Five Days for the Cuban Five

A press conference held at the National Press Club on Thursday, May 30^th marked the beginning of five days of action calling for the release of the “Cuban Five” and fundamental changes in U.S.-Cuba policy. The panelists included Wayne S. Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and former Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, Dolores Huerta, President of the Dolores Huerta foundation and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012, Ignacio Ramonet, Spanish writer and former editor in chief of Le Monde Diplomatique, and Rene Gonzalez, the only one of the Five to be released to date. Thursday morning’s press conference was the first time Rene Gonzalez, speaking live from Havana, has addressed the American people about the Five’s imprisonment and the politically-charged trial that preceded it. Rene recently gave up his U.S. citizenship in exchange for permission to stay in Cuba after a two-week authorized visit due to the death of his father. His remarks focused on the lack of awareness amongst the American public regarding the realities of the trial and the severity of the human rights violations that have roots in it.

The panelists discussed the injustices of the trial and the unreasonable sentencing of the Five, who were assigned to the U.S. to obtain information about the terrorist activities of exiles attacking Cuba. The Five were arrested after Cuba had invited FBI representatives to Cuba and presented them with evidence of exile terrorist activities in hopes that the FBI would act against the exile terrorist groups. But rather than acting against the terrorist groups, the FBI arrested the Five for espionage. The lack of evidence for their prosecution on charges of espionage led to their conviction on charges of “conspiracy;” yet the sentences allotted were far longer than those given even to spies from Iraq under Hussein. The panelists emphasized that the trial was carried out in a climate of emotional fervor perpetuated by the media, partly due to its location in Miami where anti-Cuba exiles abound. Additionally, President Obama’s recent statements justifying counterterrorist activities reveal the paradoxical policies in practice in the case of the Cuban Five. While the U.S. supports dubious methods of counterterrorist efforts such as drones, we have imprisoned the Five for their nonviolent counterterrorist actions and denied them even the right to see their families.

Although the plight of the Cuban Five is not new news in itself, the five days of action come at a time when there is new opportunity for changes in the overall U.S. -Cuba policy, following the appointment of John Kerry to Secretary of State and the hints of rapprochement in Obama’s policy changes relaxing travel restrictions to the island. Perhaps the most important question fielded by the panelists was regarding how this campaign to free the Cuban Five will be different from unsuccessful campaigns in the past. All answers emphasized the opportunistic political climate and the need to create a public push to get normalization on the policy agenda while Obama is in his second term. Other issues of discussion during the coming five days will include removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, ending the embargo, and closing Guantanamo naval base. While the sentiment among realists about these issues has continually remained that they will be solved in time, the sentiment among the panelists, as expressed by Dolores Huerta, is that the time is now. Ya es la hora.

A calendar of the events planned for the Five Days for the Cuban Five can be found at this link: http://www.freethefive.org/calendar.htm

New Rationale for Keeping Cuba on the List?

The U.S. could quickly and painlessly indicate a change in its policy toward Cuba by removing it from the list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” given that there is no valid evidence whatever that Cuba should be on the list.  Rather than that, however, the State Department has suggested a new reason for keeping it there, saying that it continues “to permit fugitives wanted in the U.S. to reside in Cuba.” In other words, to find refuge there. This clearly has reference to Joanne Chesimard (or Assata Shakur), the Black Panther activist convicted in 1973 for the murder of a New Jersey state trooper. She escaped prison in 1979 and has been in Cuba most of the time since. But in his excellent essay presented at the National Press Club on March 7, 2013, on the question of fugitives as an alleged reason for keeping Cuba on the list, Bob Muse takes issue with this as a valid rationale.  In order to comply with Section 6(j) of the 1979 Export Act, which gives the secretary of state the authority to designate a state as a sponsor of terrorism, the fugitives, he points out, must also have committed “terrorist” acts which were “international” in character. Joanne Chesimard’s do not fit that definition – nor, he says, has he found other U.S. fugitives in Cuba with such a charge in their records.

