It should be an article of faith that the environment is immune from U.S. politics where U.S. interests are clearly at stake. That’s mostly the case with other countries, but not with Cuba. In New York last week a workshop organized by The New York Botanical Garden (NYBG) highlighted this aberration—and its damaging effects. Participants included a number of key non-governmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the Mote Marine Laboratory. They strongly agreed that measures must be taken to make it easier to cooperate on the environment with Cuba.

Cuba and the United States, whose territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida Straits, have much in common ecologically, as Brian Boom of the NYBG pointed out in his paper “Biodiversity without Borders,” (PDF).  This shared biodiversity ranges from threatened ecosystems, such as coral reefs and mangrove forests, to thousands of migratory species, including the Monarch butterfly, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, and the Hawksbill turtle. Many species have economic value and others are seriously endangered; still others are invasive and highly disruptive, while others carry serious disease like dengue fever. All of them require ongoing study and monitoring.

Even more urgent, natural disasters (hurricanes) and man-made threats (oil spills) can cause enormous damage that call for rapid bilateral solutions. The recent start of oil exploration off Cuba’s north coast points up the compelling need to prepare for a spill—and for the harm that will be done to the marine environment even without one.

However, between the U.S. and Cuba there exists no governmental cooperation on the environment as on much else. In 2007, Wayne Smith and CIP determined to work around this vacuum by organizing a conference in Cancun, Mexico, of key Cuban scientists and environmentalists and a group of their U.S. NGO counterparts (Conference report is here). The group, the first of its kind, agreed on priorities for research and conservation in the Gulf of Mexico and set up an organization to establish the gulf as a model for protection.  The organization, now including Mexico and called the Trinational Initiative, plans to hold its fifth meeting this year.

CIP’s initiative and other subsequent workshops and conferences have helped ease the way for environmental NGOs to work in Cuba. It is still far from easy, however. While visas for scientists and others to go and come are much more available under the Obama administration, tough procedural obstacles exist in both countries. These include obtaining licenses for people and equipment, funding limitations due to the embargo, and difficulties in securing project approvals, permits, and research visas from the Cuban government.

As Brian Boom’s White Paper concluded—and workshop participants vehemently agreed—the ecological stakes urgently call for a government-to-government accord that will allow professionals to work together on the critical environmental issues that extend beyond boundaries. Nature knows no nations!

In January, I had the opportunity to interview René González, the only member of the Cuban Five out on parole. 

When most Americans hear some reference to “The Cuban Five,” it more than likely brings up an image of a gang of dangerous Cuban spies sent to the United States to steal military secrets and to work against the security of the United States. The fact is that the five – and a number of other Cuban undercover agents – were sent up not to work against the U.S., but to penetrate alleged Cuban exile terrorist organizations responsible for the bombing of civilian aircraft and tourist hotels in Cuba, which had a heavy loss of innocent lives. 

The proposals from the Cuban side for a joint effort to halt the bombings and a call for a meeting with FBI representatives to share key information collected by the Cuban agents should have demonstrated that the Cuban agents were not sent to work against the United States. During the meeting, held in Cuba over several days in June of 1998, the FBI was handed some forty folders of evidence. The Cubans then waited for the U.S. to take action. They waited in vain. No action was ever taken against the terrorists; rather, a few months later, the FBI began arresting the Cuban undercover agents, i.e., the ones who had supplied the evidence against the terrorists. In 2001, five of these agents were brought to trial – they became the famous “Cuban Five.”

All had indeed been unregistered agents of a foreign power, and that might have drawn them short prison terms. But the prosecution had no other evidence against them. Penetrating the exile terrorist groups was certainly not a crime. The prosecution could claim they had been engaged in espionage against the U.S., but it had no evidence of that. It could claim that Gerardo Hernandez was complicit in the shoot down of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft in 1996 and thus guilty of murder, but it had no evidence of that either.

And so the prosecution fell back on the old dodge of trying them for “conspiracy” to commit crimes—what one does when one has no evidence.

Thus, Gerardo was sentenced to two life terms plus 15 years for “conspiracy” to commit espionage and “conspiracy” to commit murder.

