What About Cuba?

Myself | 04-11-2003 | J.J. Hunsecker

[jjhunsecker]

Since we have now gotten rid of Saddam the Bloody Tyrant of Iraq who should be next on our Hit Parade? I Vote we turn our attention to an Island 90 miles off our own coastline. Fidel Castro is every bit as Terrible as Saddam, just this week 75 people we sentenced to prison for various Political Crimes, etc. and three people will be executed for trying to hijack a ferry to the U.S.. So why should we not get rid of Castro? He's close and I doubt it would take any longer than it took to take Iraq maybe less. Any other thoughts on this?????

[Dqban22]

CUBAN MAKE FREEDOM BID IN FLOATING CHEVY TRUCK

CNBC called this feat a marvelous work of engineering. Beyond belief was the attempt at crossing the Florida Straits in a floating flatbed truck with 55-gallon (250-litre) drums strapped to its sides, tires still in place, a propeller attached to its drive shaft and a driver behind the wheel. According to the Coast Guard: "We've seen surfboards, pieces of Styrofoam, bathtubs, refrigerators. But never an automobile," It was a pity that the Coast Guard destroyed this piece fit for a museum as a proof of human ingenuity in its quest for freedom.

The violation of President Johnson’s Cuban Immigration Adjustment Act by President Clinton continues under President Bush. The immoral policy of wet feet, dry feet by returning to the Island-Prison those Cubans intercepted before touching U.S. land defies logic. It is important to keep in mind that only one in four reach alive at our coasts and those intercepted and returned to Cuba face death or up to 10 years imprisonment under subhuman conditions in Castro’s dungeons. After all, Cubans have not been a burden, but a positive immigration for the United States with its highest level of education among all the Hispanics in U.S. according to the U.S. Census, with the highest percentage in the top income bracket and the lowest among the lower brackets. Although Cubans are legal political refugees who came invited by President Johnson, in the context of the illegal immigration problems in U.S Cubans are just a tiny drop on the tsunami of illegal aliens arriving to our shores.

Cuban naturalized Americans vote and played an important role in Bush’s election and now feel betrayed by the continuation of this inhuman policy. We should keep in mind that Castro is the longest lasting terrorist in the world and the only person who once tried to nuke our cities. Nevertheless Castro continues to bully into submission to his will the American Presidents. 90 miles off the coast of Florida with a seething hatred for America, Castro is not just another tyrant. He's the only living dictator who tried to get the Soviet Union to nuke the United States. Now Castro is developing at least the capability for biological weapons, and he's got the right connections with rogue states to cause us headaches.

Naïve Americans think that by opening their market and purses to the Cuban tyrant the oppression will end in Cuba. Just the opposite will result from giving taxpayers’ money to Castro. Forty-four years of trade with 170 countries, many of them as capitalists as ours, has only resulted in more oppression and delaying the return of freedom and democracy to the Cuba. What we need is a real blockade just as the one that was imposed upon South Africa if we want to end the terrorist menace so close to the U.S. As stated by Senator Richard Helms: “Unfortunately, some in Washington are all too willing to give Castro what he wants. At the least they should stop pretending that they are doing this to promote Cuban democracy.”

[Dqban22]

Honorable President George W. Bush

The White House

7/29/2003

Dear President Bush:

I would like to convey, Mr. President, my profound distress for the forced deportation of groups of Cubans fleeing from the Prison-Island of Cuba. I have always been a firm supporter of your economic policies and your struggle against terrorism, but the policy initiated by Clinton dealing with the Cuban political refugees is inhuman and must be ended.


CNBC called this feat of converting a 51 Chevrolet truck into an amphibious boat, a marvelous work of engineering. The attempt at crossing the Florida Straits in a floating flatbed truck with 55-gallon (250-litre) drums strapped to its sides, tires still in place, a propeller attached to its drive shaft and a driver behind the wheel was beyond belief. According to the Coast Guard: "We've seen surfboards, pieces of Styrofoam, bathtubs, refrigerators. But never an automobile." As you well know, the Florida Straits are, as stated by Cuban poetess, Cruz Varela, “a huge cemetery without crosses”. It was a pity that the Coast Guard destroyed this piece fit for a museum as a proof of human ingenuity in its quest for freedom.


