top
Terrorism Apologist to Florida Supreme Court
by Jane Franklin
Governor Jeb Bush made history on July 10 when he appointed the first open supporter of terrorism to the Florida Supreme Court. Raoul Cantero III rose to this exalted position from his humble beginnings as the grandson of dictator Fulgencio Batista and son of an intelligence officer in Batista’s Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities (BRAC), notorious for torture and assassination. Of course, one can’t just assume that Cantero shares the politics of his Grandfather Batista and his father, but his own record shows that he has continued the family radition of supporting terrorism against the Cuban people.
Back in 1989, when Orlando Bosch was in prison in Florida for parole violation, the U.S. Justice Department had ruled that he should be deported because of his terrorist activities. The deportation order cited FBI and CIA reports that Bosch “has repeatedly expressed and demonstrated a willingness to cause indiscriminate injury and death,” including 30 acts of sabotage in the United States, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Panama from 1961 through 1968. Moreover, according to FBI and CIA documents, CORU (Commando of United Revolutionary Organizations), co- founded by Bosch in 1976, had been involved in more than 50 bombings and, quite likely, assassinations. Bosch himself was charged with the bombing of a Cuban passenger jet that exploded in midair, killing 73 people. Acting Associate Attorney General Joe Whitley wrote in his decision to deport Bosch: “The October 6, 1976, Cuban airline bombing was a CORU operation under the direction of Bosch.” Interestingly, that bombing occurred while the director of the CIA was George Bush Sr.; Bosch had been an agent of the CIA.
By 1989 Bush Sr. had become president. A campaign to get the White House to reverse the decision to deport Bosch succeeded. Bosch walks free today in Miami, still promoting violence against Cuba. Among the leaders who turned a convicted terrorist into a hero were Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, then running for Congress, and her campaign manager—Jeb Bush. A prominent spokesman for Bosch was one of his lawyers, Raoul Cantero III. Cantero informed the media that Bosch had never engaged in “indiscriminate” violence, suggesting perhaps there was some discrimination in choosing his civilian victims. On July 2, before Governor Bush promoted Cantero to the Supreme Court, the St. Petersburg Times reported that 1989 radio tapes prove Cantero called Bosch a “`Cuban patriot’” and “rationalized a 1968 crime for which a Miami federal court had convicted Bosch—the firing of a bazooka at a Polish ship docked at Miami—as ‘a political statement’ that ‘didn’t hurt anybody and it didn’t cause any damage.’”
Is Cantero in 2002 willing to enforce the law even against Cuban-American terrorists? This is a matter of major importance because terrorism against Cuba appears before the Florida Court with astonishing frequency. In Florida, the prevailing jurisprudence is that those who commit violent acts against Cuba are not terrorists but freedom fighters. According to Florida courts, the desirability of overthrowing the Cuban government evidently overrides the Neutrality Act, which forbids launching military actions from U.S. territory against any nation with which the United States is at peace.
Even as he announced Cantero’s appointment, Jeb Bush defended his choice by stating, “Everybody has a right to an attorney.” But nobody is arguing that an attorney should be held accountable for his client’s actions. The issue is whether a person who publicly justifies terror against civilians (including blowing up an airliner) as part of a “heroic fight” against the Cuban government should be a Florida Supreme Court justice.
Jeb Bush wants to get credit for putting the first Hispanic on the Court. But as Cuban-American Alvaro Fernandez, Florida director of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, points out, “All over the state, we have Hispanic judges who would be better qualified and who have no ties to terrorism.” Cantero is a corporate lawyer with no experience as a judge.
Now the controversy extends to the November gubernatorial contest in which Jeb Bush is up for re-election. With Jeb’s brother George waging a “War on Terror,” will the Democratic candidate dare to ask why Jeb Bush helped free Orlando Bosch, who had been declared a terrorist by the Justice Department, the CIA and the FBI?
Jane Franklin is the author of “Cuba and the United States: A Chronological History.” A description of her work is at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jbfranklins.
top
FRD Cuba Travel Paper
by Nicole Hertvik
FRD Intern and Columbia School for International and Public Affairs student Nicole Hertvik has compiled a detailed paper analyzing the US travel ban to Cuba and the potential effects of discontinuing the ban. Excerpts from that paper are below. Paper copies are available from FRD for $5 (see resources, inside back cover). The full paper should be posted at www.ffrd.org shortly.
