Obama Administration

Asst. Secty. Valenzuela on Cuba policy

2010-05-25T11:48:00.000-07:00

Dr. Arturo Valenzuela, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, provided this summary at a luncheon of the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami on May 20th.

“This brings me once again to Cuba, where we seek to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. When President Obama addressed this gathering in May 2008, he emphasized the desire to move Cuba further down the road toward freedom and made clear his commitment to supporting the Cuban people’s desire to freely determine their own future. The President also laid out his openness to direct engagement when, and I quote, ‘we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.’

“During the first 16 months of the Obama administration, we have begun to make progress on the vision that the President has outlined. First, we have taken measures to increase contact between separated families and to promote the free flow of information to, from, and within Cuba. We believe that the reunification of the divided Cuban family is a positive step toward building a better future for Cuba. In addition, we have engaged Cuban authorities on key bilateral matters like migration and direct mail service and will continue to do so to advance U.S. national interests. In the wake of the tragic earthquake in Haiti, the United States worked with Cuba to expedite the arrival of critical supplies to victims and survivors of the worst natural disaster in the modern history of the Western Hemisphere.

“We have also increased artistic and cultural exchanges between our countries, consistent with our long-standing support for freedom of expression. The ‘Peace Without Borders’ concert in Havana and performances in the United States by noted Cuban artists such as Carlos Varela demonstrate in concrete terms our desire to promote greater communication between the people of the United States and Cuba. In 2009, there was an 80 percent increase in travel licenses issued to U.S. persons under the public performances, athletic, and other competitions and exhibitions category; a 25 percent increase in religious licenses; and a 16 percent increase in licenses issued for academic travel to Cuba. Additionally, non-immigrant visa issuances for Cuban citizens have more than doubled in the last year, including visas for more Cubans to travel to the United States for cultural academic and professional exchange. This engagement has not generated overnight change, but it has advanced U.S. interests and in conjunction with our efforts to reach out to the Cuban people helped lay the foundation for a more robust civil society and increased the chances that Cuba will make a successful transition to democracy.

“We remain deeply concerned by the poor human rights situation in Cuba, which contributed to the recent death of prisoner of conscience Orlando Zapata as a result of a hunger strike. We are also focused on securing the release of U.S. citizen Alan Gross, who was jailed in Cuba in December—a matter of great importance to the United States. And the unhelpful rhetoric of the Cuban government will remain a constant feature of the relationship almost irrespective of what policies we pursue.

“Again, we are committed to continuously evaluating and refining our policies in ways that will empower the Cuban people and advance our national interests. This does not, however, mean that we will shy away from condemning the Cuban government’s repressive ways—far from it. Just last March, President Obama stated, ‘Cuban authorities continue to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban people with a clenched fist.’ That response is discouraging, but will not deter us from pursing the policy approach the President has laid out and which we have been working hard to advance since January 20, 2009.”

DASD Frank Mora on Cuba Policy

2010-05-06T11:31:00.000-07:00

“The Top 7 Myths of U.S. Defense Policy Toward the Americas”
April 29, 2010
Dr. Frank O. Mora
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Western Hemisphere Affairs

Although not necessarily a security or defense issue, the seventh myth regards Cuba. Being here at ICCAS, I would be remiss if I did not discuss U.S.-Cuba relations. The question of Cuba is so complex, with so much history, that it is perhaps not surprising that it forces me to abandon the framework I’ve used for this speech.

In discussing Cuba, there are two critiques of the Administration’s policy to date. Simply stated, critics contend we have either done too much or not nearly enough. Some claim the Administration has not sufficiently broken from the past while others accuse the Administration of propping up the repressive Cuban authorities. Neither is correct. It is important to recognize that the President has done exactly what he promised he would do with regard to Cuba policy. He has removed restrictions on family visits and remittances; he has sought to engage on issues of mutual interest such as migration and direct postal service; he has sought to increase the flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people; and he has stood up in defense of the basic human and political rights of the Cuban people in denouncing the tragic death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo and renewing his call for the unconditional release of all political prisoners. In the wake of the tragic earthquake in Haiti, the United States has also cooperated with Cuba to expedite the arrival of critical supplies to victims and survivors of the worst natural disaster in the modern history of the Western Hemisphere.

In sum, the promises that President Obama has fulfilled are significant because they create opportunities for relationship building and exchange and demonstrate that we are sincere in our openness and desire to establish a new chapter in the history of U.S.-Cuban relations. The administration cannot be blamed, however, for those who project more on to President Obama than what was, in fact, promised.

Of course, and as the President has observed, a fundamental change in the U.S.-Cuba relationship requires action and good will from both sides. We have seen very little good will from the Cuban authorities and even less positive action. As Secretary of State Clinton recently noted, the Cuban authorities remain intransigent.

Despite this intransigence, U.S. policy will remain focused on reaching out to the Cuban people in support of their desire to freely determine their future and will remain committed to advancing U.S. national interests. Thus, we will push forward constantly to break old paradigms by promoting people-to-people bonds. The risk that such bonds somehow aid current Cuban authorities is, in my view, negligible. I sincerely believe we have developed an appropriately cautious approach that strikes the right balance between moving our relationship with Cuba in a positive direction while simultaneously maintaining pressure on the Cuban government to allow the Cuban people to be truly free.

Sen Menendez Challenges Secty Clinton on democracy support

2010-02-25T09:17:00.000-08:00

Clinton, senator spar over Cuba policy

Posted: February 25th, 2010 06:46 AM ET

From CNN Senior State Producer Charley Keyes

Washington (CNN) - In a tense moment during hearings on Capitol Hill, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sparred with Sen. Robert Menendez over whether the United States had halted pro-democracy programs in Cuba.

U.S.-Cuban relations have become tenser in the aftermath of the December imprisonment of a U.S. citizen and government contractor, Alan Gross.

"For some reason, it seems to me, when it comes to Cuba, the recent actions by the regime to arrest an American citizen have totally frozen our actions," Menendez, D-New Jersey, said at a Senate Foreign Relations budget hearing with Clinton.

"Are we going to have a permanent freeze on having entities that are trying to create peaceful change for civil society inside of Cuba? Is that the policy of the State Department?"

Clinton denied a freeze was in force, but said there is "an intense review" under way.

"We are very supportive of the work that we believe should be done to support those people of conscience inside Cuba. We are trying to figure out the best ways to effective in doing that," Clinton said.

"We're currently reviewing the risks in the wake of the baseless arrest of Mr. Gross in Cuba so that people who are traveling in furtherance of the mission, advocating for freedom, providing services, providing supplies and material to Cubans will take the necessary precautions when traveling."

Clinton's comments came a day after the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a Cuban pro-democracy activist and prisoner who died after a hunger strike.

"We are deeply distressed by his death during a hunger strike on behalf if his rights and to send a signal of the political prisoner situation and oppression in Cuba where we think there are in excess of 200 other prisoners of conscience," Clinton said.

Menendez repeated his concern that the U.S. was turning away from pro-democracy activist in Cuba.

"If a regime, whether that be in China , whether than be in any other country in the world, can ultimately deter the United States from its engagement of human rights activists and political dissidents, then that pillar of our diplomacy crumbles," Menendez said.

"But that is not what we are doing," interrupted Clinton.

"Well, I would like to see what we are doing," Menendez said. "Because right now we are not doing very much."

Dates for Migration Talks, Haiti Cooperation

2010-01-28T13:37:00.001-08:00

Date Set to Open Cuba-U.S. Immigration Talks in Havana

Thursday , January 28, 2010

AP

HAVANA — Cuba wants to negotiate an agreement with the U.S. to slow the trafficking of its citizens fleeing the island and hopes to tackle the issue during immigration talks rescheduled for February, the foreign minister said Thursday.

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 stay.

"Part of the Cuban agenda presented to the government of the United States is a proposal for a new immigration agreement and solidifying cooperation in the fight against people trafficking," Rodriguez said.

Under U.S. law, Cubans captured at sea are usually deported while those who reach American soil can apply for residency — making Mexico an attractive route. Cuba has long denounced Washington's so-called "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy as encouraging illegal immigration.

Rodriguez said the United States has yet to respond to Cuba's proposals, however, and a spokeswoman at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana — which Washington maintains instead of an embassy since the two countries do not have diplomatic relations — said Thursday that Washington has not yet finalized an exact date for the talks.

