President ObamaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s criticism of Cuba on human rights (see statement below) is not surprising, and may give him space to act more positively, but raises three problems of consistency:
1) The human rights of Americans are grossly restricted by our own government as long as we are forbidden to freely travel to Cuba.
The President does not have the power to end all travel restrictions. However, he can urge Congress to pass legislation to restore a fundamental and traditional liberty.
Most importantly and urgently, by executive order Obama can undo harsh politically motivated Bush obstacles to travel for educational, cultural, humanitarian, sports and other non-tourist purposes. April, the one year anniversary of the announcement of unlimited Cuban American travel, is a fitting moment to provide equal rights to the rest of us.
2) The Obama administration holds the keys to open cell doors in Cuba.
All prisoners described as political in both countries will be free as soon as the US takes seriously CubaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s offer of full reciprocity. More than two hundred victims of the pointless conflict between our countries can be immediately released from Cuban jails and five from American jails.
Both countries can continue to self-righteously insist that the cases are not equivalent morally or legally, but they should no longer delay a mutually respectful humanitarian solution for political reasons.
3) Human rights are violated on Cuban territory by the United States.
Prisoners have been detained at the Guantanamo base for years without trial. Five have died. More suicides from hunger strikes have only been prevented by aggressive force feeding.
We understand the domestic pressures that lead President Obama to retreat from his goal of closing Guantanamo and civilian trials. Can we also understand the domestic pressures on Cuban leaders to protect their right to national self-determination?
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Links and resources
Paul Hare, former British ambassador to Cuba, has published a thoughtful paper for the Brookings Institution U.S. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Public Diplomacy for Cuba: Why ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Needed and How to Do ItÃ¢â‚¬Â
Read it here
President Obama's statement on Cuban human rights
Recent events in Cuba, including the tragic death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, the repression visited upon Las Damas de Blanco, and the intensified harassment of those who dare to give voice to the desires of their fellow Cubans, are deeply disturbing.
These events underscore that instead of embracing an opportunity to enter a new era, Cuban authorities continue to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban people with a clenched fist.
Today, I join my voice with brave individuals across Cuba and a growing chorus around the world in calling for an end to the repression, for the immediate, unconditional release of all political prisoners in Cuba and for respect for the basic rights of the Cuban people.
During the course of the past year, I have taken steps to reach out to the Cuban people and to signal my desire to seek a new era in relations between the governments of the United States and Cuba. I remain committed to supporting the simple desire of the Cuban people to freely determine their future and to enjoy the rights and freedoms that define the Americas, and that should be universal to all human beings.
Bobby Sands, the first of ten hunger strikers who died in Northern Ireland
AP reports that Orlando Zapata Tamayo has died as the result of a hunger strike in Cuba. He was designated by Amnesty International as a Prisoner of Conscience after his arrest in 2003.
Hunger strikes deliberately pose a no-win dilemma to all systems of incarceration. In Belfast, ten people regarded as heroes by Irish nationalists and many Irish Americans died resisting their self-described political imprisonment.
The US deals with the same problem at Guantanamo Bay by forcing a tube down the throat of prisoners on hunger strike, an action which has been condemned by human rights advocates.
Last June Mohammad Ahmed Abdullah Saleh al Hanashi committed suicide at the east end of Cuba. As reported by the New York Times
Ã¢â‚¬Å“he had been force-fed in a restraint chairÃ¢â‚¬Â¦GuantÃƒÂ¡namo records show that Mr. HanashiÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s weight at one point fell to 87 pounds. Although the death is the first in the Obama administration, there have been five prior deaths at the camp, including four suicides.Ã¢â‚¬Â
When three prisoners died in 2006 the prison commander Rear Admiral Harry Harris stated: "This was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetric warfare committed against us."
Given his deteriorating health, the Cubans should have released Tamayo as they have quietly done in previous situations of gravely deteriorating health, even if, from the same security/control perspective as guided the British, that sets a bad precedent.
Die hard opponents of reform in US relations cite his death as one more example of the Cuban governmentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s evil. Florida Representatives Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Kendrick Meek and Senator Bill Nelson were the first to speak out.