For forty-two years, the United States has maintained a policy towards Cuba with the central aim of isolating and ultimately eliminating Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Although the policy has shown variations throughout its four-decade tenure, its main tenets have consistently rested on a policy of isolation. Central to the aim of isolating Castro have been restrictions on travel by US citizens to Cuba. This policy has only hurt the Cuban and American people and frustrated rather than fostered mutual understanding and a reconciliation of differences between the two countries. The paper is a summary of recent investigations into US travel restrictions to Cuba and an explanation of the conclusion that lifting the restrictions would be mutually beneficial to both American and Cuban societies. This argument rests on the assumption that travel restrictions are objectionable on legal, policy and economic grounds.
Legal
Restricting the right to travel conflicts with several areas of the US constitution. Limiting the freedom of movement encroaches on the “liberty” which the Fifth Amendment states citizens cannot be deprived of without the due process of law. Second, the restrictions limit rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to express our views, hear the speech of others, gather information and associate with others – rights essential to a democratic society. With freedom of movement restricted, First Amendment rights undoubtedly suffer.
Political
In refusing to alter its stance on travel to Cuba, the current Administration is allowing the will of the majority to be subsumed by the political clout of a small, empowered minority. A survey conducted by the Cuba Policy Foundation determined that two-thirds (66.8%) of Americans believe that citizens of this country should be allowed to travel to Cuba and 38.9% said they would consider going if the ban was lifted. In addition, a Florida International University survey of Cuban Americans in Miami reveals a community with increasingly diverse opinions on the issue. Over 52% of those polled believe unrestricted travel from the US to Cuba should be allowed while 51% signal that they “would support a dialogue with the Cuban government.” 45% feel that politicians are not listening to the views of Cuban-Americans supporting more open relations with Cuba.
In its attempts to isolate Cuba from the international community, the United States has clearly emerged as the isolated nation. The international community has repeatedly voiced opposition to US policy towards Cuba. The United Nations General Assembly has voted to condemn the US embargo of Cuba, of which the travel restrictions are a central aspect, for the past ten years. In the most recent vote in November 2001, 167 states voted against the embargo while four voted in favor of it and four abstained.
The geopolitical landscape has changed drastically since the end of the Cold War, while the travel ban, rationalized by Cold War security needs, has become only stronger. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s marked the end of Soviet subsidies to Cuba. In the decade since then, the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of State and the National Security Agency have each issued reports finding that Cuba does not pose a security threat to the US or the Western Hemisphere.
Economic
Those supporting continued travel restrictions argue that allowing US citizens to travel to Cuba would generate income for the Cuban government. It should be clear after forty years however, that the Cuban regime is capable of survival without American assistance and even in the face of great adversity. Ambassador Sally Cowal described those members of Congress still supporting travel restrictions as “believing somehow that what hasn’t worked for forty years will magically work now.”
As more and more American business and political leaders are realizing, business in the US stands to make significant financial profit from decreased restrictions with Cuba. Allowing Americans to travel to Cuba would provide an immediate boon to the American travel industry. In economic terms, lifting travel restrictions could serve as a useful starting point for increased commercial relations between the two countries. Americans currently make up the largest group of Caribbean vacationers, and Americans visiting Cuba will demand amenities similar to those offered throughout the region.
With estimates of as many as one million US travelers within the first year of legal travel, it is doubtful that Cuba would have the necessary infrastructure to handle such an influx. For this reason many tourists would have to stay in private homes, fueling the country’s limited private establishments and providing more equitably distributed source of dollars to the average Cuban. This could have the positive effect of lessening the growing divide between Cubans that receive remittances from relatives in the US and those who do not.