Biannual discussions between the U.S. and Cuba were limited to immigration from 1994 until they were canceled under President George W. Bush in 2003. They began anew in New York in July, and both sides called that session positive.

But a second round of discussions planned for December were pushed back.

Looming over the encounter is the arrest of a U.S. government contractor who was detained in Cuba in December for allegedly distributing prohibited satellite communications equipment.

Cuba accuses him of being a spy. U.S. officials deny that, saying he was not working with groups opposed to the communist government but with a religious and cultural organization.

Rodriguez said that under American law, the detainee "would at least be considered an agent of a foreign power."

"Evidently the government of the United States will not quit endorsing the destruction of the Cuban revolution, the political structure of the government of our country," he said. "In any part of the world that would be a serious crime."

Still, Rodriguez said Cuba has coordinated with the U.S. on transporting aid to Haiti, with 60 U.S. flights using airspace in eastern Cuba to reach the quake-devastated country since Havana temporarily opened it to American planes.

"There have been some exchanges between the Foreign Relations Ministry of Cuba and the State Department on an eventual cooperation in Haiti," he said.

Foreign Minister Rodriguez response to Ambassador Rice

2009-10-29T21:15:00.000-07:00

Foreign Affairs Minister Rodríguez Parrilla’s reply to the speech given by the U.S. representative

I feel obligated to respond to the speeches given by the United States, the European Union, and Norway.

I should say to the European Union that Cuba recognizes absolutely no moral authority to dictate models or give advice on the matter of democracy. I want to remind it of its complicity in the acts of torture that occurred at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib and reiterate that as long as it maintains a two-faced and hypocritical position, it will not enjoy any credibility.

Mrs. Rice, who unfortunately is not here in the room at the moment, started out by saying "here we go again." With that phrase she recognized what 17 representatives from the United States have come to do in the past.

I respect her opinions and recognize that her career is totally distinct from that of a neoconservative like Bolton; but she has had the sad task of defending the policy of the blockade here, which began, according to a classified memo, on April 6, 1960 with the professed aim of causing hunger, desperation, and discouragement among the Cuban people.

The only remnant of the Cold War that has been discussed here is precisely the blockade. Lift the blockade and that remnant will disappear.

Mr. President:

Cuba is a democracy that is closer to Lincoln’s principles, with a government of the people, with the people and for the people, than the plutocracy or government of the rich that operates in this country.

Here, the U.S. representative described as dissidents or political prisoners those who in reality are agents of a foreign power, mercenaries paid by the U.S. government. If they want to talk about political prisoners, they should free the five Cuba antiterrorist heroes, subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in U.S. prisons.

Mr. President:

Mrs. Rice has said that the word genocide is inappropriate for describing the blockade. I quote Article 2, paragraphs b) and c) of the 1948 Geneva Convention against the Crime of Genocide.

Paragraph b) "Genocide is causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group," referring to a human group.

Paragraph c) "Genocide is deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."

I recommend that the State Department study that Convention better.

The blockade against Cuba is a unilateral and criminal policy that also has to be lifted unilaterally. It is not reasonable, just, or possible to wait for gestures from Cuba for an end to the criminal application of measures against the Cuban people, including its children and elderly, from the examples that I have described here.

The United States should lift the blockade and it should lift it now; first, because Cuba is not blockading the United States or occupying any portion of its territory with a military base, nor is it discriminating against its citizens or businesses; and, in the second place, it should do so because it is in the best interest of the United States itself and the will of U.S. citizens.

A free flow of information was addressed. Lift the ban on U.S. citizens to travel freely to Cuba, respect their right to freedom to travel. Lift the blockade against Cuba in the areas of technology and information; permit better connectivity with our country; export software and information technology to Cuba and there could be advancement in this field.

Mrs. Rice has mentioned constructive advances. It’s true that there have been a few steps in the correct direction, strictly limited to the relations between Cubans that live in the United States and their native country, but they have nothing to do with, nor do they mean or signify, any loosening of the blockade. They are correct steps but extremely limited and insufficient.

The blockade is not a bilateral question. Its extraterritorial application has been clearly shown with the many examples presented.

Mrs. Rice has mentioned the proposal to continue having exchanges and dialogue between the two countries, which had been proposed many years ago by Commander in Chief Fidel Castro and publicly reiterated several times by President Raúl Castro. If that is what the United States desires, it should respond to the proposal of an agenda for bilateral dialogue, presented by Cuba to that government on July 17, 2009.

Mr. President:

Mrs. Susan Rice said in August at New York University that "the United States leads by example, acknowledges mistakes, corrects course when necessary, forges strategies in partnership and treats others with respect."

She also said during that speech: "we are demonstrating that the United States is willing to listen, respect differences, and consider new ideas." It’s deeply surprising to me that Mrs. Rice has had to say the opposite this morning.

Thank you very much.

Translated by Granma International

State Department Spokesman on Embargo Vote

2009-10-29T11:25:00.001-07:00

QUESTION: Speaking of the UN, the General Assembly had its annual vote today on the Cuba embargo. You got two people to join you, two countries. Can you remind – (a) remind of what those two countries are, and (b) tell us what you think of the vote?

MR. KELLY: I think one was Palau, Matt. Who was the other one?

QUESTION: I don’t know. I think it – it’s usually, generally, the Solomon Islands.

QUESTION: I thought it was Micronesia.

QUESTION: Or Micronesia.

QUESTION: Or was that about Israel?

MR. KELLY: All right. Well, let me give you the guidance on this. The United States believes it has the sovereign right to conduct economic – its economic relationship with Cuba as determined by U.S. national interests. Sanctions on Cuba are designed to permit humanitarian items to reach the Cuban people, while denying the Cuban Government resources that it could use to repress its citizens.

This yearly exercise at the UN obscures the fact that the United States is a leading source of food and humanitarian relief to Cuba. In 2008, the United States exported $717 million in agricultural products, medical devices, medicine, wood, and humanitarian items to Cuba.

QUESTION: Sorry. Wood?

MR. KELLY: Wood.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: Sanctions is one part of the United States policy approach to Cuba. In recent months, as you know, we’ve reached out to the Cuban people. We’ve taken steps to promote the free flow of information, we’ve lifted restrictions on family visits, and we’ve expanded the kinds and amounts of humanitarian items that the American people can donate to Cuba. We’ve also taken steps to establish a more constructive dialogue with Cuba. We’ve reestablished dialogues on migration, and we’ve initiated talks to reestablish direct mail service.

We remain focused on the need for improved human rights conditions and respect for fundamental freedoms in Cuba, and we would need to see improvements in those areas before we could normalize relations with Havana.

QUESTION: But, I mean, you have no opinion on the fact that the rest of the world thinks that this is a bad way to go?

MR. KELLY: Well --

QUESTION: That the whole world – I mean, Palau notwithstanding – excuse me.

MR. KELLY: This – it seems to me to be an annual exercise that --

QUESTION: It’s an annual exercise to tell you that the rest of the world thinks --

MR. KELLY: -- seems to be – kind of has inertia from the Cold War. The suggestion that we’re not assisting Cuba is just false. I mean, we are one of the major providers of humanitarian assistance to Cuba. But we don’t believe that we should – while there are repressive measures in place in Cuba, that we should reward the Government of Cuba by lifting the economic sanctions that could assist the Government of Cuba in its repression of its own citizens.

QUESTION: Well, it seems that the rest of the world thinks that, in fact, if you were to lift the embargo, that could help the repression – lift it.

MR. KELLY: Well, we don’t think it’s time to lift that embargo. The – we will consider that when the Government of Cuba starts to make some positive steps towards loosening up its repression of its own people.

QUESTION: Ian, without getting into a philosophical and – especially a lengthy or philosophical debate about this, you said that this, as an annual exercise, is a Cold War remnant.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, there a lot of people who would argue that the embargo is a Cold War remnant. I mean, this is the first year that this vote has happened, where you’ve been in this tiny minority that you are – that the U.S. is the only country in this hemisphere not to have diplomatic relations with Cuba.

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, we – our policy in Cuba is designed to try and move Cuba to doing the right thing towards its own people. And they have not taken the kind of steps to show us that they’re willing to open up their society and open up their economy. And until they do these things, we’re not willing to change our policy. Having said that, we also want to have --

QUESTION: Having said that --

MR. KELLY: -- a productive dialogue.