René González was sentenced to 15 years for general conspiracy. They could only have made it more unconvincing had they convicted him of conspiracy to commit conspiracy.

The trials were generally regarded as hopelessly flawed and were massively condemned internationally and by many prominent Americans and legal organizations.

René González, who is both a U.S. and Cuban citizen, was released on October 7, 2011, to serve out the remaining three years of his sentence on parole. It had been hoped he’d be allowed to serve it out in Cuba and to return to his wife whom he had not seen in all those years. But the judge ruled he must remain in the U.S.  When I interviewed him in January, he was puzzled as to why.  Releasing him in the U.S. puts him in danger. Here, he is in the midst of those he’d wanted to bring to justice, and González fears that they may want to do him harm.  Fortunately, he has friends who are helping him move about frequently and secretly, hopefully staying a step ahead of any harm.

He’d been amused, he said, by the fact that the prosecution had insisted to the judge that during his parole “he be kept away from groups involved in terrorism.”

Was this a matter of telling the judge to keep him away from the very groups he assumed would be coming after him? If so, he laughed, it was wasted advice. He certainly would stay away.

All that aside, René said, he was glad no longer to be behind bars and from time to time to be enjoying the company of his daughters – and perhaps at some point of his wife, if they ever let her come to the U.S.

Interestingly, René expressed the fervent hope for a new relationship between the U.S. and Cuba. There is no longer any reason, he said, that we cannot have friendly and mutually beneficial relations. “Let us look to the future and not to the past. The Cold War is over. We have normal relations with every country in the Western Hemisphere except the U.S. and you have normal relations with Russia, China, and Vietnam. Why cannot we follow that pattern in the case of relations between the two of us?”

An excellent question – and a moving one, given that after all those years locked away in a U.S. prison, he still wants normal relations between the two countries.

On January 25, the Romney campaign issued a White Paper on Cuba and Latin America stressing that, unlike the Obama administration’s policy of appeasement toward Cuba, Romney’s would be one of no appeasement and no accommodation; rather, it would be one of unwavering support for the pro-democracy forces on the island. The paper goes on to list a series of policies the Romney administration would immediatelyput forward to advance its goals. Most are either off-the-wall or have already been tried, unsuccessfully.

First, Romney would reinstate the 2004 controls on Cuban-American travel and remittances, which the paper suggests, were lifted as part of the Obama administration’s appeasement policy. The authors have that one all wrong. The restrictions were lifted not really to appease the Cuban government, but more as a gesture to the Cuban-American community, the majority of whom want to see their families and to be able to send them more money. We’ll see how they react to being told that if Romney is elected, they’d have to go back to the days of George W. Bush when there were strict limits on how often they could travel and how much money they could send to their families.

And, it should be noted, those harsher controls on travel and remittances did not force the Cuban government to change its policies or accommodate us in any way. A hard line on our side simply resulted in one on theirs.

Second, Romney will adhere strictly to the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, including implementation of Title III. But Helms-Burton has been on the books now for some 15 years and has had little effect; it wouldn’t be any more effective under Romney than under, say, George W. Bush. Title III, which gives Cuban-Americans the right to sue the citizens of third countries in U.S. courts over use of their old properties in Cuba, has never been implemented, not even by the George W. Bush administration, and never will be. It’s so utterly extraterritorial in nature that it isn’t implementable. We would all look forward to seeing the Romney team give it a try.

Romney would of course demand the release of Alan Gross, as has the Obama administration. But simply demanding is not likely to have any more effect under a different administration. It will take something more imaginative than that. One can only hope the Obama administration will show itself capable of such imagination.

Romney would also seek ways, including criminal indictment, of holding the Castros accountable for the shoot-down of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft in 1996, leading to the death of four Americans. This is so much pie in the sky – it will play well in Miami, but isn’t likely to achieve anything.

Romney would increase funding for “democracy promotion programs” inside Cuba. These would publish pamphlets and take positions against the government. The problem here is that if that they –what few there are –are funded by the United States, they are seen to be the instruments of a hostile power, which diminishes any impact they might have.