The violation of the spirit of President Johnson’s Cuban Immigration Adjustment Act by President Clinton continues under your administration. The immoral policy of wet feet, dry feet by returning to the Island-Prison those Cubans intercepted before touching U.S. land defies logic. It is important to keep in mind that only one in four reach at our coasts alive and those intercepted and returned to Cuba face death or up to 10 years imprisonment under subhuman conditions in Castro’s dungeons.

That policy of deporting those fleeing the last communist enclave in this hemisphere is not in accord with your deep Christian faith and principles. It is a reminder of the Roosevelt’s administration shameful policy towards the Jews during the Holocaust. A ship full of Jewish refugees, the “St. Louis”, was denied entrance in the United States and forced to return to Holland already occupied by the Nazis therefore ending up in the concentration camps.


After all, Cubans have not been a burden, but a positive immigration for the United States with their highest level of education among all the Hispanics in U.S. according to the U.S. Census, and the highest percentage in the top income brackets and the lowest percentage among the lower brackets.


To intercept the fleeing Cubans in international waters was and act of piracy, since, under the United Nations Humans Rights Declaration; everybody is free to leave its own country. Furthermore, Cubans are legal political refugees who came invited by President Johnson, in the context of the immigration problems for the U.S, Cubans are just a tiny drop on the tsunami of illegal aliens arriving at our shores.

Cuban naturalized Americans vote and played an important role in your election and now we feel betrayed by the continuation of this inhuman policy. We should keep in mind that Castro is the longest lasting terrorist in the world and the only person who once tried to nuke our cities. Nevertheless Castro continues to bully into submission to his will the American Presidents. 90 miles off the coast of Florida with a seething hatred for America, Castro is not just another tyrant. Now Castro is developing at least the capability for biological weapons, and he's got the right connections with rogue states to fulfill his dreams of destroying the United States. The long lasting relationship of Castro with international terrorism and his profound hatred for the United States is well documented.

Naïve Americans think that by opening their market and purses to the Cuban tyrant the oppression will end in Cuba. Just the opposite will result from giving taxpayers’ money to Castro. Forty-four years of trade with 170 countries, many of them as capitalists as ours, has only resulted in more oppression and delaying the return of freedom and democracy to the Cuba.

Recently we have seen that the European Union is following a policy toward Castro more in tune with our policy. What we need now is a real blockade just as the one that was imposed upon South Africa if we want to end the terrorist menace so close to the U.S. As stated by Senator Richard Helms: “Unfortunately, some in Washington are all too willing to give Castro what he wants. At the least they should stop pretending that they are doing this to promote Cuban democracy.”

In the meanwhile, Mr. President, please receive and give sanctuary to the few persons who are able to escape from Castro’s inferno.

[Dqban22]

CUBA LIBRE




By Fred Barnes, for the Editors
08/18/2003, Volume 008, Issue 46
The Standard
La Nueva Cuba
Agosto 10, 2003

---

"PRESIDENT BUSH is the most pro-democracy, pro-freedom president on Cuba that we've ever had," says Emilio Gonzalez, who recently stepped down as the National Security Council's expert on Cuba. Maybe so. Bush has vowed to block any attempt to repeal the trade embargo against Cuba. He's transformed the American interest section in Havana into a proactive spearhead for supporting Cuban dissidents. Bush raises the Cuba issue when he meets with European and Latin American leaders. He's recruited the European Union to campaign for human rights in Cuba, and he's persuaded Europeans to invite Cuban dissidents to events at their Havana embassies, infuriating Fidel Castro. He's backed Osvaldo Paya, the Cuban human rights leader and recipient of the E.U.'s Sakharov Prize who met recently with Secretary of State Colin Powell.