Political opponents like Tamayo should not still be in jail but the blame is not solely CubaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s. His imprisonment was part of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“black springÃ¢â‚¬Â of 2003, precipitated if not deliberately provoked under the regime change agenda of then head of the US Interests Section James Cason.
Tamayo and other victims of CubaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s crackdown could have been freed more than two years ago if the US responded to signals sent privately to the Bush Administration through European diplomats including the Papal Secretary of State.
The same proposal of mutual gestures was later made publicly by Assembly Speaker Ricardo Alarcon and President Raul Castro. If the US releases the five Ã¢â‚¬Å“heroesÃ¢â‚¬Â Cuba considers to be political prisoners, Cuba will release the 50 still imprisoned from 2003 as well as all others the US views as political prisoners.
Cuba needs to clarify whether those released will have the option of remaining in the country as well as to emigrate, but that should not be impossible if the US pledges to relate to them in a normal diplomatic fashion.
In the meantime, heartfelt condolences are to be expressed to the family of Mr. Tamayo and numerous other casualties of the pointless hostility and travel and trade embargo afflicting both nations, not least the deaths perpetrated by the still unpunished Luis Posada Carriles.
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
AP reports: "Cuban President Raul Castro issued an unprecedented statement of regret on Wednesday over the death of a jailed dissident after a lengthy hunger strike that has sparked condemnation in Washington and in European capitals."
Craig Kelly, Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary
of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, led US
negotiators in Cuba at migration talks
As described by Anya Landau French in the previous blog, Friday's bilateral negotiations on migration proceeded reasonably. No announced breakthroughs and irrelevant hits to the bleachers on both sides (Alan Gross, Cuban 5), but the overall tone appeared positive, another small but significant step forward.
The next day we were reminded of the intractable problem that frustrates any serious advance in US-Cuba relations, America's attitude that it is has the right to intervene in a sovereign neighboring country on behalf of its view of democracy.
Despite contrary advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the US delegation met at the official residence with prominent dissidents.
As reported by AP
In a statement published in the Communist Party newspaper Granma, the Foreign Ministry said U.S. leaders' meeting with dissidents, was ''contrary to the spirit of cooperation and understanding showed on Cuba's part'' during the immigration talks and ''demonstrated anew that (U.S.) priorities are more related to supporting the counterrevolution and the promotion of subversion to destabilize the Cuban revolution than with the creation of a climate conducive to real solutions to bilateral problems.''
When Bisa Williams traveled to Cuba for meetings on postal issues, she had lunch with dissidents without provoking the same ire from the government. Was that because she was a lower level diplomat? Or that the lunch took place in the context of a five day visit which included observation of hurricane damage and a farm, additional meetings with the government, and going to the Juanes concert? Or have the Cubans lost faith in Washington's intentions?
A senior State Department official confirmed that the meeting took place on Friday, but defended it as part of U.S. policy to promote human rights globally, not just in Cuba.
"President (Barack) Obama and Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton have made clear that our diplomacy not only in this region, but around the world is not only about connecting governments, but about connecting societies," the official told reporters. "So as part of our normal work we try to meet with various sectors of society."
How can a senior US official be so a-historical and tone-deaf? US relations with dissidents in Cuba are a fundamental bilateral issue, and from that country's perspective the latest manifestation of a century of interference in its domestic political affairs. The issue is not only the US magnifying the importance and saying nice things about marginal political opponents of a government everyone else in the world but we recognize, but also that it subsidizes them while maintaining a harsh embargo on travel and trade.
"Connecting societies" is a bit hypocritical from an administration that refuses to allow unrestricted travel for educational, cultural, religious and humanitarian purposes. Meeting with "various sectors of society" is part of the work of an embassy when countries have normal diplomatic relations. However a visiting high level delegation getting together with opponents whom it knows are characterized as "mercenaries" in the midst of sensitive negotiations that have the ostensible goal of moving beyond a hostile past will be seen around the world as not serious.
A high ranking Vietnamese diplomat tells me that meetings between US embassy personnel and Vietnamese "dissidents" are rare, working level and negotiated beforehand. The precondition is that they be low profile, not discussed in the press and exclude Vietnamese government and party affairs. He was unaware of any instance in which an important visiting US delegation met with people who are comparable to Cuban dissidents.