Romney would also aim to “break the information blockade” by ordering “the effective use” of Radio and TV Marti. TV Marti is effectively blocked on the island. Radio Marti has been on the air for years but has little listenership, not for technical reasons, but because, as one Cuban put it: “the programs all seem to be made ‘for and by’ a Miami audience.” That doesn’t seem likely to change, even with technological advancements and new equipment.

And then there is Romney’s plan to publicly name oppressors, i.e. police officers and other officials who mistreat or in some way oppress the Cuban people. Given the “enemy” source, this is likely to have minimal impact.

This year’s primary season has resulted in few policy statements on the United States’ relationship with Cuba, until last night. With the primaries now focused on Florida, Republican candidates’ views on the Castro brothers and the United States’ policy toward Cuba are emerging.

At the GOP primary debate held in Tampa, Florida on January 23, moderator Brian Williams asked the four Republican candidates what they would do if informed that Fidel Castro had just died and, “there are credible people in the Pentagon who predict upwards of half a million Cubans may take that as a cue to come to the United States.”

Mitt Romney said that he would first “thank heavens that Fidel Castro has returned to his maker and will be sent to another land.”

Newt Gingrich said, “I don’t think that Fidel is going to meet his maker. I think he’s going to go to the other place.” Gingrich then suggested that we should try a covert operation to overthrow the regime (apparently meaning the regime that would remain even after Fidel’s death).

Williams asked why they felt so strongly about Cuba. Why didn’t they care as much about Chinese dissidents and impose an embargo on China?

Rick Santorum replied that China was not 90 miles off the U.S. coast. “This is an important doctrine of the United States, to make sure our hemisphere and those close to us are folks that we can and should deal with…That’s why the sanctions should stay in place because we need a very solid offer to the Cuban people.”

Ron Paul was the only one with a sensible comment. “I don’t like the isolationism of not talking to people … the Cold War’s over and I think we propped up Castro for 40-some years because we put on these sanctions, and [he] only used us as a scapegoat. … We talked to the Soviets. We talk to the Chinese. … I don’t know why the Cuban people should be so intimidating.”

Exactly. But the hostile comments of the other three were not surprising – especially in view of the fact that the Republican primaries are to be held in Florida at the end of this month. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum could be expected to play to what they expect to be a hard-line Cuban-American vote. We’ll see how that plays out. The majority of Cuban-Americans strongly favor the open travel policy President Obama recently instated allowing Cuban-Americans the freedom to visit their families on the island whenever they would like, and are even more in favor of the unlimited remittances they can now send to those families. It will be interesting to see if this alters the voting patterns of the past.

To view the debate, click here. The section on Cuba starts at minute 40:16 and ends around 46:00.

The way may be opening for increased U.S.-Cuban ties. The United States has removed all restrictions on Cuban-American travel from the U.S. to Cuba and all limitations on Cuban-American remittances to families on the island. Coming at a time when the Cuban government is encouraging the establishment of small private enterprises, this opens the way for importantly increased ties between the two communities-as one observer put it: “for an inflow of capital from the U.S. to Cuba.”

There is, however, the proverbial “fly in the ointment” and that is the case of Alan Gross, arrested on December 3 of 2009 and since then representing a major obstacle to improved relations–along with the case of the Cuban Five on the other side (but more on that later).

Who is Alan Gross?

Alan Gross is a 61 year-old Jewish U.S. citizen from Potomac, Maryland who is an employee of Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), a subcontractor of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) which itself is a dependency of the State Department. In December 2009, when Gross was about to leave Cuba with a simple tourist visa–after his fifth visit that year–Cuban state security authorities detained him at the International Airport in Havana. An investigation discovered links between him and the internal opposition to the Cuban government. Gross had been distributing among the opposition portable computers and satellite telephones as part of the State Department program for “promoting democracy in Cuba.” [1]

A long-distance communications technology expert, Gross has great experience in the field. He has worked in more than 50 nations and set up satellite communications systems during the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan to circumvent channels controlled by local authorities. [2]

Possession of a satellite phone is strictly forbidden in Cuba for national security reasons and telecommunications are a state monopoly with competition forbidden. [3]

Aid for the Cuban Jewish Community?