Interestingly, nonetheless, as though to give some credence to the idea that Chesimard’s continued presence in Cuba is reason enough to keep Cuba on the “state sponsors of terrorism” list, the FBI added her to its “Ten Most Wanted List” on May 1^st. This isn’t likely to bring about any profound change, but would suggest at the very least that rather than moving toward some slight improvement in relations, the administration is on hold, if not a “dead stop.”

And that would also be suggested by Vice President Biden’s recent statement that while Cuba has made some “small encouraging signs of change,” the administration wants to see “real change.” There is no indication, of course, as to what that “real change” would have to look like.

The Shame and Harm of Keeping Cuba on the Terrorist List

A State Department spokesman stated on May 1 that Washington has no plans to remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Hopefully, wiser heads will prevail and it will soon be removed. As CIP’s reports over the past decade have pointed out, there is not a shred of evidence that Cuba is involved in terrorist activities.

In November 2004 CIP noted that, “the State Department’s reasons for keeping Cuba [on the list] do not withstand the most elementary scrutiny.” That remains the case today, especially given that Cuba is hosting peace talks between Colombian rebels and that country’s government. While there are still some members of the Basque organization (ETA) living in Cuba, none are involved in terrorist activities – indeed, on January 10, 2011 ETA declared a permanent cease-fire.

As for the public renunciation of terrorism, Cuba has done so on a number of occasions, including most recently when it sent condolences both to the American people and the U.S. government over the bombings in Boston. And years ago Cuba signed all UN denunciations of terrorism.

Keeping Cuba on the terrorism list undermines the list’s validity and usefulness. As Juliette Kayyem of the Boston Globe put it on April 29, “to treat a nation as a terrorist threat when it is not, we so dilute the term that it matters little to the countries we hope to isolate.” After waiting many years for an administration to do the right thing, many of us hoped the Obama administration would remove Cuba from the list. We are still hoping.

Rapprochement With Cuba

The Center for International Policy recently partnered with the Alliance for Responsible Cuba Policy to host Rapprochement With Cuba: Good for Tampa, Good for Florida, Good for America. Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL) provided the opening remarks at the Friday evening cocktail event in Tampa, FL and welcomed the panelists. The panel included Wayne Smith, Al Fox, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Counselor Llanio Gonzalez-Perez, Peter Kornbluh, Dan Whittle and Mike Mauricio. The following day, the panelists discussed the Obama Administration’s Cuba policy, the State Department’s list of terrorist states, the Cuban-American vote, the U.S. Congress’s Cuba policy, doing business in Cuba, deep water oil drilling in Cuba’s terrestrial waters  and travel to Cuba at the Historic Cuban Club.

If you were unable to attend the conference, you have the opportunity to catch up on the subjects discussed in Tampa by following this link: http://www.ciponline.org/research/entry/rapprochement-with-cuba

Is the New Miami Dynamic a Game Changer?

            CIP and the Latin America Working Group hosted five Cuban Americans on Capitol Hill—four of them Miamians—in two days of visits and a briefing that highlighted the changing political face of Miami.  The message they unequivocally delivered was that a sizable majority (60%) of Cuban Americans in south Florida now favors engagement with Cuba, and that the area’s hardline congressional representatives do not reflect the views of most of their constituents on the issue. The group also pointed out that Cuba itself is restructuring and evolving, and it would be to the advantage of the United States to have a voice in the process.  In meetings with more than a dozen new members or their staffs from Midwestern farm states and Florida, responses were encouraging. Both Republicans and Democrats expressed frustration with the status quo and openness to change.

            Cuban Americans under 40 are driving the change in outlook, but many older Miami Cubans agree it’s time for a new policy.  The Cuban American Washington visitors were born in Cuba and (with one exception) left in the 1960s and 1970s, and last week they came to make the case to Congress. Legislation to lift the embargo is highly unlikely in this Congress, but the Obama Administration can significantly alter policy through administrative action—and start discussions with the Cuban government.  Our group urged legislators to give the President the political space to do so, and to let him know he has it.