Obviously that approach has not spared overt political opponents in Vietnam from sharing the unpleasant lot of their Cuban counterparts, including imprisonment, but it does allow other aspects of our bilateral relationship to progress, and, in my view, realistically engages Vietnam over time in a more democratic process.
Symbolism and self-righteousness too often replace substance in difficult international relationships but declining to act in this way subjects an administration to charges of abandoning principle--regardless of the counterproductive effect on achieving its goal.
Hopefully having satisfied anti-reform camps in their respective polities, the two governments can now move ahead in real terms. The Cubans offered some hopeful words:
"The Ministry of Foreign Relations reiterates the disposition already expressed by the Cuban government to maintain a respectful dialogue about any topic with the government of the United States, as long as it be held between equals, without detriment to independence, sovereignty and self-determination."
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
A prestigious public relations firm sent out a press packet on Thursday about Alan Gross, a USAID funded detainee in Cuba, including a video appeal from his wife Judy and background materials.
It was timed to have an impact on the bilateral talks on migration taking place in Havana today.
The public relations campaign came after a letter was sent by eight pro-embargo members of the House who demanded the Obama Administration "suspend all talks" with Cuba until Mr. Gross is released.
The press packet includes a letter to the Secretary of State from Maryland Senators Mikulski and Cardin and Representative Van Hollen arguing more reasonably that the negotiations, "create an ideal opportunity to make clear that Mr. Gross' release is a most important priority in our nation's relationship with Cuba."
The public relations firm, Chlopak, Leonard, Schechter & Associates (CLS), lists many governments and political candidates among its clients, along with prominent universities and the American Red Cross. The release does not say who paid for its work on behalf of the Grosses.
A central point in the background material is:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Alan was helping CubaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s tiny Jewish community set up an Intranet so that they could communicate amongst themselves and with other Jewish communities abroad, and providing them the ability to access the Internet.
The Jewish community in Cuba with whom Alan was working with is quite small (the islands Jewish population is estimated to be between 1,000 and 1,500 of a population of 11.4 million people).Ã¢â‚¬Â
ORT, a prominent international non-governmental organization, has a substantial computer program with the small Jewish community in Cuba which already provides those services. Was Mr. Gross duplicating its efforts or working with ORT?
I find no reference to him in ORT's postings about its work in Cuba.
My request to CLS for clarification has not been answered.
While I believe that Mr. Gross should be released, it is likely that he will be succeeded by other detainees unless USAID follows normal diplomatic protocol and obtains authorization from the receiving country before funding programs within it.
Both the US and Cuba consider it a criminal offense to work in their territory as an unregistered agent of a foreign power.
Ideally both governments will take this opportunity to set a new course of mutual respect in their relations. This should result in the release of Mr. Gross, the proper operation of USAID funded programs in Cuba, and the end of executive imposed restrictions in Washington and Havana on educational and cultural exchange.
Unpublished letter to the New York Times:
To the Editor;
By turning away from real engagement with US adversaries ("News Analysis" by Helene Cooper, 2/15/10), the Obama Administration risks replicating the error of its predecessors.
Better packaging of inside-the-beltway conventional wisdom about the world has only passing value on an international stage which we can no longer dominate.
No doubt, "administration officials hope they will benefit from a global perception that Mr. Obama has reached out to North Korea, Cuba and even Syria."
However, in the case I am most familiar with, Cuba, most international observers see the US as still bound by domestic interest groups into unilateralism built on fiction (Havana as a state sponsor of terrorism) and fear (denial of Americans' right to travel).
They wonder what happened to the Barack Obama who told Cuban Americans in Miami on May 24,2008, "it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions.Ã¢â‚¬Â
(The author is founder and executive director of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development in Dobbs Ferry, New York.)
Pro and anti-reform sentiments surfaced last week.
Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs (pictured above), was quoted in Spain:
When asked about the direction U.S. policy would take toward Cuba this year, Valenzuela said that Washington will seek Ã¢â‚¬Å“to resume some of the conversationsÃ¢â‚¬Â held with Havana Ã¢â‚¬Å“on matters of common interest.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Ã¢â‚¬Å“And in that sense, we have set conversations on immigration issues, postal issues ...Ã¢â‚¬Â he said, emphasizing the Ã¢â‚¬Å“effortsÃ¢â‚¬Â of the U.S. administration to Ã¢â‚¬Å“have a direct dialogue with the Cuban government.Ã¢â‚¬Â
As an example of that dialogue, the official cited the earthquake in Haiti, where the United States has maintained Ã¢â‚¬Å“a conversation directly with the Cubans ... (about) the possibility of directly supporting Cuban doctors working in Haiti.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Barack ObamaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s administration in 2010 also wants Ã¢â‚¬Å“to reverse some of the measures taken by the previous U.S. government not to permit more fluid connections between U.S. citizens and their counterparts in Cuba,Ã¢â‚¬Â Valenzuela added.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re opening up those measures to have much more communication from one society to the other society,Ã¢â‚¬Â he said.
If the Administration is finally serious about using its authority to open up non-tourist travel, it needs to move quickly so universities, World Affairs Councils, museums, elder hostel and others can incorporate Cuba into budgets and program plans for the 2010-2011 academic year. The devil will be in the details. Granting general rather than specific licenses to IRS recognized not-for-profits and eliminating the Travel Service Provider monopoly will avoid bureaucratic bottlenecks. Moreover, such a common sense initiative can inspire Congress to finish the job by enacting complete freedom to travel.
Coincidentally (?), a weak showing of the anti-reform bloc in the House fired a warning shot at the Administration in a letter to the Secretary of State from Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL), Mike Pence (IN), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Dan Burton (IN), Connie Mack (FL), Thaddeus McCotter (MI), Todd Tiahrt (KS) and Mario Diaz-Balart (FL).
We urge you to suspend all talks with the Cuban dictatorship until Mr. Gross is freed, and that you demand that he be immediately released. We also respectfully request that you call on USAID to proceed swiftly with the solicitation process, as called for by U.S. law, so that all interested non-governmental organizations may submit grant requests to provide needed assistance to CubaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s pro-democracy movement.
They were trying to derail bilateral migration talks, but primarily concerned with protecting the flow of pork for intervention, as well as for pro-embargo advocacy from the Cuba Transition Project at the University of Miami. Ironically, were they taken seriously, when USAID subcontractor Alan Gross is released by Cuba the desired funds can provide a steady stream of replacement detainees.
(My own view as written in an earlier post is that Gross should be released and USAID should spend no more money in Cuba that does not follow normal diplomatic protocol of approval by the host country.)
When Mauricio Claver-Carone published the letter on his Capitol Hill Cubans blog, he didn't bother to point out that six of the eight signers were beneficiaries of the US-Cuba Democracy PAC which he directs. So far in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles they received a total of $30,500.
And we wonder why the Bush Administration got it so wrong...
Condoleezza Rice speaking in Sarasota, FL
Rice predicted an "explosion" in Cuba after Fidel Castro dies. She said Cubans will not accept his brother Raul Castro as the dictator because he created so many enemies because he was the "enforcer" of the revolution. Instead, Cubans will demand a more democratic or liberal government.
Links and resources
"End of the Rogue" The world that created 'rogue states' is gone, and the sooner Washington recognizes it, the better, the international context for US policy on Cuba. By Nader Mousavizadeh | NEWSWEEK
"From Hanoi to Havana: The Rocky Road to Reconciliation", public radio broadcast of my talk at the World Affairs Council of Anchorage
Revealing Reuters articles by Marc Frank on the uneven pace of economic reform in Cuba.
Americans Learning from Cuba's Medical System, a report showing why educational exchange is a two way street.
Cuba has announced that the delayed meeting with the US on immigration issues will take place in Havana next month. The discredited Cuban Adjustment Act is on the table.
Bruno Rodriguez said negotiators will meet Feb. 19 in Havana and Cuba wants Washington's help in combating people smuggling, often carried out by gangs with souped-up speed boats that ferry Cubans out of the country. While some head for Florida, most arrive on the Caribbean coast of Mexico or Central America and make their way north to the U.S., where they usually are allowed to stayÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.
