GRANMA INTERNACIONAL DIGITAL

" Copyright GRANMA INTERNATIONAL DIGITAL EDITION. La Havana. Cuba
Total or partial reproduction of the articles in this Website is autorized,
as long as the source of the copyright,

THIS POLICY WAS ALMOST 40 YEARS OLD AND
IT HAD NOT SERVED ITS PURPOSES

They were not asking, as were Dodd and the others I mentioned, for the lifting of the blockade, not even its partial lifting. They were simply asking for a reassessment, a review of US policy. Of course, in that letter they recalled that the policy was almost 40 years old and it had not served the purposes that inspired its inception, namely, to suffocate and destroy us. The blockade is hurting and it is a crime but we are here and will continue to be here. According to the letter, that policy invites international rejection, both at the United Nations and elsewhere. Then, they proposed what anyone with a minimum of brains would thought after 40 years doing something that bears no results: to review, examine, analyze that policy.

Twenty four US Senators, most of them Republicans, adhered to Kissinger's and Eagleberguer's letter and endorsed a petition to President Clinton for the establishment of a bipartisan commission.

Then on October certain activities by the International Development Agency were disclosed. I had previously explained the testimony of a State Department official on the money they were giving to certain organizations in the United States to funnel it to the counterrevolution in Cuba. Well, an explanation was offered there on 10 on-going or future projects amounting to 2.75 million dollars and 3 more millions for the following fiscal year, this current year.

On October 14, for the seventh consecutive time the UN General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the US economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba by 157 votes in favor and only 2 against. You don't need to be the President of a country or a senator to understand that the vote stands for an overwhelming majority which for the seventh time they has agreed that this man is violating international law, that his policy is inadmissible and that it must be changed.

The following week, on October 21, following secret negotiations by a small group of officials and legislators, the US Congress finally approved and the President signed the Budget Act for the current fiscal year, heedless of the United Nations Resolution. By the way, they did not include in the budget the money owed to the United Nations which they are under obligation to pay as do the rest of the member states of said organization. They did not look into this issue but they did introduce in the Budget Act twelve amendments related to Cuba which tighten and expand the blockade.

I'm not going explain all 12. One of them directly undermines the famous understanding with the European Union that we have discussed before as it provides that the United States will not only continue to deny visas to businessmen investing in Cuba but that the administration will report to Congress about the enforcement of Title IV of the Act which they had agreed with Europe to suspend. This means that the so-called Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act they had promised to amend or suspend not only did they not suspend it but even demanded that reports be regularly submitted on its application beginning thirty days after the passing of this Act. That is only one of them.

The other, which I have already explained, deals with the flagrant promotion of subversive actions to undermine Cuban society. I already referred to the millions of dollars they had announced before. That is where they introduced the significant legislative contribution to this budget, "at least" $2 million allocated to that purpose. They had had before $2 million or a certain amount as a ceiling, like in any budget. Now they are to spend "at least" that figure.

There is no need to insist much for you to understand that this is inadmissible, that it is simply intolerable, that this constitutes a violation of Cuban sovereignty and independence. Furthermore, it is outrageous, both legally and in terms of budgetary norms.

They introduced another modification in this Budget Act --one of the 12-- related to Cuba which I would also like to mention for its further impact: Section 211 of this Budget Act simply violates the most elemental principles of intellectual property, trademarks and patents universally accepted. According to it, US courts cannot recognize the right to a trademark or patent by a foreign company associated in any way with properties claimed as belonging to any US citizen.

By the way, this has to do with a current event --I will refer to later on because now I wish to proceed with the chronology-- on which one would have expected the State Department to make a statement but on this they did not say a word on January 5.

However, Section 211 is now the source of serious a feud. First, because it is an insult to Europe which agreed to an understanding in order to reduce or settle the contradictions raised by the Helms-Burton Act. Just today, there is an ongoing effort to unfairly and illegally punish a European company which is a partner in a Cuban joint venture for marketing of our rum.

It is a known fact that on October the Treasury Department opened an investigation against Global Exchange and Pastors for Peace for the organization of trips to Cuba without the relevant permission. "Easing restrictions" for travels and yet something which had not occurred in United States for a long time happens when two US organizations are subjected to an investigation for the sin of traveling to Cuba without a license. That same October an important group of Oklahoma businessmen were prevented from travel to Cuba. They had respectfully applied and the answer was no.