            Actions that the President can take that would improve relations with Cuba include removing Cuba from the state sponsors’ of terrorism list, easing travel to the island by permitting all “purposeful” travel with a general, rather than specific, license, and loosening financial requirements for agricultural sales.  Myriad other bilateral issues, including the incarceration of USAID contractor Alan Gross, could likely be negotiated as a package if the White House would only sit down and talk.

            Coincidentally, the Cuban-American visit overlapped with that of well-known Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, who spoke on Capitol Hill and at several other Washington venues.  Though under no illusion that the blogosphere will bring democracy to Cuba, she said it’s helping to open “cracks in the wall of censorship.” She advocated lifting the U.S. embargo, in part to remove the “first and foremost excuse for everything.”  “I doubt the government could continue to function without it,” she said.

                 

An Isolated and Outdated U.S. Cuba Policy

In what can only be seen as an important victory for Cuba and a rebuff to U.S. policy toward the island nation, on the last weekend in January the Community of Latin American and Caribbean states (CELAC), meeting in Santiago de Chile, elected Cuba to the presidency of the organization and handed the chairman’s baton to Raul Castro, who was present at the meeting. Further, a large delegation of European leaders, led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, was also present, giving Cuba’s presidency move added momentum and relevance. All this points up again the need for the U.S. to change its isolated and outdated policy toward Cuba.

But until now, the U.S. has taken the position that it will take no step to improve relations with Cuba until Alan Gross, the USAID contractor  imprisoned for “actions against the Cuban state, ” is released.  The Cubans needless to say would expect some quid pro quo and hint that the U.S. should in return release the Cuban Five. The release of all five is unlikely, however, especially as one, Gerardo Hernandez,  however unfairly,  is in for life for “murder,” accused of having been involved in the shoot down of the Brothers to the Rescue planes in 1996 (though there is not a shred of evidence against him).

Some U.S. officials have given the impression that the Cuban position is set in stone, that the U.S. must release all five or there is no deal. A Johns Hopkins delegation in Cuba recently, however, found this not necessarily to be the case. Cuban officials with whom we spoke indicated that even the question of an exchange for Gross is certainly open to negotiation.

And what of Alan Gross himself? He is certainly not innocent of any wrongdoing, as the U.S. maintains. He was distributing sophisticated communications equipment in clear violation of Cuban law and memos that have surfaced make it clear that he was working (however unsuccessfully) to undermine the Cuban government.  But there is no blood on his hands and he is guilty on no heinous crime.

There is no reason, in short, that imaginative diplomacy and negotiations could not lead to the release of Alan Gross and open the road to improved relations between the U.S. and Cuba. And certainly this is in the interest of the U.S., given that its present Cuban policy is rejected by the rest of the world and leads nowhere.  Every year when the vote on the U.S. embargo comes up in the UN General Assembly, the vote is overwhelming. One or two tiny island nations in the Pacific may vote with us, and always Israel. But however it votes, Israel is one of Cuba’s most active trading partners. It votes with us but it too rejects our policy. We are alone.

None of this is reflected in President Obama’s statement of January 30 suggesting that Cuba is living in the past and should change. But in fact it is changing. Some 52 years have passed since we broke relations with Cuba. It is no longer the ally of the Soviet Union. It is no longer trying to overthrow other governments in the hemisphere and thus now has diplomatic relations with all of them. And it is moving toward a more open economic system. The world has changed, as has Cuba. Only our policy remains frozen in time. It is long since time to change it. And we could certainly do more to encourage Cuba in the right direction through engagement rather than continued efforts at isolation.

And perhaps there is hope. In his January 30 statement, President Obama said that he could foresee improved relations during his second term if Cuba meets him half way.

And Josefina Vidal, a senior Cuban Foreign Ministry official, replied that the U.S. could “count on the willingness of the people and government of Cuba to work to advance bilateral relations.”

Let us hope they both mean what they say.