Under U.S. law, Cubans captured at sea are usually deported while those who reach American soil can apply for residency Ã¢â‚¬â€ making Mexico an attractive route. Cuba has long denounced Washington's so-called "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy as encouraging illegal immigration.
This should be a no-brainer as both pro and anti-reform groups in the US want to end a policy which elevates Cubans above illegal immigrants from Haiti, Central America and China.
Reformers see the current policy as providing economic motivation for dangerous trips and extortionate payments to traffickers.
Anti-reformers see their political base in Miami diluted by thousands who come to the US without obsessive hostility to their homeland and quickly want to send back remittances and make family reunion visits.
The ludicrousness of the situation is illustrated by aspiring migrants in Mexico learning Cuban accents and family histories to sustain forged documents in order to present themselves as qualified for admission at the US border.
Having settled that, how about the negotiators laying the groundwork for mutual gestures to address related problems?
1) Allowing Cuban and the US students to freely undertake educational exchanges,
2) Doing away with all US and Cuban restrictions on travel, a.k.a. licenses and exit permits.
Links and resources:
"Cuban Migration to South Florida: Impact and Implications", a paper on the political cost of too easy entry published by the anti-reform Cuba Transition Project, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami (Issue 114; October 9, 2009)
"CubaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ãƒâ€°migrÃƒÂ©s: The Absent Voice" posted on The Havana Times
Tom Richmond blogs about a cultural exchange trip by cartoonists to Cuba
There are a number of oddities about the explanation of the activities in Cuba of Alan Gross, the American detained by Cuba.
Some were explored in the newsletter of the Cuban American Alliance Education Fund and can be read here.
The anomaly that struck me is reflected in the New York Times on January 12.
"Mr. Gross has visited Cuba several times, delivering computer and satellite equipment to three Jewish community groups, according to people with knowledge of his work.
In December, they said, he was on a follow-up trip for Development Alternatives Inc., a contractor working with the United States Agency for International Development. The people who know about his work, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the matter, said Mr. Gross was sent to research how the groups were making use of the equipment he had previously distributed to them."
However, a highly regarded international NGO called ORT is credited with the excellent and substantial computer program assisting the Jewish community in Cuba. I find no reference to him in any of ORT's releases about its program.
Unless ORT was receiving funds from DAI / USAID, which seems unlikely, the story given out about Mr. Gross's activities merits further investigation.
Was he adding on to or hiding behind well established credible work or is this a cover story meant to confuse the debate over foreign assistance to dissidents? If his actual project was as innocent as described, did Cuban authorities overreact because of its lineage, i.e. its "regime change" funding source?
Cuba's characterization of Gross's role was used by his sponsor, and the State Department, to avoid the real issue of foreign intervention.
"There is a new institution in the United States which is made up of agents, torturers and spies that are contracted as part of the privatization of war," [National Assembly President] Alarcon said. "This is a man who was contracted to do work for American intelligence services."
DAI President James Boomgard:
"The detained DAI subcontractor was not working for any intelligence service. As noted in our original statement of December 14, the detained individual...was working as a subcontractor to DAI on a U.S. Agency for International Development program aimed at providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba.
Specifically, he was working with a peaceful, non-dissident civic groupÃ¢â‚¬â€a religious and cultural group recognized by the Cuban governmentÃ¢â‚¬â€to improve its ability to communicate with its members across the island and overseas."
If USAID and DAI sincerely want to work for humanitarian purposes in Cuba, they should follow normal diplomatic protocol of US assistance worldwide, and the practice of other western democracies in Cuba, by consulting beforehand with the host country. That is the essential bottom line of mutual respect.
An interesting contrast is the polemical and interventionist character of the USAID web page on Cuba, and the balanced tone of the page on Vietnam. Obviously the US disagrees with human rights and democratic governance as interpreted in both countries, but we would not have normal diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with Vietnam (or China) today without accepting their sovereign independence.