But there exists an appalling gap in Bush's policy toward Castro: the treatment of refugees escaping Cuba. Bush has continued the refugee policy of the Clinton administration known as "wet feet, dry feet." Under it, a refugee is sent back to Cuba unless he or she gets a foot on dry American land. This has led to wrenching scenes on Florida's shores of Cubans struggling to reach the beach--and potential freedom--as U.S. Coast Guard personnel battle to keep them in the water. Most refugees, of course, never reach American soil. In July, a dozen Cubans who'd stolen a boat were grabbed by the Coast Guard miles off the Florida shore and, following negotiations with the Cuban government, were returned to Cuba, only to face 10-year jail sentences. Bush officials regarded this as a victory of sorts, since three Cubans trying to reach the United States last spring suffered an even worse fate. They were caught by Castro's forces and executed.

This refugee policy is the result of an agreement between President Clinton and Castro. It caused Elián Gonzáles, who'd been rescued at sea, to be seized from a Miami home and flown back to Cuba. Under it, 20,000 Cubans are allowed to emigrate annually, with Castro deciding who goes and who doesn't. Castro uses the quota as a tool for suppressing dissent. If a Cuban is docile, he may have a chance to leave. But if he presses for freedom in his homeland, his chances are nil. To get out, a Cuban must pipe down. Castro deals with dissidents in other brutal ways. He cracked down on dozens last spring and sentenced them to long jail terms. Meanwhile, their family members lose jobs, their kids are expelled from school, and they lose their homes.

Why is the Bush administration clinging to a Clinton policy that's a matter of presidential discretion, not federal law? Five words: fear of another Mariel boatlift. In 1980, Castro cleaned out his jails and insane asylums and sent a flotilla of some 125,000 refugees to Florida. The sudden influx created some havoc in Miami and even in Arkansas, where violence and rioting by Cubans held at Fort Chafee contributed to Bill Clinton's defeat for reelection as governor. If you've seen the movie "Scarface," which starred Al Pacino as a refugee who becomes a crazed cocaine dealer, you'll understand the trouble that Castro caused in the United States. Averting a repeat of Mariel is the governing principle of Bush's refugee policy.

Yes, Castro is quite capable of mounting another boatlift. But the question is whether Bush should allow this fear of another Mariel to make Castro, in effect, the architect of American refugee policy. The answer is no. Another boatlift would not be pretty. And other nations are likely to be as reluctant to take in Cuban refugees now as they were in 1980. But Mariel was a problem, not a disaster. And many of the Mariel Cubans were legitimate refugees, as many in a second boatlift would be. The truth is America could handle a fresh surge of Cuban refugees, perhaps not painlessly, but without the turmoil and political fallout of 1980.

A simple fact should stand out in Bush's mind. The Cold War with the Soviet Union is over, but the Cold War with Cuba is not. Needless to say, Castro is not a leader with whom the United States should comfortably negotiate the terms of a refugee policy. The Bush administration has already set an unfortunate precedent by doing just that in the case of the 12 Cubans in July. So as a first step, Bush needs to repudiate this precedent explicitly and order the officials at the State and Justice departments who set it to reverse themselves.

A more important step is to revoke the "wet feet, dry feet" policy. Besides preventing legitimate refugees from reaching our shore, it is a cold and unfair way to treat people eager to reach America and freedom. What could be more at odds with America's tradition of accepting refugees--both political and economic refugees--than turning away those who fail by a few feet to reach dry land? Those who got over the Berlin Wall were warmly taken in. Those who escape Cuba's territorial waters should be, too.

There is a fair and compassionate policy that could be quickly put into practice. That is to bring all Cuban refugees ashore and create a process to judge whether they qualify to stay in America. The bias should be heavily in favor of letting them remain here as legal immigrants. After all, they are fleeing a Communist dictatorship. Even if they've left Cuba to improve their lives economically rather than to escape political persecution, what attracted them to the United States was freedom. And economic freedom is closely linked to political freedom. Sent back to Cuba, refugees who were merely seeking jobs will face retribution by Castro almost as harsh as if they were political dissidents.

