(Washington, D.C.): This week seems likely to be remembered
as one that lives in infamy as a result of the decision by
influential figures in the Republican Party and its bloc on Capitol
Hill that it is better, to coin a phrase, to switch than fight the
most important windfalls to come Fidel Castro's way since the Cuban
missile crisis. First, unless the Supreme Court intervenes, Elian
Gonzales will be forced on Wednesday to return to the national
prison that his mother died trying to save him from when they fled
Cuba last November.
Second, the House leadership is said to have given up its
principled opposition to the easing of the U.S. embargo against Cuba
so as to allow the sale of food and medicines to Cuba. This is an
idea that is said to enjoy the support of America's hard-pressed
farmers. Whether that is true or not, the reason this effort has
momentum is not because of small, single-family farms. Rather it is
because it is backed by the immense political power and financial
resources of Archers Daniels Midlands and other interested
agribusinesses.
Worse yet, the ADM crowd will not be satisfied with merely being
granted the authority to provide food to Cuba. Since Castro's regime
has no money with which to buy American products, he and his friends
will insist that Congress authorize taxpayer subsidies (as in the
past, it has infamously done via commodity credits, loans and
guarantees). This prospect -- heretofore used to provide U.S.
legitimacy and life support to such dubious customers as the Iraq
and Gorbachev's Soviet Union -- risks returning U.S. agricultural
policy to a cynical, wired affair that permits a hand-out exploited
to the fullest by agribusinesses like ADM. It is all the more
outrageous insofar as the Clinton-Gore Administration is
simultaneously demanding in the World Trade Organization that other
governments reduce their agricultural subsidy programs.
Three recent pieces in the press deserve notice in this regard:
1) Georgie Ann Geyer's essay on Cuba that appeared in the
Washington Times last Thursday that puts the idea of aiding
Castro into its appropriate, appalling political and strategic
context. 2) An op.ed. article by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Sen. Jesse Helms that describes the abiding,
deplorable conditions in Cuba and the folly of believing that its
citizens will benefit under present and foreseeable circumstances
from U.S. assistance and investment. And 3) an editorial that ran in
the Times' Sunday editions yesterday, which described the
malevolent role Castro is still playing internationally, as well as
at home.
Washington Times, 22 June
2000
Universal Press Syndicate
Actions that Bespeak Collusion
By Georgie Anne Geyer
The President is out everywhere, indiscriminately
"legacy-seeking," and if that takes him to Havana, so be it!
American companies, backed by the farm lobbies, are out trying to
get what they dream to be the "new Cuban market." Meanwhile,
utopians on the American Left are sure that, by thus "opening" to
Fidel Castro, the hoary Cuban caudillo will change overnight.
My, my, it's really a wonder to think that all of that has now
come out of the strange and as yet-unsettled case of little Elian
Gonzalez! Yet, as a matter of fact, it has. And as the catalystic
boy withers away here with his parents awaiting court procedures,
the entire world he has come to personify is changing in amazing
ways.
In public, for instance, administration spokesmen have said
carefully that the Clinton administration has not changed its policy
of the containment of Cuba at all. Yet, the acts that they have
taken have without exception belie that contention.
It is now clear that, in the case of six-year-old Elian, the
administration at every step of the way worked in conjunction with
the Cuban government to get him back to Cuba. We now know that this
even took even the form of colluding with the Castro government.
Indeed, State Dept. documents obtained by a Judicial Watch Freedom
of Information Act request, has an administration official writing
that the State Dept. "wants to have a daily conference call to
coordinate press guidance and communications with the Cubans."
Another document points clearly to the fact that the State Dept.,
even while at first denying it, did actually encourage the visit of
the grandmothers, although only with the assurance that the
Immigration and Naturalization Service "not be involved." This was
followed by the administration's unconscionable refusal to allow any
American press to see the boy and his family once he was housed in
or near Washington, even though pictures did finally emerge of
Elian, the little Communist Pioneer, dressed in Communist garb.
Every act of the American government since then has only backed
up this obvious tilt toward trying, yet once again, to make peace
with Castro. Only this time, the attempt must be accomplished before
Bill Clinton leaves office ---and thus square off one more pesky
corner of his elusive "legacy."
When the famous Cuban baseball star Andy Morales, who was one of
the stars at last spring's Cuban-American game in Baltimore, was
apprehended off Florida early in June trying to escape and was sent
back to Cuba by U.S. immigration authorities, that act marked an
entirely new stage of immigration relations---ballplayers had until
then been considered immediately accepted emigrants. At the same
time, over the last two years, unnoted by most Americans, the
Clinton administration has winked mammothly at its own restrictions
against travel to Cuba---last year alone, l35,000 Americans
illegally visited Cuba without one serious complaint from the
American government.