QUESTION: -- how long has the embargo been in place now?

MR. KELLY: I think it’s been in place almost 50 years.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.

MR. KELLY: Well, that’s a long time to have a repressive system.

QUESTION: Well, it’s also a long time to have a policy that has produced absolutely no results.

MR. KELLY: Well, we’re – we are looking to try and put our relationship – with Cuba on a more productive path.

Menendez Bringing Cuban American Money to DSCC

2009-10-29T10:13:00.000-07:00

Shifting tides around Cuba

By Al Kamen
Washington Post
Monday, October 26, 2009

President Obama heads off to Florida on Monday to meet service members at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville and then proceeds to a heavy-duty fundraiser for House and Senate candidates at the Fontainebleau, a historic hotel in Miami Beach. Those who have given or raised a combined $100,000 will be able to have a few drinks, a picture taken with the POTUS and a table at the VIP dinner. Or it's $30,400 for a couple for everything, and just $500 a person for cocktails only.

There may be some interesting first-time contributions from the largely Republican-leaning Cuban American community. Public Campaign, a nonpartisan campaign finance and watchdog group, says in an upcoming report that a Cuban American financial network, which takes a hard line against any weakening of current trade and travel restrictions on Cuba, has been rapidly increasing its contributions to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The DSCC raised $26,250 from the pro-embargo network in the 2006 election cycle and $88,800 in the 2008 election cycle, Public Campaign is expected to report. But in the first eight months of 2009, the DSCC raised $145,700 from that network, and the fundraiser in Miami could well raise more. (This surge comes while the DSCC's general fundraising is way down from 2007.)

It could be that there was no great reason for these folks to contribute to the Democrats before, but there's growing concern that Obama and his party might be able to put some serious cracks in the long-standing wall around Cuba. So maybe it's time to shore up pro-embargo Democrats? Some pro-embargo folks are on the host committee, including Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a hard-liner on Cuba who chairs the DSCC, and two Floridians, Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Another Florida Democrat among the hosts, Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, who's running for the Senate, favors keeping the embargo intact but also supported easing travel for Cuban Americans to the island.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502536.html

Amb. Rice speech at UN on embargo

2009-10-29T08:24:00.000-07:00

Here we go again. I suppose old habits die hard.

The hostile language we have just heard from the Foreign Minister of Cuba seems straight out of the Cold War era and is not conducive to constructive progress. We will not respond in kind to painfully familiar rhetoric that we have heard in years past – rather, I am prepared to acknowledge that there is a new chapter to this old story.

In recent months, since the start of the Obama Administration, the United States has undertaken several steps to reach out to the Cuban people in support of their desire to freely determine their country's future. We have promoted family visits and the free flow of information to and from the Cuban people. The United States lifted restrictions on family visits and remittances and expanded the amounts of humanitarian items that the American people can donate to individuals in Cuba. The United States has enhanced the ability of U.S. telecommunications companies to pursue agreements to provide service to Cuba and has made it easier for U.S. agricultural producers to pursue contracts with Cuban buyers. These are important steps and we hope they can be the starting point for further changes in the relationship.

Mr. President, it is equally important to note that the United States has demonstrated that we are prepared to engage the Government of Cuba on issues that affect the security and well-being of both our peoples. Specifically, we have resumed bilateral discussions on migration, we have initiated talks to re-establish direct mail service between the United States and Cuba, and we stand by to provide assistance should Cuba be ravaged again by hurricanes as it was in 2008. We believe that any resolution commenting on the relationship between Cuba and the United States of American should reflect these constructive developments. Sadly, the resolution under discussion fails in that regard and regrettably, the Government of Cuba has not yet reciprocated these important steps taken by my government.

Mr. President, at the same time, we must point out that the United States of America, like all Member States, has the sovereign right to conduct its economic relationship with another country as it sees fit. The U.S. economic relationship with Cuba is a bilateral issue and part of a broader set of relations. The steps the United States has taken to improve communications and exchanges with the Cuban people are undertaken with a continuing firm commitment to encouraging the Cuban government to respect basic norms embodied in the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As we discuss our differences on this subject, we must remember one important commonality - the United States, like most Member States, is firmly committed to supporting the desire of the Cuban people to determine freely their country's future.

Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are part of this organization's core values. We should not lose sight of that in a stale debate bogged down in the rhetorical arguments of the past. That kind of debate does nothing to help the Cuban people.

Mr. President, I must address two significant distortions in the Cuban position. First, my delegation regrets that the delegation from Cuba continues to label inappropriately and incorrectly U.S. trade restrictions on Cuba as an act of genocide. Such an egregious misuse of the term diminishes the real suffering of victims of genocide elsewhere in the world. Second, it is erroneous to charge that U.S. sanctions are the cause of deprivation among the Cuban people. The U.S. maintains no restriction on humanitarian aid to Cuba. In fact, the U.S. is a major source of humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people and the largest provider of food to Cuba.

In 2008, the United States exported agricultural products, medical devices, medicine, wood, and humanitarian items to Cuba. In agricultural products alone, the United States sold $700.1 million of goods to Cuba. Once again, in 2008, the United States was Cuba's fifth largest trading partner.

As we have sought to reach out to the Cuban people, we have called upon the Cuban government to take steps to respond to the desire of its citizens to enjoy political, social, and economic freedoms. There are many things the Government of Cuba could do to signal its willingness to engage constructively with its own people and with the United States. Positive measures could include liberating the hundreds of prisoners of conscience in Cuban jails, ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reducing the excessive charges on remittances flowing into the country, demonstrating greater respect for freedom of speech, ending the practice of arresting political opponents on vague and arbitrary charges such as "social dangerousness," and permitting the visit of UN rapporteurs on human rights and torture.

As other delegations consider this resolution, we do hope that they will not lose sight of the undeniable fact that the Cuban government's airtight restrictions on internationally-recognized social, political, and economic freedoms are the main source of deprivation and the primary obstacle to development in Cuba.

Mr. President, because it does not reflect current realities, my delegation will vote against this resolution. At the same time, the United States will continue to work to expand opportunities for the people of Cuba to empower themselves through access to information and resources. We will continue to engage the Government of Cuba on issues of mutual concern and national security. We await a constructive Cuban response to our initiatives. In the meantime, it is high time for this body to move beyond the rhetorical posturing of the past, to recognize the situation in Cuba for what it is today, and to encourage progress towards genuine change.

Thank you Mr. President.

Cuba's response here

Obama Administration Applies Bush Policy to NY Philharmonic

2009-10-15T21:01:00.001-07:00

New York Philharmonic Won't Go to Cuba Without Patrons

By DANIEL J. WAKIN, New York Times October 2, 2009

Violinists, bassoonists and timpanists in Cuba? Fine. A bevy of rich Americans? Sorry.

The New York Philharmonic scratched its trip to Cuba at the end of October because the United States government was barring a group of patrons from going along, the orchestra said on Thursday. Without them and their donations, the Philharmonic said, it could not afford the tour.

About 150 board members and other donors had promised to pay $10,000 each to spend Oct. 30 to Nov. 2 in Havana, where the orchestra was to play two concerts, said Zarin Mehta, its president. The money was to have covered the cost of the proposed trip, which came at the invitation of the Cuban government.

Supporters, both individuals and executives of donor companies, usually tag along with major orchestras when they travel around the world. For some, the travel amounts to high-class tourism, along with a chance to make business connections in foreign capitals. In effect, orchestras would not be able to raise tour money without giving the donors a chance to accompany them.

“The patrons were excited about giving us the money with the opportunity of going to see Havana and be a witness and support their orchestra,” Mr. Mehta said. “This is what’s important to them.” Mr. Mehta said he would not consider taking the patrons’ money while leaving them behind.

“I wouldn’t want to insult them,” he said. “I think it’s most likely they would say, ‘Go another time.’ ” That’s what the orchestra will try to do, he said.

Mr. Mehta said he had hoped that pressure applied by New York elected officials — including Senator Charles E. Schumer and Representatives Steve Israel and Charles B. Rangel, who have supported the trip — would help to have the decision overturned. “They haven’t been successful,” he said. “They’re befuddled.”

The spokesman for the State Department, which guides the Treasury Department in deciding which Americans can go to Cuba, said the reason was simple.