Note the following in a post by Richard Cheeseman quoting a question posed by Christopher Sabatini of the Americas Society in a Foreign Policy blog:
"In what other country in the hemisphere would it be considered a crime for a foreigner to give out a cell phone, laptop, or any other modern tool of communication?"
That's an easy question to answer: the USA.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act criminalizes any unregistered agent of a foreign power (which this "contractor" certainly was) who "within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal."
In the US such a foreign agent would be liable to a sentence of 5 years in jail and a fine of $10,000.
US foreign policy can benefit from rediscovery of the Golden Rule, do unto others.... For the sake of Mr. Gross, and our bilateral relations, I hope that Cuba and the US are undertaking serious negotiations for his release that include the suspension of future covert intervention by DAI and USAID.
Resources and links
My previous post on the subcontractor's detention.
Obama's Disappointing Year in Latin America
An interview with Julia Sweig, Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
My letter on the same theme published by the New York Times
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Intelligent PowerÃ¢â‚¬Â of Obama & Cuba by Pedro Campos, published in The Havana Times
Eleven months ago we were full of hope as a new President took office. Indeed we have seen progress.
Cuban Americans can now refresh their family ties whenever and as often as they wish.
Cuban musicians, artists and intellectuals are coming to the US again. Licensing has opened a bit for American performers, scientists and sports teams to visit. (New York Times story here.)
The bottom line, however, is disappointing. We have lost a year in which a wide range of educational, cultural, humanitarian and religious exchange could have taken place without any political restriction or bureaucratic hindrance.
Personal and organizational relationships would have been renewed or created that foster trust and are building blocks for new attitudes and policies in both countries.
Cubans and Cuban Americans reveled in the concert organized by Juanes but we could have enjoyed a mainstream breakthrough by the New York Philharmonic in Havana.
Having distributed widely English and Spanish editions of Barack Obama's books during trips to Cuba, I now fear I contributed to an illusion. The White House seems more concerned with accommodating the old guard in Florida and New Jersey than fulfilling its own values and the views of its constituents.
We hear familiar but unexpected words of democratic pre-conditions and political priorities and are counseled to be realistic.
Congress may well save the day but not the standing of the Administration, domestically or internationally. Even that is not assured. Cosponsors of Freedom to Travel bills have risen to 35 in the Senate, but slipped to 178 in the House.
We now have the public support of the key Committee chairs, John Kerry in the Senate and Howard Berman in the House, but Congressional leaders await a signal from the President.
The White House and Congress have only a few months to act before the mid-term elections and particularly strategies to win the contested Senate seat in Florida take over.
While everything must be done to remind Washington that we are a country of 50 states, more and more Americans are changing the facts on the ground. Travel via third countries is on the rise. It is simple to arrange, morally righteous, and politically impossible to stop.
Happy New Year,
"obviously, we all hope in the not-too-distant future to be able to see a democratic Cuba, something that would be extraordinarily positive for our hemisphere"
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
One more opportunity lost. Unbidden, the only words the Secretary of State directed to US policy with Cuba during Friday's State Department briefing on Latin America simply dug us deeper into a dead end interventionist ditch. No one asked her or Assistant Secretary Valenzuela about the Administration's policy on non-tourist travel or on legislation restoring freedom to Americans; nor did either volunteer a comment. (James Early of the Smithsonian raised the topic in his dialogue with Assistant Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs Maria Otero but got no response. See it here at 55 minutes in.)
The underlying contradiction of US policy exploded in the New York Times the next day when it was reported that since December 5 Cuba has detained the employee of a subcontractor using USAID funds to help opponents of the government. (Could there be a connection with the postponement of bilateral talks on migration that was announced on December 4?)
The US can and should aspire to improvements in other countries democracies and human rights, as others may comment upon our own money distorted political system, incarceration rate and absence of a fundamental human right to universal health care. However trying to impose values or intervene financially is wrong in principle, distorts internal democratic evolution, and often results in unforeseen blow backs to our own interests and to those whom we seek to help (by fostering illusions of their significance and safety).
