rations food and other goods and issues all paychecks.

The right of Americans to travel also must be weighed against the wisdom of subsidizing a regime that supports international terrorism, suppresses human rights, and poses a security threat to the United States. The State Department lists Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Iran as supporters of terrorism. Tourist dollars support Cuba’s military and security forces.

In this country we learn to be wary of con men in the free market. A policy of shifting trade with Cuba from a cash-and-carry basis to credits and export insurance would be tantamount to forcing taxpayers to invest in Enron and WorldCom just before their collapse. American taxpayers aren’t being called upon to bail out those companies and should not be called on to bail out the head of an unchanging communist regime.

No doubt Pappas and Kahn mean well, but it is they, not the senator, who should reappraise their position.

Frank Calzon is executive director of Center for a Free Cuba in Washington. □

September 7, 2003 | San Francisco Chronicle
by Frank Calzon

Since 2001, Cuba has purchased American grain, food and medicine on a cash-and-carry basis, but Fidel Castro is broke and would like the U.S. taxpayers to replace his lost Soviet subsidies. Under proposals being advanced in Washington, when Castro defaults on his purchases, American taxpayers will have to pick up the tab.

Nine American presidents from both parties have supported restrictions on trade and travel to Cuba. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined the restrictions are legal. While some try to explain policy toward Cuba in terms of domestic political considerations (i.e. the Cuban American vote), the issue is more complex than that.

In July 2002, Reuters reported that, “Direct foreign investment in Cuba plummeted to $39.8 million in 2001 from $488 million the year before.” That same year, Russia closed its spy facility near Havana, thus denying Castro’s government $200 million a year in rent payments. For various other reasons, France, Spain and Italy suspended official credits. Castro has closed more than half of Cuba’s sugar mills and after the European Union raised the issue of human rights, Havana withdrew its request for admission to the Cotonou Agreement: the EU accord which provides tariff benefits to developing countries.

That same month, Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote to a congressional committee to say that “Trade by other nations with Cuba has brought no change to Cuba’s despotic practices, and it has frequently proved to be an unprofitable enterprise.”
Unprofitable indeed. Two weeks ago, Mexico’s Bancomext, which is owed more than $400 million by Havana, said it hopes to restart negotiations to get Cuba to pay its debt. The Mexican bank has frozen Cuban assets in at least three countries, just in case Havana fails to renew the payments it stopped more than a year ago.

Last year, the Montreal Gazette reported that “Lilac Islands, a 15,000 ton Cuban-owned ship, has been held in the port of Conakry, the Guinean capital– while an Ontario company armed with legal judgments pursues Cuba for more than $3 million.” Imagine U.S. companies chasing down Cuban cargo ships around the world to collect payment, while American taxpayers wait to pick up the bill when the debtor doesn’t pay.

The United States “will continue to prohibit U.S. financing for Cuban purchases of U.S. agricultural goods because this would just be a foreign aid program in disguise, which would benefit the current regime,” said President Bush in May 2002.

Trade with Cuba does not represent trade with Cuban business owners, entrepreneurs or consumers; trade with Cuba is trade with the Castro government itself, which monopolizes virtually all enterprises and exploits Cuban workers as their sole employer. As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has said: “In Cuba, Fidel Castro is still the one man through whom everything has to go. Any trade that goes through Cuba is going to strengthen Cuba’s regime.”

While some insist on the right of American tourists to travel to Cuba, they ignore other rights and national security considerations. Each right must be weighted against its impact on other rights. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” In this case, the desire to travel must be weighed against the risks of subsidizing a regime that poses a national security threat to the United States. For example, in May 2001, Agence France Presse quoted Castro at the University of Tehran saying, “Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees.”
The State Department lists Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Iran as supporters of terrorism. Castro also provides refuge to more than 70 fugitives from American justice, including some accused of killing American police officers.

In his letter to Congress, Powell said that, “The lack of sound economic rationale makes it more likely that Castro would use any liberalizing of our trade position for his political benefit.” Providing trade benefits to America’s enemies, especially those on the State Department list of terrorist nations, makes as much sense as selling U.S. scrap metal to Japan in the 1930s — some of which was used later to build up the Japanese military and later, attack Pearl Harbor.