The sanctions on Cuba permit performing artists to enter, said the spokesman, P. J. Crowley, but “there’s no permitted category of travel that would include the Philharmonic patrons. Basically they’re tourists, and we don’t license tourist travel to Cuba under the present circumstances.”

He said there was also an economic component to the decision: the wealthy patrons could spend large amounts of money in Cuba, which would effectively violate economic sanctions.

In response to the Philharmonic’s position that it could not go without the financial supporters, he said, “Perhaps the New York Philharmonic should have checked with the government before announcing the trip.”

The cancellation was an embarrassment and something of a setback in the New York Philharmonic’s effort to cast itself as the nation’s flagship traveling orchestra. It made headlines with a trip to Pyongyang, North Korea, nearly two years ago (no United States government permission for patrons was required) and leaves on Sunday for an Asian tour that will take in another Communist nation, Vietnam.

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control issues licenses to visit Cuba because of the longstanding economic sanctions aimed at the island’s Communist government.

According to the orchestra, the office said informally that the players and staff members would be allowed to go, but not the patrons.

A lawyer for the orchestra has delivered a brief to the licensing office, making its case that the categories are elastic and an exception should be made for the donors. Several board members were allowed to accompany the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra when it visited Havana in 1999.

The trip plans came about amid a warming of relations between Cuba and the United States. The Obama administration has restarted talks about migration and eased limits on remittances and travel by Cuban-Americans to the island to visit relatives. But as a sign of the political thorniness involved in closer ties, the administration extended for a year the law used to impose the trade embargo on Cuba.

Bills pending in both houses of Congress would lift travel restrictions on all Americans to Cuba. The bills have a surprising level of bipartisan support, helped by lobbying by agricultural and business groups eager to expand commercial ties.

“This exposes how arbitrary the rules are governing American citizens’ rights to travel to Cuba,” Julia E. Sweig, an expert on Cuba at the Council on Foreign Relations, said of the Treasury Department’s position. “If you have a family member there, you can go. If you play an instrument or sport, you can go. But if you’re a philanthropist who wants to support arts in Cuba, you can’t?”

J. Christopher Flowers, a Philharmonic trustee, said he was still hoping to go to Cuba with the orchestra someday. “It sounds absolutely fascinating,” he said, but he declined to offer an opinion on the decision. “It’s up to the government to make the rules and for us to follow them,” he added. “It’s not for me to try to figure out our policy with respect to Cuba.”

Mr. Flowers said he did not know whether he would have spent much money in Cuba. “I’ve never been there,” he said.

Mr. Mehta said the next opening for a Cuba trip would probably come in June or July. The orchestra will try to come up with concerts quickly to play at its Avery Fisher home for the time it would have been in Havana.

As for programming on those dates, Mr. Mehta said, Latin American music is a distinct possibility. “The thought has crossed our minds.”

Ginger Thompson and Mark Landler contributed reporting from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/arts/music/02orchestra.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Cuba%20NY%20Philharmonic&st=cse

NY Philharmonic cancels trip to Cuba this month
Thu Oct 1, 2009 6:02pm EDT

By Jeff Franks and Michelle Nichols

HAVANA/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Philharmonic has put off plans to perform in Cuba for the first time this month because the U.S. government has not allowed its sponsors to travel to the communist-led island.

"The postponement is due to existing U.S. Government restrictions on travel to Cuba which would affect project funders and supporters, without whose financial support the trip is not possible," it said in a statement on Thursday.

Known for groundbreaking musical diplomacy with visits to countries such as reclusive communist North Korea last year, the orchestra had planned to travel to Havana from October 30 to Nov 2 to perform two concerts.

But while the United States appears to be easing its long isolation of Cuba and the orchestra said its trip had the support of U.S. President Barack Obama's administration, the State Department and the Treasury Department, there were problems associated with long-imposed travel restrictions.

About 150 patrons and supporters had pledged to pay about $10,000 each to accompany the orchestra on the trip to Cuba.

The orchestra had applied for a license for the group to accompany it and, while they had not officially been denied, U.S. officials said there was no category that would allow them to go to Cuba under the current travel regulations, New York Philharmonic spokesman Eric Latzky said.

The orchestra will try to travel to Cuba at a later date.

"The New York Philharmonic intends to reschedule these concerts when travel restrictions for project funders are resolved," it said without naming the funders and supporters who would be affected by the restrictions.

Washington and Havana have been at odds since Fidel Castro took control of Cuba 50 years ago in a revolution against a U.S.-backed dictator and steered the island toward communism.

Under a trade embargo enforced against Castro's government since 1962, Americans cannot spend dollars in Cuba without permission from the U.S. Treasury.

Obama eased sanctions this year by lifting restrictions on travel and cash remittances by Cuban Americans in a move to improve ties with Havana, though he has said the trade embargo will stay in place until Cuba undertakes democratic reforms.

When orchestra president Zarin Mehta met with Cuban officials and toured facilities in Havana in July, he said he expected the orchestra to be criticized if went ahead with a visit to the island 90 miles south of Florida.

When the orchestra performed in Pyongyang in February 2008, critics questioned the appropriateness of the visit to North Korea, whose government Washington considers one of the world's most repressive.

The orchestra opened its 2009/10 season in New York City on September 16 and its program includes tours of Asia and Europe with debut performances in Hanoi and Abu Dhabi. The orchestra has performed in at least 418 cities worldwide since 1930.

The New York Philharmonic was founded in 1842 by a group of local musicians and plays about 180 concerts a year. In late 2004, the philharmonic gave its concert number 14,000 -- a milestone unmatched by any other orchestra in the world.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols, editing by Anthony Boadle)

http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSTRE59073820091001

Menendez Role in Removing Non-tourist Travel

2009-10-06T06:42:00.000-07:00

Baucus bill portends Dem fight over Cuba
By Alexander Bolton - 05/03/09 08:01 PM ET
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is set to introduce legislation that would open the door to more agricultural exports to Cuba, taking advantage of President Obama’s pledge to “seek a new beginning” with the island nation.

The bill will likely trigger a fight with Democratic proponents of the Cuba embargo policy, Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Florida Sen. Bill Nelson.

But Democrats from agricultural states, such as North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, will side with Baucus. American farmers view Cuba as a lucrative, largely untapped market.

A Senate official working on Cuba policy closely informed The Hill that Baucus is expected to drop his bill this week.

Baucus said in an interview that he thought he would do so, but said he was not 100 percent certain.

The Finance panel chairman has introduced legislation aimed at increasing agricultural exports to Cuba in previous years.

In 2007, Baucus pushed the Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act. The Finance Committee held hearings on the bill but it did not receive a vote on the Senate floor.

Dorgan and Democratic Sens. Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) signed on as co-sponsors.

The bill would have prohibited the president from restricting payments from Cuban financial institutions and directed the secretary of Agriculture to promote exports to Cuba.

“We expect to introduce something soon,” said Dan Virkstis, a spokesman for Baucus and the Finance Committee. “It will be similar to the chairman's bill last Congress — focused on opening trade and travel markets for U.S. farmers, ranchers and families.”

Congress passed legislation in 2000 allowing Cuba to buy agricultural commodities from the U.S., but farm lobbyists say the Treasury Department curbed exports by interpreting the law to require payment before goods are shipped.

Farm lobbyists see a golden opportunity to change that in the wake of Obama’s directive making it easier for Cuban Americans to travel and send money to Cuba.

Cuba policy has already flared as a controversial subject within the Democratic caucus this year. Menendez and Nelson threatened to vote against a $410 billion omnibus spending bill in March because it contained language they feared would weaken the embargo.

Menendez withdrew his objection after receiving assurances from the Treasury Department that the provision would not impact Cuba policy significantly.

Some Cuba policy watchers suspected that Menendez may have had a behind-the-scenes impact on Obama’s decision not to also allow U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba for cultural, academic and humanitarian purposes. This would have marked a return to the policies in effect at the end of the Clinton administration.

Menendez spoke to Denis McDonough, director of strategic communications at the National Security Council, shortly before Obama announced his Cuba order. McDonough advises the president on Cuba policy.

But one Senate Cuba expert noted that Obama’s directive fulfilled promises he made on the campaign trail and that Obama had not pledged to return entirely to Clinton-era Cuba policies.

Given the likely opposition from Menendez, Nelson and Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martinez, it may take some time before Baucus can move his bill to the floor.