A new policy on refugees, however, does not solve the bigger problem of Castro. It won't bring freedom to Cuba's 11 million people. What will is regime change. Bush has reversed the gradual normalization of relations with Castro that began under Clinton. Now he needs to go further. How? Treat Cuban dissidents the way we treated anti-Communist dissidents during the Cold War--that is, aid them in every conceivable way. That will require not only money, but also effective ideological warfare. Only that, along with the good Bush has already done, will shake the foundations of Castro's tyranny.


--Fred Barnes, for the Editors

[Dqban22]

WHAT WOULD REAGAN DO?

Miriam J. Masullo, Ph.D.
October 24, 2003


Defying a veto threat, the U.S. Senate approved a measure that eliminates funding to enforce a travel ban to communist Cuba. The White House argues, correctly, that travelers are allowed minimal contact with the people of Cuba, who are denied access to the same beaches and shops in their own country that tourists enjoy. There is no empirical evidence or studies to prove that tourism might improve democracy in Cuba. In fact, experiences in Eastern Europe before and after the demise of communism hint at a very different reality. Nevertheless, policy decisions will be made that could affect many lives, not in Cuba but here in the US. At this time some have asked, what would Reagan have done?

President Reagan's legacy is, among other things, a symbol of American ideals. Very few politicians have conducted their careers primarily as a struggle between right and wrong, good and evil. But, it is those few Americans who have left the greatest mark in our history by virtue of their profoundly inspirational vision of government. America was to President Reagan "the last best hope of man on earth."

During the Cold War, President Reagan's vision for a ballistic missile shield combined his belief in an unlimited American technological ability and a sincere desire to eliminate nuclear weapons because they were fundamentally evil. While there's a political inclination to give Mr. Gorbachev more credit than President Reagan for the end of the cold war, we know for a fact that the former Soviet Union could not afford to spend enough to match the development of the American shield, but they were going to do it anyway, something the President knew in his heart and mind.

President Reagan thus devised a brilliant defense strategy leading to the moral and economic demise of the Former Soviet Union, which resulted in the US emerging victorious without loss of human life or expenditures of defense moneys in active field engagement. Many Americans feel that it was good for us to emerge victorious, that it was good that we did no disintegrate politically and economically during the cold war. All Americans have enjoyed the victory. In addition, the investments in the "Star Wars" Program, indirectly aimed at US technological supremacy (of some sort) had the added benefit of increasing our national technology portfolio.

Scientists know that the fundamental principle of a "Star Wars" defense mechanism was flowed, but strategically it was a brilliant move, motivated by patriotism based on a simple principle: the President wanted America to be strong, stronger than its enemies. President Reagan's decision-making was as simple and elegant as it was advanced. It would work well even today, decades later and in the presence of a different situation, the new war on fear.

Today, as we battle the threat of terrorism, a Reaganesque approach to National Defense would serve us well. We need to be strategic, not tactical, and, we need to use intelligence, not like in G2, but like in using our heads to make decisions. That is where simplicity provides the technical advantage. Rather than intelligence we are using the bottom line and assumptions to decide how to treat our enemies. Cuba is our enemy. Instead of valuing the human aspect of the struggle in front of us, we are assessing the political trade-offs.

Seven nations are on the "state sponsored terrorism" list. We have reason to believe that these nations are working against us in ways that make us hostages of fear. Unfortunately, what we have to fear in the war against terrorism is in fact fear itself. That's what terrorism is all about. Fortunately, what we have to fight with to overcome fear is not politics, but intelligence and our technological superiority which has been long in the making.

Let's consider Cuba. Experts have documented four areas in which Cuba presents a terrorist threat to the US. The areas are:

1. Cuba's military elite force.
2.
An island country, with no border disputes should have no reason to maintain such an expensive resource, unless of course, it is intended to participate in foreign subversion.