At the same time, American companies, led by Archer Daniels
Midland Company with its long-time chief Dwayne Andreas in the
forefront, backed by the American farm lobby, has been frenetically
active in trying to "open" Cuba to American products and
agricultural goods through lifting the American embargo against
Cuba. Andreas, for instance, who has visited the island many times
to try to "do business" with Castro, was the central figure in
bringing the Elian grandmothers here---indeed, his donations to the
National Council of Churches funded their visit, which was designed
to make the American people look favorably upon both Elian and Cuba.
When you factor into all of these sinuous doings the fact that
President Clinton is also terrified that Castro will unleash another
immigration boatlift against American shores (as, indeed, Castro
threatened to do when the Elian case began), the entire equations
begin to round out.
The naivete and the foolishness embedded in the thinking behind
these dreams of rapprochement, of legacy and of great wealth to be
found in Cuba are stunning.
First of all, there is no money there to buy goods. Even before
the fall of its Soviet patrons, the Cuban government was essentially
bankrupt. It stopped paying its foreign debt as early as l986 and
now owes more than $l5 billion dollars. But Castro's thinking is, as
always, Machiavellianly clever: So what if he cannot pay for the
products that the "americanos" seem so intent upon forcing upon him?
If the embargo is lifted and he gets U.S. lines of credit to buy in
America, it is only the American taxpayer who will have to pay!
Moreover, American business' romantic dreams of "being first" to
"do business" in Cuba---and of changing Cuba through tourism and
commerce---are, in truth, just that. Castro has no interest, as he
has shown over and over, in improving the lot of his people---that
would open him to competition for power. He wants only to strengthen
his dictatorship through carefully chosen and controlled deals with
the U.S. which would give him exactly what he wants---and no outside
influence. (Even today, his "labor" policy is that he "gives" the
few foreign companies in Cuba workers, like medieval serfs; the
companies then pay him in dollars and Castro pays his serfs in
worthless pesos.)
But finally, I doubt that even a restricted opening like that
that would occur. For the opponents of lifting the embargo and of
President Clinton's search for legacy in Cuba ---have a powerful
alley. This ally is Fidel Castro himself.
For Castro cannot ever really countenance any foreign influence
of any kind in Cuba. He will play with the "americanos" over
business and over the embargo---in exactly the same way he has for
41 years played with the Cuban people, first granting them some
freedoms, then seizing them back---but he does not seriously mean it
in any real sense for a minute.
The presence of any other power center whatsoever is to him an
inimical threat to his total power.
So in the end, Castro will doubtless save our grasping
businessmen and our naīve utopians from themselves. But one wonders
why, after all these years, they still should need such salvation.
New York Times, 24 June
2000
On Trade, Cuba is Not China
By Senator Jesse Helms
Some lawmakers, including a number of Republicans, have argued in
recent weeks that if Congress believes trade will promote democratic
change in China, then why not adopt the same policy for
Cuba? Here is why: Cuba is not China.
The argument that American investment will democratize China has
itself been wildly oversold. Beijing is doing everything in its
power to dampen the impact of private investment: placing stringent
control on the Internet (all users must register with the Public
Security Bureau), and most recently declaring that it will insert
"party cells" into every private business that operates in China.
But regardless of how one feels about permanent normalized trade
with China, there is simply no case to be made that investment would
democratize Cuba.
Cuba has undertaken none of the market reforms that China has in
recent years; there is no private property, and there are no
entrepreneurs with whom to do business. The Fidel Castro regime
maintains power by controlling every single aspect of Cuban life:
access to food, access to education, access to health care, access
to work.
This permits Castro to stifle any and all dissent. Any Cuban
daring to say the wrong thing, by Castro's standards, loses his or
her job. Anyone refusing to spy on a neighbor is denied a university
education. Anyone daring to organize an opposition group goes to
jail.
American investment cannot and will not change any of this. It
cannot empower individual Cubans, or give them independence from the
regime, because foreign investors in
Cuba cannot do
business with private citizens. They can do business only with Fidel
Castro.
It is illegal in Cuba for anyone except the
regime to employ workers. That means that foreign investors cannot
hire or pay workers directly. They must go to the Cuban government
employment agency, which picks the workers. The investors then pay
Castro in hard currency for the workers, and Castro pays the workers
in worthless pesos.
Here is a real-life example: Sherritt International of Canada,
the largest foreign investor in Cuba, operates a
nickel mine in Moa Bay (a mine, incidentally, which
Cuba stole from an American company). Roughly 1,500
Cubans work there as virtual slave laborers. Sherritt pays Castro
approximately $10,000 a year for each of these Cuban workers. Castro
gives the workers about $18 a month in pesos, then pockets the
difference.