This week, the Senate resumes consideration of housing legislation, a measure that has become less controversial since the Senate voted against an amendment known as cramdown. The proposal, pushed by Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), would have given bankruptcy judges power to write down mortgages for homeowners in default.

Also this week, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee will continue work on a supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Democratic leadership aide said that bill could reach the floor before the Memorial Day recess or in early June.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he also wants to take up a railroad antitrust bill and legislation addressing executive compensation.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/19479-baucus-bill-portends-dem-fight-over-cuba

Summary of legal changes by OFAC and BIS

2009-09-30T09:54:00.000-07:00

OFAC and BIS Ease Certain Travel and Trade Restrictions Concerning Cuba

Summary from the law firm of Kelley Drye

09/09/09

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) made regulatory amendments that relax the trade and travel restrictions involving Cuba. To comply with President Obama’s April 13, 2009 directive, the agencies have eased restrictions regarding family travel and remittances, the sending of gifts, the donation of consumer communications devices, as well as restrictions related to the telecommunications industry.

Some of the major provisions include the following:

Travel and Remittances

OFAC has eased restrictions for U.S. citizens who are either traveling to visit Cuba, or sending remittances to “close relatives” who are nationals of Cuba. A “close relative” includes immediate family members, cousins, and second cousins. Anyone who shares a common dwelling with the U.S. traveler may accompany him/her. There are no limits on the duration or frequency of these visits.

BIS has lifted the 44-pound limit on personal baggage previously in place for travelers to Cuba. OFAC has increased the amount that travelers currently can spend in Cuba to $179 per day.

Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction may now send remittances (including from inherited blocked accounts) to any close relative who is not a “prohibited official of the Government of Cuba” or a “prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party.” There are no limits on the amounts of remittances or frequency with which they may be sent. Additionally, authorized travelers may carry up to $3,000 worth of such remittances with them when traveling to Cuba. Restrictions for remittances for emigration purposes still apply. Remittances may be made from depository institutions, and OFAC will now allow such institutions to set up testing arrangements and exchange authenticator keys with Cuban financial officials.

Gifts

BIS has eased restrictions on gifts sent to Cuba. Generally, donors may send one gift parcel valued at less than $800 to any eligible donee each month. The types of eligible items that can be included in such parcels have also been expanded. Gifts may be sent to individuals, other than certain Cuban Government and Cuban Communist Party officials. They may also be sent to any charitable, educational, or religious organization that is not controlled by or administered by the Cuban Government or Cuban Communist Party.

Consumer Communication Devices

BIS has also created a license exception that authorizes, under certain circumstances, the export or reexport of commodities and software, excluding encryption source code. Such commodities and software must be used to exchange information and facilitate interpersonal communications, must be donated, and must be widely available for retail purchase in the United States. Specifically, the items include mobile phones, SIM cards, personal digital assistants, laptop and desktop computers and peripherals (monitors, keyboards, mice, etc.), internet connectivity devices, satellite-based television and radio receivers, digital music and video players and recorders, personal two-way radios and digital cameras. The exports or reexports may be to anyone except certain Cuban Government or Communist Party officials, or organizations administered by them. The exception imposes no limits upon the frequency or value of these shipments.

Telecommunications

OFAC and BIS have eased in several ways the regulations concerning telecommunications transactions and the travel related to those transactions.

First, persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction may now contract with and pay non-Cuban telecommunications services providers to provide services to any Cuban individuals other than certain Cuban Government or Communist Party officials.

Second, telecommunications service providers may now (a) make payments incident to the provision of telecommunications services between the U.S. and Cuba and the provision of satellite radio or satellite television services to Cuba; and (b) enter into and perform under roaming services agreements with telecommunications service providers in Cuba.

Third, transactions incident to establishing facilities to provide telecommunications services linking the U.S. and Cuba are now authorized by license.

In addition to these three changes, travel-related transactions incident to the commercial export of telecommunications-related items and participating in telecommunications-related professional meetings are now permitted, with some restrictions.

Agricultural and Medical Sales

Finally, OFAC created a new general license that authorizes, with some conditions, travel-related transactions that are directly incident to the commercial marketing, sales, negotiation, accompanied delivery, or servicing in Cuba of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices that appear to be consistent with BIS’s export or reexport licensing policy. Certain employees may rely upon this general license, which also requires that travelers submit a report regarding those transactions to OFAC at least 14 days before departure for Cuba and within 14 days of return.

For help with applying for any of these new licenses or with questions regarding any of the new regulations, please contact:

Darryl W. Jackson
(202) 342-8478
djackson@kelleydrye.com

David H. Laufman
(202) 342-8803
dlaufman@kelleydrye.com

Brian Churney
(202) 342-8434
bchurney@kelleydrye.com

AP and NY Times on extended visit of US official to Cuba

2009-09-30T08:12:00.000-07:00

US, Cuba held unannounced talks

By MATTHEW LEE and PAUL HAVEN (AP)

NEW YORK — A senior American diplomat has held unannounced, high-level talks in Havana with the Cuban government, three State Department officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday, raising hopes for a thaw in long-icy relations.

The talks were the first of their kind in years between representatives of the U.S. and Cuban governments, the bitter Cold War rivals among whom trust appears to be gradually building.

Bisa Williams, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, met with Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Dagoberto Rodriguez, visited an area affected by hurricanes in the Western province of Pinar del Rio and toured a government agricultural facility during a six-day trip to Cuba this month, the officials told AP.

The meetings came on the heels of Sept. 17 talks on the possibility of restarting direct mail service between the countries, suspended since 1963. Those discussions had been public, but neither country had previously revealed that Williams remained in Havana for five extra days.

One U.S. official described the talks as "respectful" and said they were more significant for having taken place, than for any substantive breakthroughs between the two sides, which have been at odds since shortly after former Cuban leader Fidel Castro marched into Havana on New Year's Day 1959.

"We were going over ground we haven't gone over for a long time," said the official. "Each side was taking advantage of the opportunity to size each other up."

The official was not authorized to publicly discuss details of Williams' visit and spoke on condition of anonymity. The Cuban government did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly confirmed Williams remained in Cuba and met with officials after the postal talks, but offered few details.

"Williams met with host government officials and a wide range of representatives from civil society to gain a full appreciation of the political and economic situation on the ground," he told AP.

Kelly said Williams followed up on ongoing U.S.-Cuba migration talks, the next round of which he said are tentatively scheduled to take place in December. One of the officials said those talks were likely to be held in Havana.

The last time a senior U.S. official traveled to Cuba for talks of any kind was in 2002, but Williams' extended, wide-ranging and unpublicized trip here this month was different.

U.S.-Cuban relations have improved considerably since President Barack Obama took office in January, saying he was ready to extend a hand of friendship to America's traditional foes. In addition to the mail talks, Obama has loosened financial and travel restrictions on Americans with relatives on the island.

The Americans have also made other small but significant gestures — like turning off an electronic sign that had streamed anti-Castro messages from the windows of the U.S. Interests Section, which Washington maintains in Cuba instead of an embassy. The Cubans then took down dozens of large black flags they had set up nearby to block the view.

Cuban President Raul Castro and his brother, Fidel, have both had warm words for the American leader, with Fidel Castro last week praising Obama as courageous for taking on climate change.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said Monday in a speech at the United Nations that the communist government is ready to normalize relations with its larger neighbor and will work with Washington in the meantime on other issues such as fighting drug smuggling.

He said Cuba has sought full diplomatic relations with the U.S. for decades and repeated Raul Castro's offer to sit down with Obama for a "respectful, arm's length dialogue with the United States, without overshadowing our independence, sovereignty and self-determination."

Cuba experts say it remains to be seen whether the diplomacy of small measures is a path to ultimately reaching agreement on core issues, though diplomats on both sides have privately voiced optimism.

Obama has left intact the 47-year trade embargo on the island, and U.S. officials have said for months that they would like to see the single-party state accept some political, economic and social changes.

Associated Press writer Paul Haven reported from Havana, Cuba.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isn-A6X47PLC4dRexapk4yFMmbyQD9B17BEO0

***************************

September 30, 2009

U.S. Official Meets With Cuban Authorities

By GINGER THOMPSON, New York Times

WASHINGTON — In another sign of improving relations between Cuba and the United States, a senior State Department official has talked with high-level Cuban officials in Havana about a variety of issues, including ways to improve cooperation on migration and the fight against drug trafficking.