Perhaps the most interesting thing from the end of last year and the beginning of the new one was the increasing support for a certain movement developing in the United States for the establishment of a bipartisan commission to examine the policy. As limited as that, to simply review, meditate, reflect and analyze a policy that elicits such international repudiation and which has not borne any fruits.

This year many comments and information have been published on the famous bipartisan commission, announcing its inception for tomorrow or the following week, or perhaps before New Year's eve or in the first days of January. What no one ever said is that it would not be created. That did not occur to anyone for a simple reason: the President is a member of the Democratic Party, right? The Republican Party is supposed to be his political adversary and the Republican Party holds the majority in both Houses; a large number of Republicans headed by four former Republican Secretaries of State, highly experienced and prestigious people widely recognized in the international relations circles, are the ones advancing this idea.

This is not a left-wing group nor a group of radicals. It is a moderate-conservative group. One could assume, as everyone else, that coming from a conservative opposition and backed by the most liberal elements who oppose the blockade or by those wishing to modify it in order to make it less inhumane, that the only thing the President had to say was: "All right, let's establish the commission". Furthermore, the commission is not committed to lifting or even changing the blockade but only to review it.

But the ultra-right wing fascists, the annexionists and the extreme right know that any review of something so totally discredited, so lacking in arguments, rationale and morale can only lead to the conclusion that such policy must be abandoned.

Now we come to the month of January. Every one was expectant, then journalists were called to the State Department and possibly all the naīve people in the world thought: "Oh! They are going to explain about the Commission". But, there come the famous measures announced on January 5, 1999.

The first thing they announced was that the blockade would remain intact, unchanged. Secondly, they said there would be no Commission, that they were not even willing to review the policy. Here is how they put it: "The measures we are about to announce have nothing to do with the embargo", as they call it. "The embargo continues to be in effect and remains the same", nothing changes. Then the measures follow. I will only touch on them for now, only mention them.

They refer to the remittances and also to direct flights between the two countries. They refer to the possibility for US citizens traveling to Cuba and to the mail service between the two countries. They refer to food --which had been referred to in the previous "easing of restrictions"-- accompanied, of course, by measures related to radio and television broadcasts against Cuba and also to what they call "public diplomacy" meaning the use of resources in Latin America and Europe in defending their policy, an eroded policy, a morally offensive policy rejected worldwide, a policy which 157 countries have rejected. Consequently, they have to spend more money, more resources in persuading and moving others to accept it, one way or another.

Later, I shall return specifically to the measures.

On December 9, assistant Secretary Peter Romero attended an international conference in Miami where he said that Mrs. Albright was analyzing what to do with the bipartisan commission. I thought that, in any event, she would recommend to the President and the President would eventually decide. See that I'm using Mister Romero's own terms. Mrs. Albright was in Miami for consultations in order to adopt a decision. Try guessing who she met with to discuss the issue: the three Cuban American Legislators. Some optimistic people thought: Surely, this is to explain to them that a Commission will be set up. But the opposite actually occurred.

On January 5, White House spokesman Mr. Lockhart met with the press for an announcement. First question: "Has there been a significant change in US policy towards Cuba?" Answer: "No, I don't believe there's been a significant change" --the announced measures sound ridiculous, simply a joke-- "I think we've built on some of the success announced by the President on March", nothing more. They continue to build on something whose features are as I pointed out to you. Mr. Lockhart issued this statement from the White House.

Three officials met at the State Department, Mr. Romero was one, a gentleman from the National Security Council and the third was the head of the Cuban Bureau at the State Department, to explain the same famous measures.

Question: "Mr. Romero, does this mean or has this anything to do with a more important long range policy?" Answer: "First of all, let me say that the measures that we've decided to undertake have nothing to do with the embargo, have nothing to do with the embargo. The embargo is the law of the land. It is in place and for the foreseeable future, unless Congress changes it, it will remain in place."