The State Department, demanding the release of the detainee declared, “Gross works for international development and traveled to Cuba to assist the members of the Jewish community in Havana to connect with other Jewish communities in the world.” According to Washington, Gross’ activities were legitimate and did not violate Cuban legislation.[4]

In October 2010, during the annual session of the UN General Assembly, Arturo Valenzuela, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, met with Bruno Rodríguez, Cuban minister for foreign affairs, to discuss Gross. This was the most important diplomatic meeting between representatives from both nations since the beginning of Obama’s era. [5]

Alan Gross’ family also said that his frequent trips to the island were to allow the Jewish community in Havana to gain access to the Internet and to communicate with Jews all over the world.[6] His lawyer, Peter J. Kahn, endorsed their words, “His work in Cuba had nothing to do with politics; it was simply aimed at helping the small, peaceful, non-dissident Jewish community in the country. [7]

Gross doubtless had contact with some members of the Jewish community in Cuba. Leaders of the Jewish community in Havana, however, contradict the official U.S. version of his relationship. In fact, leaders of the community affirm they did not know Alan Gross, and had never met with him despite his five visits to Cuba in 2009. Adela Dworin, president of the Beth Shalom Temple, rejected Washington’s statements. “It’s lamentable […]. The saddest part is that they tried to involve the Jewish community in Cuba which has nothing to do with this.”

Mayra Levy, speaker of the Sephardic Hebraic Center, declared she didn’t know who Gross was and added he had never been to her institution. The Associated Press said “the leaders of the Jewish community in Cuba denied the American contractor Alan Gross […] had collaborated with them.” [8] In like manner, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that “the main Jewish groups in Cuba had denied having any contracts with Alan Gross or any knowledge of his project.” [9]

Reverend Oden Mariachal, secretary of the Consejo de Iglesias de Cuba (CIC) [Cuban Council of Churches] which includes the [non-Catholic] Christian religious institutions and the Jewish community in Cuba, confirmed this position at a meeting with Peter Brennan, State Department coordinator for Cuban Affairs. On the occasion of the General Assembly of Churches of Christ in the U.S., held in Washington in 2010, the religious leader rejected Gross’ allegations. “What we made clear is what the Cuban Jewish Community, a member of the Cuban Council of Churches, told us, ‘We never had a relationship with that gentleman; he never brought us any equipment.’ They denied any kind of relationship with Alan Gross.”[10]

In fact, the small Cuban Jewish community, far from isolated, is perfectly integrated in society and has excellent relations with the political authorities in the Island. Fidel Castro, although very critical of Israeli policy in the occupied territories, declared to American journalist Jeffrey Goldberg that in history “no one has been as slandered as the Jews. They were exiled from their land, persecuted and mistreated everywhere in the world. The Jews had a more difficult existence than ours. Nothing can compare to the Holocaust,” he said. [11]

Cuban President Raúl Castro attended the religious ceremony for Hanukkah-the Festival of Lights–at the Shalom Synagogue in Havana, in December 2010. The visit was broadcast live on Cuban TV and published in the front page of newspaper Granma. He took the opportunity to greet “the Cuban Jewish community and the fabulous history of the Hebrew people.” [12]

Moreover, the Cuban Jewish community has all the technological facilities needed to communicate with the rest of the world, thanks to the assistance of other international Jewish entities such as the B’nai Brith and the Cuban Jewish Relief Project, the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), the World ORT, the Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) or the United Jewish Committee (UJC); all of it endorsed by the Cuban authorities. [13]

Arturo López-Levy, B’nai Brith secretary for the Cuban Jewish community between 1999 and 2001, and today a professor at Denver University, is also skeptical about the U.S. version of the Gross case. On the subject, he stated, “Gross was not arrested for being Jewish or for his alleged activities of technological aid to the Cuban Jewish community which already had an informatics lab, electronic mail and Internet access before he got to Havana. [The Jews in Cuba] do not gather at a synagogue to conspire with the political opposition because this would jeopardize their cooperation with the government which is needed for their activities: the emigration to Israel program, the Right by Birth project–through which young Cuban Jews travel to Israel every year–or to deal with humanitarian aid. To protect the most important they detach themselves as much as possible from the U.S. programs of political interference on Cuban internal affairs. Gross travelled to Cuba not to work with any Jewish organization but for USAID.” [14]