The net result is a subsidy of nearly $15 million in hard
currency each year that Castro then uses to pay for the security
apparatus that keeps the Cubans enslaved.
Those who advocate lifting the embargo speak in broad terms about
using investment to promote democracy in Cuba. But
I challenge them to explain exactly how, under this system,
investment can do anything to help the Cuban people.
The anti-embargo crowd should drop its rhetoric about promoting
democracy and be honest: the one reason for their push to lift
sanctions on Cuba is to pander to well-intentioned
American farmers, who have been misled by the agribusiness giants
into believing that going into business with a bankrupt Communist
island is a solution to the farm crisis in America.
Whoever has convinced farmers that their salvation lies in trade
with Cuba has sold them a bill of goods.
Cuba is desperately poor, barely able to feed its
own people, much less save the American farmer.
Castro wants the American embargo lifted because he is desperate
for hard currency. After the Soviet Union collapsed and Moscow's
subsidies ended, Castro turned to European and Canadian investors to
keep his Communist system afloat. Now he wants American investors to
do the same. We must not allow that to happen.
Unfortunately, some in Washington are all too willing to give
Castro what he wants. At the least they should stop pretending that
they are doing this to promote Cuban democracy and American values.
Washington Times, 25 June
2000
Castro's Long Arms
Editorial
Awakened by machine gun-toting soldiers at 4 a.m., two Cuban
doctors living in Zimbabwe were abducted earlier this month. Their
harrowing, Kafkaesque experience vividly illustrates the terrifying
reach of Fidel Castro's repressive apparatus. In the wake of Mr.
Castro's aggressive public relations operation to get Elian Gonzalez
returned to Cuba, this recent abduction demonstrates that the Cuban
regime continues to favor brutal tactics to silence dissent and
prevent defections.
One month after Leonel Cordova and Noris Peņa arrived in Zimbabwe
as part of a Cuban medical mission, they contacted the Canadian
Embassy in order to seek asylum in that North American country. The
Canadians then referred them to the U.N. High Commission for
Refugees. On May 24, the day after their visit to the Canadian
Embassy, the doctors dropped into the offices of the Daily News,
Zimbabwe's only independent, daily newspaper, and gave an interview
critical of the Castro regime. "We want to go to Canada and work
there if possible," Mr. Cordova told the newspaper. "We were sent
here under the policies of Fidel Castro so that he can appear to the
world as a good man."
The two doctors would pay dearly for that interview, which was
transmitted by Associated Press and Agence France-Presse news wires.
On June 2, they were taken at gunpoint from their home by Zimbabwean
soldiers, and taken to an immigration office, where their captors
tried to force them to sign some papers and took their fingerprints.
They were then taken to Johannesburg, South Africa, and almost
forced onto a flight connecting to Cuba. While being taken on board,
however, the doctors cried out that they didn't want to return to
Cuba and threatened to kill someone if forced onboard. The pilots
deemed the doctors a security threat and didn't allow them on the
flight.
In the process, Mr. Cordova snuck a three-page account of the
abduction to an Air France crew person, who subsequently sent it to
U.N. officials in Geneva. The note documented the last trace of the
their whereabouts.
"Please, we are very concerned about our lifes [sic] and the well
being of our family," the letter reads. "The High Commissioner of
the United Nations for Refugees was to be informed what happened and
that we are traveling, kidnapped, to Cuba," it added. The word
"KIDNAPPED" was written in large letters on the margin.
That note saved the doctors. The U.N. high commissioner asked to
meet with the Cuban doctors. Authorities in Zimbabwe, a country
which has close ties to Cuba, for days denied knowledge of their
whereabouts, and the Cuban embassy in Zimbabwe refused to answer
inquiries regarding the doctors. Finally, last week, after being
missing for six days, they resurfaced in a prison in Zimbabwe. The
United States has repeatedly called on Zimbabwe to free the doctors
and said the African country appeared to be breaking the Geneva
conventions and international law by continuing to hold them.
Havana has insisted that it had nothing to do with the abduction,
but in the note, Mr. Cordova said that the Cuban ambassador, the
Cuban consul and the chief of the Cuban medical mission were all at
the airport the doctors were brought to in Zimbabwe, before they
were forced onto the plane for Johannesburg.
"We have very strong reason to believe that they are justified in
their fear of persecution if they went back to Cuba," said Kris
Janowski, spokesman for the U.N. high commissioner . Mr. Castro has
proven once again his willingness to use force to suppress dissent.
Of late, he has posed as a defender of family values -- but Mr.
Castro really hasn't changed at all.
|