Apart from security considerations, perhaps the greatest advantage of the U. S. embargo is that it has saved U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. American banks are not among the consortium of creditors, like those in Canada and Europe, who have waited for years to be paid what they are owed.
Fidel Castro is broke. He cannot pay his debts. Several of his trading partners have suspended credits, but there are some who wish American tourists would come to his rescue.

Capital markets lie when con artists run the show. A policy of moving exports from a cash-and-carry basis to credits and export insurance is like sentencing taxpayers to investing in Enron or WorldCom right before those stocks plummeted. American taxpayers did not have to bail out those companies. They should not be forced to bail out the head of an openly anti-American regime, especially when his default is more a question of “when” than “if.”

Frank Calzon is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes human rights and democracy for Cuba.

January 9, 2003 | The Miami Herald
by Frank Calzon

Until Sept. 11, 2001, two huge oceans on its borders provided the United States a sense of national security, and most Americans paid little heed to history, geography and world events. Today we know that such attitudes, at best, are naive and, at worst, lethal. We are compelled to learn more about the world’s tyrants and to resist or confront them.

Tyrants are certain to use every means available to protect their power and impose their will and views on others. Osama bin Laden is the obvious example of the embittered enemy of American ideals and institutions. He not only recognized but used the easy access provided by Americas open society to destroy the World Trade Center and plant the seed of terror. Other tyrants content themselves with exploiting our society, bending American public opinion and manipulating U.S. political and economic organizations to serve their interests.

Joseph Stalin, Rafael Trujillo, Ho Chi Minh, the Sandinistas, Ferdinand Marcos and the shah of Iran cultivated allies among American intellectual, political and economic elites. Cuba’s communist dictator, Fidel Castro, is among those who do so today. And Americans hardly raise an eyebrow when lawyers and former high-ranking U.S. government officials tout and represent foreign interests on the lecture circuit, in the halls of Congress and at the White House.

In America’s criminal courts, all are innocent ”until proven guilty,” and that’s commendable. Applied to foreign affairs, however, the ”all are innocent” principle makes little sense. America shouldn’t need proof beyond ”a reasonable doubt” to be wary or to protect Americans and the national interests.
The damage done by failing to recognize reality can linger for a long time. Does it matter that Jane Fonda now apologizes for her role supporting communism in Southeast Asia? Was any of the damage repaired when, years after the fact, it was shown that Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times correspondent Jimmy Durant mislead millions around the world with his ”benign” reports from Stalinist Russia? Does it make a difference that the Bay of Pigs battle was not lost in Cuba but in the White House when John Kennedy reneged on the promised air cover to men under fire who had been trained and equipped by the United States? For many Americans, that’s all ”ancient history” and provides no guidance for today’s economic and political decisions. But surely we should have learned something.

Yet even today we fail to recognize that while President Bush faces vigorous questions from the press and congressional debate over policy, the tyrants of this world face no such questioning or debate. Recently, U.S. Reps. David Bonior, D-Mich., Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., while visiting Baghdad publicly blasted Bush for poverty and suffering in Iraq. Does Saddam Hussein bear no responsibility? The specious logic behind the complaints of the congressional trio is the same as that of those who make political pilgrimages to Havana and find no problems for which Castro is to blame. It can be likened to those who praised Stalin’s great sense of humor, declared the dictators faults to be greatly exaggerated and blamed capitalist ”encirclement” for the suffering of the Soviet Union’s people.

Things do change. Regrettably only one thing seems to have changed in our understanding of tyrants: Fifty years ago, there was time for America to awake to a threat. Today, there is little time to react and scant room for error in deciding where U.S. interests lie and how our security is best protected.
Washington’s debates reflect the vigor of America’s body politic and democratic processes. The point is not to still America’s voices or curtail its freedom but to infuse the debate on security with an understanding that friends and foes alike are listening and will act. We continue to ignore the lessons of history at our own peril.

Frank Calzon is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes human rights and democracy for Cuba.