For years Congress has been appropriating millions of dollars for the ostensible purpose of encouraging democracy and human rights in Cuba. In reality the money approved by a Republican controlled Congress was mostly pork, intended to benefit Cuban Americans in Miami who (surprise) supported Republican candidates with donations and votes. Much of the money went to the supremely irrelevant Radio and TV Marti. It also funded academic work by the Cuba Transition Project at the University of Miami and others that propagandize Americans against their country of origin. Grants were also made to Cuban American organizations which claimed to be sending assistance to a democratic opposition in Cuba.
This sweet deal ran into trouble when the Democrats took control of Congress. An Appropriations Committee effort led by Representative Nita Lowey to cut back the amount of money was overturned on the floor of Congress, thanks to the votes of Miami PAC influenced Democrats. Representatives Charles Rangel and Bill Delahunt requested GAO reports which focused devastatingly on the corruption of no-bid contracts and misuse of grants. USAID tried to address the problem by channeling the money to an independent contractor.
Some forty million dollars was given to Development Alternatives Inc., a private liberal toned organization with many former USAID staff in its management. DAI in turn offered subcontracts, posting criteria and goals which Cuba and critics of US policy denounced as illegal intervention in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country. (See post by Dr. Nelson Valdez of the University of New Mexico in May 2008.)
DAI and the subcontractor's detained employee are caught in the middle of the fundamental contradiction of the Obama Administration's policy on Cuba. It is real hard to engage a country in dialogue and at the same time overtly seek to overturn its political system, even if you no longer use the term regime change. The program DAI is implementing is a poisonous hangover from the Cuba Transition Project arrogance of the Bush Administration. The preoccupied Obama Administration has failed to address the contradiction, and the President's own rhetoric has been inconsistent.
Carefully parsed words in a statement by DAI President Jim Boomgard may reflect the goals of the USAID grant and serve their purpose with Congress and the US media, but are not likely to do much good with Latin Americans in general, and certainly his most important audience in Cuba.
In 2008, DAI competed for and was awarded a contract, the Cuba Democracy and Contingency Planning Program, to help the U.S. Government implement activities in support of the rule of law and human rights, political competition, and consensus building, and to strengthen civil society in support of just and democratic governance in Cuba
From Havana's perspective, the issue is not simply the burden of fifty years of publicly proclaimed subversion and hostility, but over 100 years of interference and attempted economic and political domination.
DAI will help its subcontractor's employee and the Administration most by simply acknowledging this project was inappropriate and that all future projects in Cuba will follow normal USAID protocol of vetting with the intended recipient country. They should pledge to follow the model of US funded agencies in Vietnam, China and Saudi Arabia and adopt the good practices of allied countries with embassies and aid programs in Cuba like Canada, England and Spain.
With mutual respect, creativity and serious diplomacy by USINT and above board US NGOs, projects might be possible which actually advance long term US goals. For example carefully developed microfinance programs could be acceptable to both countries, as they are in Vietnam.
This is a teachable moment for Americans and Cubans, but it could also be destructive to our shared real interests.
Chris Herz has suggested in a Venezuela blog post from Washington that the subcontractor's employee be held for exchange with the Cuban 5. That may sound outrageous, but could find a sympathetic hearing in a Havana which is becoming disillusioned about the Obama Administration's intentions and priorities. Guilt lies in the eye of each beholder, suspicious of covertly inserted agents of the hostile foreign power that claims only the best of intentions, whether to foster democracy or protect against terrorism.
The stakes are being raised for DAI both in Cuba and Venezuela by Eva Golinger in her blog Postcards from the Revolution where she denounces DAI and the subcontract employee as fronts for the CIA. Golinger can be over the top, but is close to Chavez and read in Cuba.
Hopefully, for the sake of its own international credibility, DAI has an established policy against collaborating with the CIA or serving as a cover, and if so it should be made public. In any case Golinger's unsubstantiated allegations are a red herring. The real issue is DAI's programs and processes with Cuba. For the well-being of DAI's subcontracted employee and others who are being funded from the same source, as well as any hope for change in bilateral relations, a suspension or fundamental reconfiguration of USAID programs for Cuba must take place.
