SECTION: EDITORIAL & COMMENT; Letters To The Editor; Pg. 09A

LENGTH: 584 words

HEADLINE: U.S. WILL TRADE WITH CUBA WHEN CUBA IS A FREE LAND

BODY:
The Dispatch and I fundamentally disagree on U.S. sanctions against the Cuban regime ("Get smart: Only Castro benefits from the U.S. embargo," recent editorial).

It is important that readers understand that the goal of the U.S. government is to have freedom in Cuba, not to have an embargo against the country. As President Bush stated: "We welcome the opportunity to trade with Cuba when there are entrepreneurs who are free to trade with us. We welcome the opportunity to build diplomatic relations with Cuba when the Cuban government is a democracy, when the Cuban people can be free from fear to say what they think and choose who shall govern them." The editorial asserted that Cuba and its leader, Fidel Castro, are "pathetic relics" and pose no threat to their neighbors. Yes, national security concerns have diminished since the Cold War, but we intend the embargo to also address the threat the Cuban regime poses to its citizens. The embargo's necessity increases with each Cuban born into a life without fundamental liberties. Citizens in Cuba do not have the legal right to influence their government or advocate change.

An editorial criticizing Cuban policy, as this editorial takes issue with U.S. policy, would never have been published in Cuba. Even worse, to oppose the government line means running the considerable risk of harassment and internment. Cubans lack the rights to free speech, assembly, press and unionizing; if you don't like Castro, you're not even free to leave.

The editorial argued that four decades without trade have "done nothing," so we should go ahead and lift the embargo. While the embargo may not have effected systemic change in Cuba, neither has Canada's policy of "constructive engagement" nor has the European policy of "conditional engagement." The current sanctions serve as an incentive for the Cuban government to change. The possible removal of sanctions (with its promise of U.S. trade, investment, travel and aid) will serve as critical leverage during a post-Castro government.

Moreover, the fact that a policy has not yet borne fruit is not sufficient reason for dispensing with the policy. One could have made the argument in, say, 1985 that our policy of containment regarding the Soviet Union had been ineffective in restraining Soviet expansionism. How do those arguments hold up today?

Lifting the embargo will be far more effective than keeping it, contended The Dispatch, because the Cuban government holds the United States liable for virtually all its misfortunes and removing the scapegoat would leave it to face millions of dissatisfied citizens alone.

My answer to this is that the Cubans are fully aware of who is responsible for their sub-par lives. Cuba already is able to enter into commercial relationships with the rest of the world, casting doubt on Castro's claim that the U.S. embargo is responsible for all of Cuba's economic woes. Cubans have no right to protest, and lifting the sanctions without any change to the system would not change this. In fact, lifting sanctions now would serve only to sustain the Cuban regime through increased revenues from U.S. trade, investment, travel and aid.

At the very end, the editorial stated that "inevitably Cuba once again will be free and prosperous." Our aim is to encourage a rapid and peaceful transition to a democratic government. Inevitably just isn't good enough.

Otto J. Reich

Assistant secretary of state

for Western Hemisphere affairs

Washington

LOAD-DATE: May 4, 2002