State Department officials said the main purpose of a trip two weeks ago by the official, Bisa Williams, was to discuss restarting mail service between the United States and the Communist-ruled country.

But a State Department spokesman, Charles Luoma-Overstreet, said Tuesday that Ms. Williams was also able to meet with a senior member of Cuba’s Foreign Ministry for broader talks and was given the opportunity to tour a Cuban agricultural facility and areas affected by hurricanes in the Western province of Pinar del Río.

The talks were first reported by The Associated Press.

Mr. Luoma-Overstreet said Ms. Williams, an acting deputy assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, was the highest-ranking State Department official to visit Cuba since 2002; in 2004, the Bush administration ended twice-a-year migration talks with Havana.

The Obama administration restarted those talks this year, hosting a Cuban delegation in New York. President Obama has also lifted Bush administration limits on remittances and travel for Cuban-Americans with relatives on the island.

Among other small but significant gestures, United States officials turned off an electronic sign that streamed anti-Castro messages on the windows of the United States Interests Section, the diplomatic complex Washington maintains in Havana. In return, Cuban officials lowered dozens of large black flags they had raised to block the view of the sign.

“Look at the momentum; look at the pace of these steps,” said Julia E. Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. “It’s a departure from many, many years of practice.”

State Department officials offered few details of Ms. Williams’s talks with Cuban authorities. And some played down the significance of the talks, in a nod to the political problems that changes in Cuban relations can create both here and in Havana.

Just before Ms. Williams traveled to Cuba, President Obama signed a one-year extension of the Trading With the Enemy Act, which is the law used to impose a trade embargo against Cuba.

And administration officials have repeatedly said they would not make any moves to ease the embargo until the Cuban government adopted democratic reforms.

“While neither side is saying what was discussed,” said Sarah Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, “I believe that the president has authorized these talks because he has a plan for bridging the chasm between Cuba and the United States that has existed for 50 years.

“This did not have to happen,” she added. “These talks are taking place because the president decided it’s the right thing to do.”

Punishment of Colorado Company for Embargo Violation

2009-09-19T08:22:00.001-07:00

Department of Justice Press Release

For Immediate Release
September 17, 2009 United States Attorney's Office
District of Colorado
Contact: (303) 454-0100

Boulder Company Sentenced for "Trading with the Enemy"

DENVER—Platte River Associates, a Boulder company, was sentenced last week by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel to a fine of $14,500, for trading with the enemy, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the FBI announced. Platte River Associates was also ordered to pay a $400 special assessment to a victims of crime fund. The company had pled guilty through its corporate counsel to the trading with the enemy charge on October 3, 2008. They were originally charged by Information on July 15, 2008. They were sentenced on September 9, 2009.

In an unrelated case, the President of Platte River Associates, Jay E. Leonard, was sentenced to serve 12 months of supervised probation for unauthorized access of a protected computer. Leonard pled guilty on October 2, 2008, and was sentenced on December 16, 2008. He was originally charged with a misdemeanor in a separate Information on July 15, 2008.

According to the Information, as well as the stipulated facts contained in the plea agreements, Platte River Associates (PRA) sells software that aides in oil and gas exploration. On October 13, 1998, federal agents visited the Boulder office of PRA, putting them on notice that dealing either directly or indirectly with embargoed countries, including Cuba, is prohibited.

On August 1, 2000, a Spanish oil company called Repsol purchased PRA software. In October of 2000, a Repsol employee traveled to PRA’s Boulder office for software training. The Repsol representative brought with him data to be used in creating a model for oil and gas exploration on a laptop computer. PRA assigned a geologist to work with the Repsol employee. The Repsol employee told the geologist that the data being used for training was for a Cuban project. During the course of the training the president of PRA, Jay Leonard, learned that the data being used involved Cuban waters. There was no attempt on the part of PRA to stop providing the training. As the Repsol employee was leaving the United States, Customs seized his laptop computer. An analysis of the laptop revealed materials related to a potential Cuban project.

The Information charged the defendant corporation with providing specialized technical computer software and computer training, which was then used to create a model for the potential exploration and development of oil and gas within the territorial waters of Cuba, without first having obtained a license from the Secretary of the Treasury.

According to the Information charging Platte River Associates’ President Jay E. Leonard, as well as the stipulated facts in that plea agreement, on October 30, 2005, Leonard illegally accessed the website of Zetaware, an oil and gas exploration software company that is a direct competitor of Platte River Associates. During the intrusion, Zetaware’s password protected files were downloaded via a wireless computer network in the Houston, Texas International Airport. Subsequent analysis by the FBI confirmed that Leonard used PRA assets and resources to intentionally access Zetaware’s password-protected website without authorization, in an attempt to obtain confidential information.

On November 7, 2008, Leonard chaired a PRA staff meeting where he led a discussion about a tentative plan to exploit and unlawfully utilize the downloaded Zetaware files for economic gain.

The Information charged the defendant with using a wireless network connection to access a password protected computer website.

The Platte River Associates case was investigated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Jay Leonard case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

“Trading with the enemy is a serious crime, and in this case, a Colorado company has been rightfully held accountable for committing that crime,” said United States Attorney David Gaouette.

“Preventing sensitive technologies and information from being exported to prohibited countries is a primary mission area for ICE,” said Jeffrey Copp, special agent in charge of the ICE Office of Investigations in Denver. “ICE uses its unique customs law enforcement authorities and investigation skills to ensure that these sensitive technologies don’t fall into the wrong hands.” Copp oversees a four-state area, which includes Colorado.

Both cases were prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Mydans.

New Mexico governor makes "intriguing" Cuba visit

2009-08-25T08:41:00.000-07:00

Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:11pm EDT

By Esteban Israel

HAVANA (Reuters) - New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who has a history of diplomatic troubleshooting, may try to push U.S.-Cuba relations forward on what one expert called an "intriguing" visit to Cuba this week.

A spokeswoman in Santa Fe, New Mexico, said Richardson was to arrive in Havana on Monday and return home on Friday on a trip officially billed as a trade mission for New Mexico farm products.

A statement said the governor, who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, would be accompanied by several New Mexican officials whose primary aim is increasing the state's agricultural sales to the communist-led island.

Richardson, who was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and energy secretary under President Bill Clinton, served as a special envoy on diplomatic missions to countries such as North Korea, Myanmar and Cuba.

In 1996, he met with then-Cuban leader Fidel Castro and negotiated the release of three political prisoners.

"His visit is intriguing because he has a record as a diplomatic troubleshooter. He knows Cuba, and he could play the same role for the Obama administration as President Clinton just played in North Korea," said Cuba expert Phil Peters of the Lexington Institute in Washington.

Earlier this month, Clinton went to North Korea on what was called a private humanitarian trip and procured the release of two U.S. journalists jailed on charges they entered the country illegally.

U.S. President Barack Obama has said he wants to "restart" long-hostile U.S.-Cuba relations and has eased the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo against the island.

But he has said further lifting of the embargo will occur only if Cuba makes progress on political prisoners and human rights.

Cuba has said it is willing to discuss everything with the United States, but will make no unilateral concessions.

U.S. farm products are exempt from the embargo, which was imposed in 1962 in an attempt to undermine Castro, who transformed Cuba into a communist state after taking power in a 1959 revolution.

The New Mexico press release did not say with whom the delegation would meet. Richardson, it said, is paying his own expenses during the trip.

(Additional reporting by Jeff Franks; editing by Jeff Franks)

Bureaucractic Changes in Licenses and Visas

2009-08-13T20:48:00.001-07:00

After long ban, some Cubans sample tourism luxury

Fri Aug 14, 2009 By Esteban Israel

VARADERO, Cuba (Reuters) - Floating, cocktail drink in hand, in the pool of a five-star hotel in Cuba, Alexis basks in a holiday experience that for years was out of reach for him in his own homeland.

The pastel-colored hotel buildings, the well-ordered gardens, the turquoise waters and the perpetually smiling waiters -- all just 84 miles east of his home in Havana. So near, and yet for many years, so far away.

Until last year, Cuba's communist government prevented its citizens from entering hotels reserved for hard currency-paying foreign tourists. It argued that tourism was a strategic revenue sector and that widening access would create inequalities in a socialist society, where most earn inconvertible Cuban pesos.

