War chants against Cuba increase as presidential election nears
By Eduardo Santana C.
Recent articles in the New York Times and the Miami Herald (August 12-16) report on a letter sent to President Bush by 13 Republican legislators (10 of which are Cuban Americans) in which they warn him that “without significant, immediate and tangible progress” towards fulfilling four demands by Cuban American members of Congress “we cannot guarantee that in next year’s election Cuban Americans will provide Republican candidates for federal office (including Bush) the unprecedented levels of support garnered in past elections.” This is no minor threat considering that the more than 830,000 Cuban Americans that live in Florida tend to be mostly Republicans and better than 80% of these voters supported Bush in 2000, allowing him to win Florida by a few hundred votes and thus the Presidency of the United States. Unfortunately, press reports have not analyzed the reason for these demands and the consequences of implementing them.
The four demands referred to in the letter were:
(1) Modify the present “wet foot, dry foot” immigration policy in which illegal immigrants intercepted at sea are returned to Cuba, while those that reach U.S. territory are given the opportunity to stay. This policy, established during the Clinton administration, served to reduce the number of Cubans that attempt to reach the U.S. illegally. Its elimination could generate a new wave of migrants a la Mariel. Since the Bush administration stated that a mass exodus permitted by the Cuban government would be considered as hostile act and would respond accordingly, we can expect relations to dangerously deteriorate between the two countries.
(2) Stop the Cuban government from blocking broadcasts into Cuba by “T.V. Martí” the Florida-based television station created by the U.S. government to provide alternative information and anti-Castro propaganda to Cubans. By using powerful transmitters located at a site know as Bejucal, Cuba has successfully blocked most of its programming. Various analysts consider that the violation of Cuban airwaves by T.V. Martí constitutes a U.S. violation of international communication and neutrality agreements, and that Cuba has the right to block them. However, this demand is especially worrisome as it follows the suggestion for military action made last month by the conservative Center for Security Policy that “Bejucal is now a terrorist asset. It gives Castro enormous abilities to conduct information warfare against U.S. assets and space, and presents a major threat to U.S. space dominance… President Bush should order the destruction of the Bejucal facility – now – before the threat worsens.”
(3) Formally accuse Fidel Castro for the deaths that occurred in 1996 when Cuban military jets downed two civilian airplanes belonging to the organization Brothers to the Rescue. Cuba has provided evidence that these airplanes regularly violated Cuban airspace and even flew over Havana distributing anti-Castro propaganda during a time period when U.S.-based Cuban American terrorist organizations were planting bombs in Cuban hotels. The September 11 civilian aircraft terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers showed that the Cuban government had valid reasons to be worried about these flights. However, justified or not, a legal demand against Castro will eliminate any possibility of “constructive engagement” between both countries.
(4) Increase U.S. economic and technical assistance to political groups that oppose the present Cuban government. This, of course, is illegal. The U.S. does not allow foreign governments to finance political groups within its borders, and neither does Cuba, nor most other countries in the world. The recent jailing of over 70 dissidents in Cuba was a reaction to the increased financial and technical assistance they received from the U.S. This action will also preclude any type of future negotiations. These four demands have as common objective the escalation of political confrontation between the two countries and the generation of social strife within Cuba. This could spark U.S. military actions against Cuba precisely during the 2004 election period when the incumbent President might be in need of more popular support.
Bush’s policy toward Cuba is not based on human rights, national security or trade criteria. It is part of a domestic political strategy to win the influential Cuban American electoral support in Florida, the fourth most important swing-state for defining the next President. U.S. Cuba policy has been held hostage for the past two decades by a minority of well-organized, conservative Cuban American organizations that have become very good at playing the political lobbying game. The Center for Responsive Politics has documented millions of dollars donated in recent years to both Republican and Democratic parties by Cuban American individuals or by anti-Castro organizations like the Cuban American National Foundation and the Free Cuba PAC.
With the exception of pro-Israel PACs “…Cuban American money dwarfs that of every other foreign policy/ethnic interest group” making Cuban Americans the most important stakeholders influencing U.S. policy in Latin America. In an unprecedented situation, over fifteen Cuban Americans were appointed to high-level federal government positions by the Bush administration (e.g., Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Assistant Secretary of the State Department, Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs of the National Security Council, Vice President of the Export/Import Bank and Assistant Administrator of U.S.A.I.D. for Latin American, among others). These groups have extended their influence to other countries such as Russia, Spain, Peru and Mexico.
However, these conservative organizations do not represent the Cuban American community as a whole. A survey conducted last year by Florida International University reveals that 84% of Cuban Americans living in Miami believe the embargo has failed in its objectives, 63% approve the sale of medicines and food to Cuba and 53 % want the U.S. government to allow its citizens to travel to Cuba. These opinions are in line with what most Americans feel according to a poll by the Cuban Policy Foundation. Over 67% want travel restrictions eliminated and 63% support eliminating the embargo altogether.
The number of community, religious, academic and professional organizations that want an end to the embargo on humanitarian grounds have skyrocketed in the last decade. However, the new impetus for normalizing relations with Cuba has come from agribusiness. After special food sales were authorized at the end of the Clinton administration, Cuba quickly ranked 28 among the top 180 countries that buy U.S. agricultural products. A recent study by the Center for International Policy predicts that the normalization of commercial relations with Cuba could represent a gain of up to 1.6 billion dollars a year for the U.S. economy and the creation of up to 23,000 jobs.
This year a bipartisan coalition responding to agriculture, travel industry and progressive interests are promoting amendments in the House and Senate to remove trade and travel restrictions to Cuba. If they receive majority support, as is expected, then the U.S. Congress and the White House will be in a collision course, as Bush has promised to veto any initiative that weakens the U.S. imposed economic embargo on Cuba. Until now the aggressive pro-embargo views of the minority have prevailed. A positive bipartisan vote to open relations with Cuba will be an important step for promoting peace, human rights, democracy and better living-conditions for Americans and Cubans alike.
Dr. Eduardo Santana is a Cuban American visiting scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and professor at the University of Guadalajara, Mexico. He is recipient of international conservation awards and has organized seminars and published technical papers on natural resources and sustainable development in Cuba. Mailing address: Apdo. Postal 87 Autlan, Jalisco, México CP. 48900.