I say this because of the comments in the press. This policy is so absurd, so isolated and repudiated that many people think that if an announcement is going to be made it can only be to change it, to modify it, to advance in this direction. What nobody would ever think is that at this point in time they would call a press conference not to announce that the policy had been abandoned, or to accept the appeal by the international community, or at least to announce its modification in part as requested by a group of legislators, or a least to announce that it was going to be reviewed. It is hard to imagine calling the press to simply say that things will remain as they are, while trying to make people believe that a certain "ease of restrictions" had been attained. I will come back to this point later.

However, they call a press conference and announce a new "relaxation", which is what part of the media has reported, that is, more of the same from the March 20, 1998 announcement.

But how unusual, because one would think that any "relaxation", any policy change would be rejected by the Cuban American National Foundation. However, these people are very, very pleased simply because the Administration rejected the motion on the establishment of the Commission.

Can you imagine Mr. Helms supporting a "relaxation" of the blockade policy? Well, on the following day Mr. Rubin, the State Department spokesman who was not exactly dizzy from having to run around handing out information, was able to think before he was asked: "What does Senator Helms think?" Senator Helms, who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Rubin says something very interesting: "The Secretary spoke with him before and we kept in contact with his advisors before the decision was made. So, I don't think there's a problem in that area." It must be said that on May 14, 1998 when Mr. Helms submitted his cynical and contentious plan, he was proposing exactly the same measures announced on January 5, 1999. The current announcement actually looks like a Xerox copy, both in letter and spirit, of his recommendations made almost seven months ago.

Can you imagine Mr. Torricelli's enthusiasm in favor of a "relaxation" or a change in the US blockade policy, in favor of moving in a more reasonable direction? It is hard to imagine, isn't it? However, Mr. Torricelli is one of its advocates. His exact words were: "The new measures cannot be objected, nothing here morally offends me". This is Torricelli speaking.

By the way, Mr. Rubin had a few difficulties with the journalists because there are always people who refuse to swallow the same old pill. This page contains a dialogue with a journalist who tells him: "I don't quite understand why Saddam Hussein, against who we have launched missiles, trying to destroy him, against whom we have waged war several times seems to have this facility for purchasing medicines from this country, he can also buy food so, why not Cuba?" This is where Mr. Rubin becomes entangled in his own explanation. But the journalist simply replies: "It just seems like we treat Saddam Hussein at a different level from Cuba".

Now, listen to The New York Times headline, "Anti-Castro exiles'' --that is the term used when referring to Cuba-- "won limit on changes in US Policy".

The first paragraph of this article is very illustrative, it reads: "Foreign-policy experts, catholic archbishops, the US Chamber of Commerce and senior senators tried hard to push the United States to change its policy towards Cuba significantly. But President Clinton and his intended successor, Vice President Gore, rejected the idea of taking any large steps or even opening policy toward Cuba to a serious review", and quotes US scholar Wayne Smith, who was head of the US Interest Section in Cuba years ago. I do not wish to insult anyone, I will simply read what Wayne Smith said : "There is not much political courage in Washington these days." That's his conclusion about the whole affair.

Minnesota Republican Senator Rod Grams who signed the letter requesting the commission said what follows: "By rejecting this Commission, the President has rejected common sense; after years of an ineffective embargo, it is time to independently revise our relation with Cuba."

Senator Warner, who was the promoter of the letter asking for the bipartisan commission, expressed his disappointment at the dismissal of his idea on the commission without giving it serious thought and that the President had lost the opportunity of taking an important initiative. He said the following --I'm quoting him-- "The current policy treats Cuba more cruelly than Iraq and North Korea, where US embargoes are less restrictive."

Senator Warner, a Virginia Republican, expressed here that McGovern and Moakley, two Democratic representatives, deplored the fact that the Commission had not even been created.

Senator Dodd was one of those who most clearly expressed himself. He is a man who has had a very distinct position in relation to the blockade; he visited us recently. He said he regretted that a decision had not been made to move forward to the establishment of a bipartisan commission to review the US policy as recommended by 24 American senators, and he also said, "I am disappointed that nothing was done to deal with the critical impediments to the sales of medicines to Cuba." At least something in that area so elemental that it particularly shocked a humane person like Senator Dodd.

PART III