Wayne S. Smith, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Cuba from 1979 to 1982 and director of Cuba Program of the Center for International Policy in Washington, said that “in other words, Gross was involved in a program whose intentions were clearly hostile to Cuba, because its objective is nothing less than regime change.” [15]

Illegal Activities According to Cuban Authorities

Cuban authorities suspected Gross of espionage and internal subversion activities. [16]Ricardo Alarcon, president of the Cuban Parliament, declared he had violated the country’s legislation. “He violated Cuban laws, national sovereignty, and committed crimes that in the U.S. are most severely punished.”[17]

Gross, a USAID employee was providing sophisticated communications equipment. The distribution and use of satellite phones is regulated in Cuba and it is forbidden to import them without authorization. On the other hand, Article 11 of Cuban Law 88 reads that, “He who, in order to perform the acts described in this Law, directly or through a third party, receives, distributes or takes part in the distribution of financial means, material or of other kind, from the Government of the United States of America, its agencies, dependencies, representatives, officials, or from private entities is liable to prison terms from 3 to 8 years.” [18]

This severity is not unique to Cuban legislation. U.S. law prescribes similar penalties for this type of crime. The Foreign Agents Registration Act prescribes that any un-registered agent “who requests, collects, supplies or spends contributions, loans, money or any valuable object in his own interest” may be liable to a sentence of five years in prison and a fine of 10,000 dollars. [19]

French legislation also punishes this type of action. According to Article 411-8 of the Penal Code, “the act of exercising on behalf of a foreign power, a foreign company or organization or company or organization under the control of a foreign agent, any act aimed at supplying devices, information, procedures, objects, documents, informatics data or files whose exploitation, spreading, or gathering can by nature attempt against the fundamental interests of the nation is punishable with ten years of imprisonment and a fine of 150,000 Euros.”[20]

On February 4, 2011, the prosecutor of the Republic of Cuba formally accused Alan Gross of “acts against the integrity and independence of the nation,” and demanded a jail sentence of 20 years. On March 12, 2011 Gross was finally sentenced to 15 years imprisonment after his trial.[21] The lawyer for the defense, Peter J. Kahn, expressed his regret that his client was “caught in the middle of a long political dispute between Cuba and the United States.”  [22]

The New York Times remembers that Gross “was arrested last December during a trip to Cuba as part of a semi-clandestine USAID program, a service of foreign aid of the State Department destined to undermine the Cuban Government,” The New York paper also indicated that “U.S. authorities have admitted that Mr. Gross entered Cuba without the appropriate visa and have said he distributed satellite telephones to religious groups. [23]

Since 1992 and the adoption of the Torricelli Act, the U.S. openly admits its objective towards Cuba is “regime change” and one of the pillars of this policy is to organize, finance and equip an internal opposition. [24]

USAID, which is in charge of the implementation of the plan, admits that, as part of this program, it finances the Cuban opposition. According to the Agency for the 2009 fiscal year the amount destined for aid to Cuban dissidents was of 15.62 million dollars. Since 1996 a total of 140 million dollars have been dedicated to the program aimed at overthrowing the Cuban government. “The largest part of this figure is for individuals inside Cuba. Our objective is to maximize the amount of the support that benefits the Cubans in the Island.”[25]

The government agency also stresses the following, “We have trained hundreds of journalists in a ten year period and their work is seen in mainstream international media.” Formed and paid by the U.S., they represent, above all, the interests of Washington whose objective is a “regime change” on the island. [26]

From a juridical point of view, this reality in fact places the dissidents who accept the emoluments offered by USAID in the position of being agents at the service of a foreign power, which constitutes a serious violation of the Cuban Penal Code. The agency is aware of this reality and simply reminds all that “nobody is obliged to accept or be part of the programs of the government of the United States.” [27]

Judy Gross, the wife of Alan Gross, was authorized to visit him in prison for the first time in July 2010. [28]She took the occasion to send a letter to Cuban President Raúl Castro in which she expressed her repentance and apologized for the acts of her husband. “I understand today the Cuban Government does not appreciate the type of work Alan was doing in Cuba. His intention was never to hurt your government.” [29]

Judy Gross also accuses the State Department of not having explained to her husband that his activities were illegal in Cuba. If Alan had known that something would happen to him in Cuba, he would not have done that. I think he was not clearly informed about the risks.” [30]

A Way Out?