The tourist hotels, whose services, shops and restaurants are a world away from the hardships and shortages experienced by most Cubans, remained largely out of bounds for ordinary citizens. This prohibition angered most Cubans, who considered it made them second-class citizens in their own homeland.

But when President Raul Castro took over from his ailing older brother Fidel Castro last year, one of his first acts was to end the ban and open all facilities to Cubans. The change was widely popular even though most islanders still can not afford to stay at the tourist hotels.

"Let me tell you, this is great," said Alexis, an employee of a state-run Havana hard currency store who declined to give his full name, as his girlfriend returned from the bar with more "mojito" cocktails -- a tropical mix of lime juice, Cuban rum, and mint leaves.

In the years immediately following the 1959 revolution, Cuban workers were allowed into the island's premier resorts, yet the need to earn much-needed hard currency led to the development again of a more exclusive foreign tourism sector, especially over the last 15 years.

But the global financial crisis has taken a big bite out of Cuba's international tourism, so the Cuban travel industry, seeking to boost occupation in half-empty hotels, has begun offering reduced-price package deals to Cubans.

At $70 a night for an all-inclusive hotel in Varadero, Cuba's premier beach resort, prices are well below what foreigners pay, but still out of reach for most Cubans struggling to make ends meet on state salaries that average less than $20 a month.

According to Tourism Minister Manuel Marrero, Cubans have accounted for 10 percent of occupancy at Cuba's high-end hotels this summer.

THE SWEET LIFE

The opening of a domestic market is giving more visibility to an emerging class of wealthier Cubans who have hard currency in their pockets and are eager to sport the colored wristbands of the fancy all-inclusive hotels.

The new Cuban internal tourists are professionals, technicians working for foreign joint ventures and people receiving dollar remittances from relatives living abroad.

"Before a foreigner would ask us about Varadero and we did not know what to say," recalls Roberto Garcia, a 43-year-old engineer who arrived from Havana with his family of six.

"Now, if you have the money, you can do it."

Without precise official figures on revenue from internal Cuban tourism, it is difficult to gauge just how much of a boost this new access is giving to the cash-strapped economy.

But to the extent that Cuban tourist spending increases the flow of dollars to the island -- by, for example, family members in Miami financing a trip to Varadero for their Cuban relatives -- it is helpful, said Cuba expert Paolo Spadoni.

"Financing from abroad might also play quite an important role," said Spadoni, a post-doctoral fellow at Tulane University's Center for Inter-American Policy and Research.

Some Cubans interviewed on a recent trip to Varadero said expenses were paid by relatives visiting from the United States, a flow which is up 20 percent since U.S. President Barack Obama lifted travel restrictions in April on Cuban-Americans visiting the island.

But Obama has made clear he will keep a 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba in place for the moment to press Cuban leaders to improve human rights and political freedoms. Havana, while agreeing to talks on migration and other issues, has said it will not make "concessions" for improved ties.

With the help of foreign investors, Cuba reluctantly developed its tourism industry in the mid-1990s in response to the deep economic crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, its chief benefactor and ally for decades.

"All the money made here is for the people," proclaims a banner at the entrance to Varadero, a 12-mile-long peninsula of white-sand beaches lined with big hotels.

This slogan reflects the long-used government argument that tourism revenues are employed to benefit all of Cuba's people by helping to pay for free health care and education.

Cuba has some 55,000 hotel rooms managed by the state, many in association with foreign hotel heavyweights such as Sol Melia of Spain, the French firm Accor or Jamaica's Sandals Resorts.

Attracted by its beaches and enduring revolutionary mystique, 2.3 million foreign tourists, mostly from U.S. allies Canada and in Europe, visited Cuba last year, which brought the island $2.5 billion in revenues and made tourism one of Cuba's main sources of hard currency.

President Raul Castro said in a speech earlier this month that the number of international tourists is up, but revenues are down compared to last year.

Both numbers are expected to grow if the U.S. Congress approves a proposed bill that would allow all Americans to freely visit Cuba, currently prohibited by the U.S. embargo against the island 90 miles from Key West, Florida.

But for now, Cuba is looking to Cubans to keep its hotels humming, and people like Alexis are happy to help.

"This is just fantasy. Real life starts again on Monday when we get back to Havana," he said between sips of a last "mojito" as the sun set over Varadero.

(Editing by Jeff Franks and Pascal Fletcher)

http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINTRE57C4QY20090813?sp=true

Embargo Still Expanding

2009-08-11T08:39:00.000-07:00

GE Buckles to Helms-Burton

Posted By the editor On August 10, 2009 @ 7:21 pm

Business transactions with Cuba are constantly persecuted by the US government. Photo: Caridad

By Circles Robinson

HAVANA TIMES, August 10 - The huge US conglomerate General Electric (GE) has told its sub-subsidiary Banco de America Central (BAC) that it can no longer carry out transactions with Cuba or Cubans.

Without any public announcement, BAC blocked the use of its credit and debit cards in Cuba as of July 1, 2009. The cards had been used by many families of medical students for sending money, as well as by tourists and people making family visits.

So why has BAC, -headquartered in Central America- changed its policy on transactions involving Cuba?

The bank explains to inquiring customers that since US-based GE Money acquired a majority interest in BAC, it is now subject to the extra-territorial US Helms Burton Act (1996), a pillar of stepped up enforcement of Washington’s nearly half century blockade of Cuba.

The law is geared to punish the Cuban government for having taken an independent course from US corporate interests since 1959. It seeks to block Cuban business transactions not only with US companies but also with those in third countries which have US investment, partial US ownership, or have US components in their products or sell to companies in the US.

Cuba has taken its case against the US economic blockade to the United Nations General Assembly each year since 1992. In 2008, only Israel and Palau joined the US, while 185 countries told Washington that enough’s enough and to end the economic hostility against an under-developed island nation of 11.2 million people.

Article printed from Havana Times.org: http://www.havanatimes.org

URL to article: http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=12555

Valenzuela, Pascual, and Shannon confirmation hearing

2009-07-18T08:53:00.000-07:00

July 8, 2009 Wednesday

HEARING OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: STATE DEPART-MENT AND AMBASSADORIAL NOMINATIONS CHAIRED BY: SENATOR CHRISTOPHER DODD (D-CT) NOMINEES: ARTURO VALENZUELA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS; THOMAS SHANNON, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO BRAZIL; CARLOS PASCUAL, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO MEXICO; KENNETH MERTEN, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO HAITI LOCATION: DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. TIME: 9:05 A.M. EDT DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009