The above argument should serve to illustrate that current US policy on travel to Cuba lacks a logical or defensible framework in legal, political and economic terms. A majority of US citizens from all backgrounds clearly support a lifting of restrictions as do powerful elements of the business community. Increasingly, members of the political community are leaving behind the four decades of ideological baggage the issue has attained though the years. It is now up to the US Congress to decide if and when the travel restrictions will end.
top
International Relations Students Bridge Embargo
by Hilary Sledge, Barnard College student, FRD intern, and trip participant
In May 2002, a group of 27 Columbia University students, alumni, Deans and FRD staff traveled to Havana on a trip organized by Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) and FRD. The seven-day trip consisted of a variety of political, economic and social meetings. Students attended conferences at the University of Havana on the Cuban education system and US-Cuba relations. Visits were made to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), US Interests Section, a Policlinic and a community social work program. Throughout the encounters, a balance was emphasized between the failures and successes of the Cuban Revolution.
A discussion of the Cuban economy and Cuban investment process was held at the Ministry of Foreign Investment and Cooperation (MINVEC). This meeting provided a thorough explanation of the focus and models of Cuban economic policy and development since 1991. Pedro Monreal, economist, and Roberto Yebra Muńoz, MINVEC specialist, also discussed opportunities and sectors for foreign investment and enterprise. Additionally, investment techniques and the benefits and possible risks of investment in Cuba were discussed.
One highlight of the trip was meeting with students at the University and the International Relations Institute (ISRI). ISRI is a foreign service institute, training future diplomats, with curricula that includes aspects of international affairs such as students would find at SIPA. There were hopeful statements made between students to respect countries’ sovereignties in choosing their form of government. The visit to ISRI was beneficial not only because ideas were exchanged, but it was recognized that, as a group, we will be involved in the future with international policy bodies that can and should make a positive difference in relations between the two countries.
While the schedule was almost completely full of political and academic visits and conferences, there were also many opportunities to participate in the social life of Havana. The group also took a one-day trip to the countryside, Pińar del Rio, and visited “Las Terrazas,” a national park/biosphere and artists colony. There were also visits to a Mercado Agropecaurio (agriculture market), meseums of the Revolution and Bellas Artes, and one evening many attended a baseball game.
One of the shortcomings of the trip was the time constraint of only seven days in the beautiful city of Havana. Many desired to have more time for leisure activities or to travel more extensively outside of Havana. The trip was educational, enjoyable and inspiring, and was hopefully one small step in the process of the improvement of relations between the United States and Cuba.
top
FRD & WOLA Sponsor Congressional Visit to Cuba
by Geoff Thayle
From April 1st to April 4th, the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, along with the Washington Office on Latin America, sponsored a Congressional staff visit to Cuba. The delegation included staff who work for Members of Congress from the farm states of Kansas and Nebraska, as well as from California. Both Democratic and Republican offices were included, and Senate as well as House offices. The delegation explored Cuban interest in trade with the United States, Cuban interest in expanded US travel to Cuba, as well as the political and human rights situation in Cuba today.
The group met with Cuban government officials from the Ministry of Foreign Relations, the Ministry of Foreign Trade, and the Ministry of Tourism. It also had an exchange with officials of Cuba’s National Assembly, and with National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon. In addition to these official meetings, the group met with the director of the semi-official Center for the Study of the Cuban Economy, spoke with a US journalist based in Cuba, met with a Protestant minister active in community affairs outside Havana, and talked with ordinary Cuban citizens on the streets.
The delegation traveled to the town of Cardenas, famous as the home of Elian Gonzalez. There, it met with the Reverend Raimundo Garcia Franco, director of the private ecumenical Center for Reflection and Dialogue. Reverend Garcia Franco is a Presbyterian minister, who has been active in religious affairs since before the Cuban Revolution. He talked with the delegation about church-state issues, noting the significant improvements in church-state relations over the last decade, as well as highlighting some continuing problems. The Center, which Rev. Franco founded, offers workshops and seminars about a range of issues in Cuban life, including discussions of topics not often publicly debated in Cuba. These include the state of religious affairs, the role of women in Cuban society, and human rights issues. The Center also offers a range of social service programs to the Cardenas community.
While in Cardenas, the delegation visited a cooperative farming project started by the Center. There we saw interesting experiments in organic gardening (the farm uses no artificial fertilizers)and in alternative energy production (electricity is provided by methane gas generated from animal waste.) The farm produced honey, vegetables, and grains for the local market, and for the social service projects of the Center in Cardenas.