Clearly, Alan Gross violated the law. Of that there can be no doubt. On the other hand, he seems to have done little harm. His continued incarceration results in no important benefits to the U.S. His release, on the other hand, could be a major step toward improved U.S.-Cuban relations, especially if in the process he were prepared to apologize for his actions.

There is another side to the matter, however, and that has to do with the so-called Cuban Five. Just as the U.S. seems unwilling to move ahead in relations unless there is some movement in the Gross case, so do the Cubans seem reluctant to move without progress in the case of the Cuban Five, who were incarcerated in 1998. They were sent up to the U.S. by the Cuban government to penetrate and develop information about the anti-Castro terrorists groups in Florida after a sequence of bomb attacks against tourist centers in Havana. The idea was then to provide that information to the FBI so that it could take action to halt the exile terrorists. A meeting between representatives of the FBI and the Cubans was held in Havana over several days in June of 1998 and some forty folders of evidence were turned over to the FBI. The Cubans then waited for the U.S. to take action against the terrorists. But none was taken; rather, shortly thereafter, the FBI began arresting the Cuban five. In other words, they arrested those who had provided the evidence rather than the terrorists themselves. The Five were arrested, tried and convicted, though “tried” is not the right word for the trial was a sham. The prosecutors had no real evidence and so fell back on the old standby of trying them for “conspiracy” to commit illegal acts. No evidence, and they were tried in Miami where anti-Castro sentiment had reached such a level with the Elian Gonzalez case that there was no chance of empanelling an impartial jury. Defense lawyers requested a change of venue, but, incredibly, it was denied.

Worst of all was the case of Gerardo Hernandez, who was accused of “conspiracy” to commit murder and given two consecutive life sentences plus fifteen years–this in connection with the shoot down of the two Brothers to the Rescue planes in February of 1996. Never mind that there was no evidence that he was in any way responsible. But there, behind bars, he remains today, mostly in solitary confinement and after all these years not allowed a single visit from his wife.

The injustice in these cases contradicts the reputation of the U.S. for dedication to the rule of law. It must be corrected. Holding these men year after year without real evidence of any crime other than being the unregistered agents of a foreign power was one thing during the Cold War–though unjustified even then. But now, with the Cold War over and every possibility of beginning a new U.S.-Cuba relationship, it becomes morally unjustifiable and counterproductive. It is time surely to undertake a process of reviewing all these cases and then allowing these men to return to their families. One, René Gonzalez, has already been released from prison to serve out his remaining three years on parole, but at the same time, incredibly, not allowed to return to Cuba to be with his wife, who he has not seen in all these years. That, allowing his return, should perhaps be the first step in the process.

And it goes without saying that as the U.S. begins to move in the cases of the Cuban Five, Cuba should release Alan Gross to return to his family.

It should be noted that Alan Gross himself suggested there should be some reciprocal movement in these cases. “Following the recent exchange of the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, Gross was clear that he wants the United States and Cuba to make a similar gesture for him and the Cuban Five,” explained Rabbi David Shneyer, who had visited Gross in Havana. [31]

Salim Lamrani, PhD in Iberian and Latin American Studies of the Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV University, is a professor in charge of courses at the Paris-Sorbonne-Paris IV University and the Paris-Est Marne-la- Vallée University. He is a French journalist, and specialist on the Cuba-United States relations. He has recently published: Etat de siege. Les sanctions economiques des Etats-Unis contre Cuba with a prologue by Wayne S. Smith.

 Wayne S. Smith, now director of the Cuba Project at the Center for International Policy, was chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, 1979-1982, and is the author of The Closest of Enemies, (New York: W.W. Norton, 1987).