3. Cuba's telecommunications resources, capable of interfering with our command, control and communications infrastructures.
Such capacity was assessed by the US government and documented on American TV. This is a force capable of compromising our own security, civil defense capabilities, and even cause irreparable damage to our commercial technological resources.

4. Cuba's capacity to support bacteriological and chemical warfare.
Experts known that the island has in operation several very advanced centers of research, where pharmaceutical, biotechnology and biomedicine sciences are progressing at a very fast rate, with no known commercial applicability and no visible products.

5. Nuclear radiation.
Cuba is known to be building a nuclear plant. The risks involved by such an initiative, under the current economic climate on the island, far outweigh the wisdom of this activity for the small nation in our close vicinity.

In conclusion, these activities are a) exceedingly expensive, b) not sensible national priorities, and c) of questionable cause. We are justified in suspecting that these activities may pose a threat to our national security, a threat that can and has been classified of a terrorist nature. There's ample evidence that the Cuban government, under Castro, views the US as its main enemy.


We know this from decades of well documented speeches and explicit statements that require no semantic interpretations. The debate about the so called embargo only intensifies the discord. While Cuba spends money it doesn't have in order to support activities suspected of being aimed at our destruction, the debate about the embargo is shifting the focus from the real issue which is and has always been our national security.

So what would President Reagan do? The first order of business in a Reaganesque strategy to combat the possible threat of terrorism in this case, would be not to fuel the threat with American dollars. That is why the so called embargo makes such good sense. We should start by eliminating the ambiguous language. Instead of embargo, our current policy should be simply called what it is: "cash only sales," something most Americans have to live with when they have little money and no credit. Something any merchant in American has the right to impose on its customers. Cuba can buy from the US by paying with cash. Cuba trades with all other countries however it wants and can trade.

Secondly, we should not help to supply the island with American dollars. Tourists from all over the world visit the island and stay in wonderful hotels, and bathe in beautiful beaches that the average Cuban is not allowed to enjoy. This is not the kind of society we should patronize with dollars. Without a doubt, tourism has neither enhanced democracy nor the quality of life for the people of Cuba. Much the opposite, the tourism industry in Cuba has created an institution of servitude for the Cuban people.

Nevertheless, some freedom loving members of our own Congress can find it in their hearts to justify unrestricted travel to the island. Some of these men have been in Cuba, stayed in the best hotels and seen for themselves that the average Cuban lives in dilapidated dwellings. Why would they want to participate and encourage this injustice? More tourism flowing freely to the island from the US will bring in more dollars that would in turn fuel the state's agenda. That would be a stupid thing for the US to do because it would fuel those potentially dangerous terrorist threats.
A cash only sales and justified lack of participation in what is at best an unjust tourism industry is not only the moral thing to do, it is the American way, and should force Cuba to prioritize its expenditures in food and medicine rather than in advanced and obscure technologies. It is conceivable that such priorities have not be put into effect in Cuba because of the debate in our Congress and the expectation of more dollars. If the debate had ended sooner things would have been much different in Cuba by now. This is the kind of thinking that President Reagan would consider common sense. The President would have asked Castro to feed the people and let them go.

We should be able to understand, by means of collecting intelligence, analyzing and correlating information, and extrapolating possibilities, where the strengths of potential terrorism activities are in each case, nation by nation, in that list of seven, where Cuba is now number three. We should then put in place plans to undermine those activities that threaten us, not fuel them. We should demand change before we bend to the wishes of a dictator and the speculations of special business interests. That's what President Reagan would do.

The question we should really ask, however, is not what President Reagan would do about Cuba, we know the answer to that. We should not even wonder what will happen in Cuba after millions of Americans start to spend money for travel to the island. What we should be asking, something that nobody stops to think about, is: what will happen to us? Interestingly enough, this issue comes to surface exactly forty years to the day of the October crisis. Remember the Maine!

Miriam J. Masullo, Ph.D.