Several delegation participants wrote private briefing papers for Members of Congress as a result of the delegation. One of those papers helped brief a Senator who visited Cuba shortly thereafter. Another was presented to President Carter as he prepared for his trip to Cuba. The delegation afforded Congressional offices the opportunity to form their own opinions about Cuba
Overall, the delegation came away convinced that the Cuban government is actively seeking to improve relations with the United States. It is eager to expand trade, and preparing to receive more US tourists if the travel embargo is loosened. The delegation was also convinced that improved US-Cuban relations would, in the long run, have a constructive impact on the political situation within Cuba itself.
top
A Time for Change
New Booklet on US-Cuba Policy Released
The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) recently published an educational booklet and citizens’ guide on U-S.-Cuba policy entitled “A Time for Change: Rethinking U.S.-Cuba Policy.” The booklet critiques current U.S.-Cuba policy and suggests policy alternatives, and dispels misconceptions about realities within Cuba today. This publication is for community groups, students, and all those interested in U.S.-Cuba policy today. WOLA hopes it is useful to activists as they prepare to educate colleagues, students, policy-makers, friends and family about changing U.S.-Cuba policy.
This publication comes at a moment when there are two divergent trends in U.S.-Cuban relations. On one side, there have been clear signs of interest in better relations with Cuba from a majority of Members of the U.S. Congress, and from U.S. business and agricultural interests, and reciprocal signs from the Cuban government. On the other side, the Bush Administration has taken an increasingly entrenched stance on Cuba and a small group of hardliners in the House of Representatives have continued to thwart the will of the majority in Congress who want to change the policy. In a time when U.S.-Cuba policy seems trapped within these conflicting dynamics, it is important to build broad public support for changing U.S. policy toward Cuba. Through this educational booklet, WOLA hopes to provide the background information and intellectual arguments and facts necessary to make the case for a normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba.
“A Time for Change” is available in English and can be obtained for $5.00 plus $1.75 shipping and handling for the first copy and $3.00 plus $.50 for shipping and handling for each additional copy. For bulk orders (10 or more copies), please contact WOLA at 202.797.2171. To order this publication, please send a check payable to WOLA to Cuba Education Booklet Request, Washington Office on Latin America, 1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009, or call 202.797.2171 to use a credit card.
top
House Endorses Change in Embargo
From a press release by the Latin American Working Group.
Details, including records of votes are available at www.lawg.org.
On July 23, for the third year in a row, the House of Representatives voted to end the travel ban to Cuba and to allow for private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba by US farmers. These amendments have repeatedly passed the Congress and the vote counts showed strong bipartisan support for changing US policy. Amended to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill, the travel provision, offered by Congressmen Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Jim McGovern (D-MA), passed by a vote of 262-167. An amendment, introduced by Jerry Moran (R-KS) to allow financing of food and medicine sales won with a voice vote. The House also approved an amendment to allow Cuban-Americans to send money to their relatives in Cuba without restrictions. This amendment, offered by Representatives Flake and Delahunt (D-MA) passed easily by a vote of 251-177.
The travel, financing and remittances amendments cut funding for the enforcement of these aspects of the embargo against Cuba, a move that sends a strong signal to the Administration that Congress wants to change a failed policy.
The Rules Committee gave preference to an ostensible anti-terrorism amendment introduced by Rep. Porter Goss designed to undermine the Flake amendment. Goss’ provision was defeated by a vote of 182-247, despite intense pressure from the Bush Administration, including a letter to House Members from Secretary of State Colin Powell and Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, and a last-minute statement from Under Secretary for Arms Control, John Bolton.
In recent years, bipartisan votes to ease the embargo have been stripped out of bills in conference committees because of pressure from House Republican leadership and the White House.
The House of Representatives also voted on a measure to cut funding for the enforcement of the embargo against Cuba, sending a strong signal to the Administration that Congress wants even greater change. In a 204-226 vote, the House fell just short of the majority needed to pass an amendment offered by Congressmen Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Jose Serrano (D-NY).
The Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill will now be considered in conference with the Senate, which will act on Cuba amendments in the coming weeks. It is anticipated that similar Cuba amendments will also pass the Senate. The House leadership has previously vigorously opposed the Cuba provisions, and Cuba-policy watchers anticipate repeated maneuvering to attempt to frustrate the will of Congress and of the American people. If the bill goes to the President with the Cuba provisions intact, a veto has already been threatened.
top