Stephen Kimber’s forthcoming book “ What Lies Across the Water?” is perhaps the most complete account of the Cuban Five I’ve yet read – and I came away from reading it with a  renewed sense of depression. No wonder! The case has long befouled the image of the United States as dedicated to justice, honor and fairplay. As Kimber notes, the trial back in 2001 was such a complete farce that it drew massive international criticism – from 10 Nobel Prize winners, from hundreds of jurists, members of parliaments and various other organizations all over the world, many of whom joined 12 amicus briefs asking the Supreme Court to review the case. And for the first time in history, the UN Human Rights Commission condemned a trial in the United States.

Kimber follows the Cubans as they are assigned to the United States as undercover agents, not to work against the U.S. but to gather information on exile terrorist activities against Cuba. The Cuban government then invited representatives of the FBI to come to Havana to receive and discuss the evidence of these terrorist activities and plans gathered by the agents. The meeting took place in June of 1998. The Cubans then waited for the United States to take action against the exile terrorists. But none was taken. The only action, rather, was the arrest of the Cuban Five, they who had provided much of the evidence turned over to the FBI.

At the time, I wrote this off as simply another example of the U.S. government’s almost chronic inability to respond rationally to Cuba – and in this case to do what in fact would have served U.S. interests. Having read Kimber’s book, however, I now see there may have been more to it than that. We knew about the Havana meeting with the FBI. But few knew – and I certainly did not – that the meeting had in effect been prompted by Fidel Castro in a message delivered in the White House by Gabriel Garcia Marquez to President Clinton’s top Latin American adviser, Thomas Mack McLarty, and three senior NSC officials. The core of the message had been to suggest a joint effort against exile terrorism – especially in light of Cuban information that the exiles were planning new plane bombings – such as those carried out earlier by Luis Posada Carriles. According to Garcia Marquez, the American reaction to the idea of a joint effort had been decidedly positive.

What then had happened? Why the exact opposite of what seems to have been intended? Kimber believes it had to do with the FBI’s assignment of a new Agent in Charge, Hector Pesquera, who was close to the hardline Cuban exiles. Kimber writes that “in an interview with a Miami radio station soon after the verdicts, Pesquera claimed he was the one who switched his agents’ focus from spying on the spies to filing charges against them.” [1]

And “after the verdict in the Cuban Five trial, Pesquera was quick to claim credit for persuading officials in Washington to OK his plan,.i.e., to go after the Cuban Five rather than the exile terrorists. He told the Miami Herald the case ‘never would have made it to court’ if he hadn’t lobbied FBI Director Louis Freeh directly.”  [2]

Kimber goes on to write that “at the same time, Pesquera apparently discouraged investigations into exile terrorism. An FBI agent told journalist Annie Bardach, that they’d thought it would be a slam dunk to charge and arrest Luis Posada Carriles. But then they had a meeting with the chief [i.e. Pesquera] who’d said no, that “lots of Folks around here think Posada is a freedom fighter. We were in shock. And then they closed down the whole Posada investigation.”[3]

Kimber tried repeatedly to interview Pesquera, but without success. The latter retired from the FBI and then simply stopped responding to Kimber’s e-mails.

The outcome, Kimber concludes, was the exact opposite of what had been contemplated at that White House meeting all those years ago. Rather than efforts to halt exile terrorist acts, the United States arrested the Cuban Five – although “tried” is not the right word, for the trial was a sham. The prosecutors had no real evidence and so fell back to the old standby of trying them for “conspiracy” to commit illegal acts. No evidence, and they were tried in Miami where anti-Castro sentiment had reached such a level with the Elian Gonzalez case that there was no chance of empanelling an impartial jury. Defense lawyers requested a change of venue, but incredibly, it was denied.

Worst of all was the case of Gerardo Hernandez, who was accused of “conspiracy” to commit murder and given two consecutive life sentences, plus fifteen years – this in connection with the shoot down of the two Brothers to the Rescue planes in February of 1996. Never mind that there was no evidence that he was responsible. But there, behind bars, he remains today, mostly in solitary confinement and after all these years not allowed a single visit from his wife.

What may have begun with constructive intentions at that White House meeting all those years ago thus ends – so far – in shame.

_______
[1] Kimber,  “What Lies Across the Water”, p. 286.
[2] Kimber, op. cit., p. 286.
[3] Kimber, op. cit., p. 286.