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Phil Peters Cubantriangle has an excellent post on this issue.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“In fact, when it comes to U.S. policy in Latin America Ã¢â‚¬â€ as events this week in Honduras suggest Ã¢â‚¬â€ it's often hard to tell if George W. Bush isn't still PresidentÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. Coup-happy forces in other Latin American countries can only feel emboldenedÃ¢â‚¬Â
Tim Padgett, Time Magazine
As an Obama volunteer in the New Hampshire primary, I had the good fortune to hear him speak at a rally in Keene. It was striking that the theme that absolutely electrified his diverse audience was his pledge to change the relationship of the US to the world.
We believed he would engage internationally in a very different way than had George Bush and by inference many of his predecessors. Because of his unusual heritage and experience, he would be the first post-cold war, post-interventionist President. .
ObamaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s supporters obviously were not hearing everything he said, nor, as President, has Obama been hearing what the world is saying.
As deeply as it has disappointed many of his campaign stalwarts, we should have expected last weekÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s speech on Afghanistan given his frequent campaign contrasts between the good war there with the bad one in Iraq.
At the same time, we were justified in expecting better from his policy toward Latin America. Yet closest to home the White House is proving to be tone deaf, and unable to match its practice to high-minded rhetoric of mutual respect and non-imposition of US political values.
The Obama Administration's decision to embrace the compromised elections in Honduras drives a wedge between the US and the most powerful fully democratic and independent countries of the Hemisphere. It has prompted widespread disenchantment. Poor Tom Shannon; if right wing Republicans in the Senate finally let him be confirmed as ambassador to Brazil he will spend his tenure defending his role in legitimizing the golpistas at the most critical final moment.
How can the US avoid suspicion that Washington either was incompetent at brokering a smooth reversal of the coup or that our goal from the beginning was an anti-left transition managed by old friends in the oligarchy? Venezuela will gain sympathy for its charge that Obama is not such a big change after all.
The bottom line reality is that with two-thirds of the Honduran vote counted, only 49% of those eligible participated, a dramatic drop from the 62% figure spun on election day, and significantly down from the 55% turn-out in 2005. (Reports on actual vote here and here.)
The best non-violent solution I can imagine now is for President-elect Lobo to pledge to fully pardon Zelaya of the phony charges lodged by the coup makers and to make him responsible for organizing an assembly to rewrite the Constitution that was drafted by the last military junta. Otherwise disgruntled conservatives elsewhere in the Hemisphere may conclude that extra-constitutional removal of elected left governments is OK with Washington.
ObamaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s policy toward Cuba is an equally distressing example of not hearing. I wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t repeat what I have written in previous blogs about the AdministrationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s defiant isolationism on the embargo or its unconscionable failure to restore even the semi-adequate Clinton policies on educational, cultural, religious and humanitarian travel. Suffice to say that Obama is paying a needless international price for his slow domestically driven Miami-centric approach to the most egregious example of old style Yanqui bullying.
With foreign policy as with health care, the Administration must be made aware that the patience of its supporters and allies is not limitless and can no longer be taken for granted. I read the message from Obama to Yoani and the comments by Speaker Pelosi as place holders at best and remain skeptical that Congress will adopt travel legislation unless the White House sends a signal.
The message could be private, but the President will only get the international credit he deserves and needs by acting forcefully to enable non-tourist travel and to endorse the pending legislation.
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Christiane Amanpour presented two outstanding segments on travel to Cuba in her important Sunday afternoon CNN interview show. Speaking in the first segment were Representative Howard Berman and Jose Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch. In the second segment were Karel de Gucht, European Union Commissioner for Development, and Col. Larry Wilkerson of the New America Foundation.
Transcript of both segments here.
Video of Wilkerson and de Gucht here
Motives for ending travel restrictions are varied. The most articulate proponents of the case that the freedom of Americans is the primary issue come from a libertarian perspective, as well articulated by the CATO Institute. Its December 2 Capitol Hill Briefing with Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ); Phil Peters, Vice President, Lexington Institute; and Ian VÃƒÂ¡squez, Director, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity is worth watching for itself. Even more so because the Nuevo Herald published an AFP story which completely reversed FlakeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s prediction of favorable prospects for passage of the travel legislation in the House. View it here.