Wayne S. Smith was the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana (1979-82) and is now an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University and a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C.

U.S.-Cuban Relations and the Gross Case

One often notes a certain surreal quality in U.S.-Cuban relations. Recently, for example, statements out of the State Department have suggested that everything hinges on the Gross case, that the U.S. will take no steps to improve relations with Cuba until it releases Alan Gross, the USAID contractor arrested in Cuba almost four years ago. Accompanying State Department statements have suggested that Gross was innocent of any wrongdoing and had simply been distributing cell phones to an isolated Jewish community.

If only that had been the case. In fact, he had been distributing sophisticated communications equipment in clear violation of Cuban law. According to an Associated Press article dated Feb 12, 2012, Gross described his activities as “very risky business.” They must have been for he was being paid almost $600,000 for his efforts! The same article also reports that he was using a special SIM card during his last trip to Cuba – a device intended to keep satellite phone transmissions from being pinpointed, and normally available only to CIA and Defense Department personnel and sometimes to those connected with the State Department. And no wonder he had one. Gross was employed by Developmental Alternatives Inc (DAI), which had a multi-million dollar contract with USAID to operate in Cuba under a program called for by the Helms-Burton Act to promote democracy, i.e., to bring about regime change. The Cubans considered the program subversive.

As for the suggestion that Gross was just distributing cell phones to an isolated Jewish community, Adela Dworin, the president of Cuba’s largest Jewish community organization, has denied any link to Gross and stated that the Jewish community “does not need any of the sophisticated equipment that Gross allegedly introduced in Cuba; we have a completely legal internet.”

That certainly has been my experience. The Jewish community in Cuba is extremely well organized and has long had excellent internet connections, with one another and with groups outside Cuba.

If it is the U.S. Government’s position that any improvement in U.S.-Cuban relations depends upon Gross’ release, what steps has the U.S. taken to bring that about? What quid pro quos has it offered? None that I can see. And yet, improving relations with Cuba is (or should be) of marked importance to the U.S. for our Cuban policy is condemned by the rest of the hemisphere. The U.S. is the only country in the Americas not to have full diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba. And the majority of other governments have said that unless Cuba is invited to the next Summit of the Americas they will not attend, and thus there will be no Summit. How embarrassing for us.

Clearly, it is in the interest of the U.S. to improve relations with Cuba, and yet, as we have orchestrated it, the first step must be a solution to the Gross case, i.e., that he be freed. But, as indicated above, there seems to be no effort on our part to bring that about.

The Cubans have hinted that in return for Gross, we should free the Cuban Five. But that is a non-starter. At least at this stage in the game, it would be unacceptable to the American public. Five for one would be seen as unbalanced, and, also, one of the five was convicted (however unfairly) of murder and is serving a double life sentence.

But while an exchange for the Five would not work – at least at this point – , a reduced variation might. One of the five has already been released on parole (though not allowed to return to Cuba) and another is due out shortly. Why not speed up his release by a few months and allow both to return to Cuba, in return for Gross’ release. And if we need to sweeten the pot a bit, we could remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, the so called terrorist list. Cuba should long since have been removed anyway. There has not been any act on its part in years to keep it there and there is a growing popular demand for its removal. So let’s do the right thing and at the same time help bring about Gross’ release.

And these are by no means the only quids that might bring about his release. There are a number of others, if we would but turn our minds to it. One way, for example, would be for the State Department and USAID to suspend any further programs “to promote democracy in Cuba” that do not follow normal diplomatic protocol and have host country authorization. And we would lose almost nothing in the process, for these programs “to promote democracy” have achieved very little in terms of changing public opinion in Cuba. Indeed, as some have said, they have been almost as useless as TV Marti.

(This is not the place to take it up, but as we move toward normalization with Cuba, we must at some point take up and put the case of the Cuban Five in its proper legal and historical context. A separate IPR which points in that direction was published by the Center for International Policy in June of 2010 and is available from CIP. An updated version is now under production.)