SEN. DODD: The committee will come to order. And let me welcome our nominees this morning, and my congratulations to all of you. At the appropriate time, I'll ask you to introduce your families and others.
We have a good crowd here this morning to welcome our nominees. Let me congratulate all of you, by the way, on your willingness to serve our country. And a number of you have done that for a long time. So you're not strangers to this process at all.
But I want to commend President Obama for making the choices he has. Almost all of these nominees I know personally very, very well and I've worked with over the years, and have a high regard for their abilities and talents and the expertise and knowledge they bring to these positions.
And so we -- at a very -- at an important time -- obviously the president is traveling in Europe and then in Russia ; now in Italy . But the events in our own neighborhood are compelling and requiring of our immediate and consistent attention.
And the nominees that we have before us today come to these nominations tremendously well-prepared for these challenges. And so the country ought to have a heightened sense of optimism that good people are going to be handling these matters for us.
Let me make some opening comments if I can. And then we'll get to our specific nominees. We'll be dealing first of all on panel one with Arturo Valenzuela, to be assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs.
My good friend and colleague from New Jersey , Bob Menendez, is here. When Bob gets here, I'll interrupt and stop my own comments to give Bob a chance to make an introduction. And after some questions for Arturo, we'll move to the second panel. And I'll introduce them at an appropriate time. But let me share some opening comments, if I can, with our nominees this morning.
First of all, I'm delighted to preside over this morning's important hearing, to consider the nominations for the assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and the ambassadors to three key nations in this hemisphere: Mexico , Brazil and Haiti .
I applaud President Obama for assembling such a strong team to articulate our national interest and develop and carry out our policies in this very, very important region.
The Western Hemisphere is not a distant land with distant interests. It's not our backyard, either. But instead it's our neighborhood, and our partnership in it should be as deep as our interdependence and as durable as our shared values. We, Canada and Latin America are bound by history, culture and a rich web of mutual interests more far-ranging than we have anywhere else in the world. Our two-way trade with our neighbors is more than $1.3 trillion a year, accounting for a third of all U.S. exports --$618 billion in goods and services purchased from the United States each year. And though many Americans don't realize it, the Western Hemisphere provides fully half of our imported energy. We also share ecosystems, and we are bound to address the challenges to our environment together.
Our relationship with Canada is solid as a rock, and our shared border, like our border with Mexico, has brought our governments to ever higher levels of cooperation, not just on security, immigration and traditional cross-border issues, but also on economic issues, the environment, and our partnership as NATO allies as far away as Afghanistan.
Our shared interests with Mexico also go far beyond the border. As Secretary Clinton said during her recent visit there, the U.S.- Mexico relationship -- and I quote her -- is "one of the most important relationships between two countries -- any two countries in the world," end of quote.
Just as we admire Mexico 's progress, we also regret its challenges, including the ongoing surge in drug-related violence. And we have a duty to help address the underlying causes, including U.S. consumption of illegal narcotics and the southbound flow of thousands of weapons and crates of bulk cash that fuel the violence affecting -- afflicting Mexico , the Mexico nation.
And when we have disputes on trade issues, we must faithfully use the resolution mechanisms built into NAFTA to resolve them.
I am among the optimists about developments in Latin America over the past 20 years, and its continued progress in the future. Whereas the United States optic in the region in the past was defined by East- West struggles, military dictatorships and the lack of basic human rights, today is the region dominated by the consolidated democracies searching for creative solutions to economic inequality and public security, and willing and ready for partnership among themselves and with us in addressing regional and hemispheric challenges.
The international financial crisis tempers expectations in the short term. Its shock waves throughout the region will surely hamper progress. But the region has already proven that no challenge is insurmountable. Recent developments in Honduras and occasional digressions elsewhere signal that challenges in the internationalization of democracy remain, but the region's unanimous condemnation of the coup, embodied in the OAS resolution passed on July 1, underscores the historic progress the hemisphere has made towards protecting our hemisphere, values of democracy and the rule of law.
In the same vein, a new positive framework for our relations with the region, our neighbors and partners, is emerging. It is a relationship based on consultation, on understanding each other's history and interests and on those shared values. President Obama and Secretary Clinton's direct and effective engagement with the hemisphere's leaders at the Summit of the Americas in April highlighted the administration's commitment, in my view, to this renewed relationship.
Our friends in the region are ready to lead, as well. The consolidated democracies of Mexico , Brazil and Chile , among others, have a profound leadership role to play, developing and expanding models to address economic and energy challenges. And the United States should support them in playing just such a role.
Despite the solid progress, our new assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere and our ambassadors throughout the region face serious challenges. Honduras is but one example of the countries in which autocratic tendencies by government leaders as well as military forces are just beneath the surface. Chronic political tensions in Venezuela and Bolivia serve no useful purpose, squandering democratic energies, in my view. The "false positives" scandal in Colombia , the extrajudicial execution of innocent boys and men, poses the challenges of a democratic nation that has seen tremendous progress but experiences lapses in human rights.
The task of refashioning U.S. policy toward Cuba to effect peaceful democratic change remains important. The potential challenge of helping Haiti overcome its legacy of poverty and weak institutions, however difficult, must be addressed.
In today's testimony, I look forward to hearing Dr. Valenzuela's vision for building on this dynamic evolution as assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Dr. Valenzuela has an extraordinary grasp of the issues at hand and previous policy experience at the State Department and National Security Council, and I warmly applaud this nomination. Not only do I respect his background and his abilities, but he also happens to be a very good friend. And I'm excited for you, Arturo.
I also look forward to the insights of our ambassadorial nominees. In Mexico , Ambassador Pascual will put his broad and deep experience -- expertise, and his experience marshalling U.S. government resources to address challenges, to work. Assistant Secretary Tom Shannon is extraordinarily well prepared to represent our great nation in Brasilia . And Foreign Service Officer Ken Merten, with years of experience working on Haiti , strong Creole language skills, which is going to be tremendously valuable, will bring unique expertise as ambassador in Port-au-Prince . And I again welcome that nomination, as well.
After my distinguished colleague, Chairman Lugar -- if he joins us here, as I hope he does -- offers his remarks, we'll proceed with the two panels.
But first I want to recognize my colleague from New Jersey , who's walked in. And I thank you, Bob, for being here this morning, a member of our panel, to introduce Arturo Valenzuela. So Bob, the floor is yours.
SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-NJ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I enjoyed your exposition of the landscape, so -- which I basically share, of what's happening in the hemisphere.
I'm honored to have the opportunity to introduce Dr. Arturo Valenzuela to the committee today, which I wholeheartedly endorse in terms of his nomination. I have known Dr. Valenzuela for many years, and I'm pleased that he is sitting where he is today.
Dr. Valenzuela grew up in Chile , the son of missionaries. He spent his formative years in the greatest state in the union, the garden state of New Jersey --
SEN. DODD: Ah. (Inaudible.) (Laughs.)
SEN. MENENDEZ: -- where he graduated summa cum -- (laughs) -- where he graduated -- you have to come visit, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. DODD: Yes, I -- (inaudible). (Laughter.) We all drive through frequently, (I can tell you ?). (Laughs/laughter.)
SEN. MENENDEZ: And that is exactly the problem.
SEN. DODD: (Inaudible.)
SEN. MENENDEZ: You have to stop. Beautiful Delaware River , rolling mountains, Battle of Trenton --
SEN. DODD: Arturo -- (inaudible). (Laughter, laughs.)
SEN. MENENDEZ: In that great state, he graduated summa cum laude from Drew University in Madison , New Jersey . During those years, Dr. Valenzuela developed his keen interest in public affairs and became heavily involved in the civil rights movement. He continues to have strong ties to New Jersey and he continues to stay involved with Drew University , where he currently serves on the board of trustees. In fact, Dr. Valenzuela and I have shared the stage at several events, including at Drew University , on more than one occasion, and for me, this particular one is an honor.
Dr. Valenzuela has a resume that couldn't be more right for this job. He earned his masters and Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University . He has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University , the University of Sussex , the University of Florence , the University of Chile and the Catholic University of Chile, and a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
He is fluent in English, French and Spanish. He is a specialist on the origins and consolidation of democracy, electoral systems, civil-military relations, political parties, regime transitions and U.S.-Latin American relations, and the author or co-author of nine books. He serves on the editorial boards of the Foreign Policy Bulletin, the Journal of Democracy, Current History, the Third World Quarterly, and he's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
In government, he has served as deputy assistant secretary of State, as a special assistant to the presi-dent for National Security Affairs and as senior director for Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council. He is currently sharing his knowledge and experience as a professor of government and director of the Center for Latin American Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University .
In addition to his top-notch academic credentials and experience and senior positions in government, Dr. Valenzuela has a personal history and a life rooted in personal experiences that I think that will add dimensions of understanding and nuance to his service as assistant secretary of State.
In addition to his ties with the Western Hemisphere, he has ties with Hispanic communities in the United States . Dr. Valenzuela's a member of the executive committee of the board of directors of the National Council of La Raza, a board member of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and a former board member of the Hispanic Council for International Relations. It's rare that one person can embody such a combination of personal, professional and cultural ties to a region, and the U.S. government is fortunate when it can benefit from this experience to advance U.S. foreign policy.
In addition, it doesn't happen frequently enough that we see nominees come forward we have all the -- who have all the expected professional credentials as well as that represents the diversity of this country. New Jersey is one of the largest and most diverse Hispanic-American populations in the country. We serve on the front lines in defense of the nation. And it also should be true that we can serve on the front lines of the diplomacy of this country.
So let me close, Mr. Chairman, by saying Dr. Valenzuela and I share a unique connection with Latin America , a connection that over 40 million Americans share along with us. We have ties to the region that go beyond an interest in foreign policy, go beyond an interest in regional cooperation, beyond a connection with language and culture. But all of it comes forward in a powerful opportunity to represent the best interests of the United States . And I think you have the best person here to be able to do that for us in this Western Hemisphere .
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. DODD: Well, I thank you very much, Bob. And that's a wonderful introduction. And very grateful, too, for your leadership and participation.
Arturo, welcome to the committee. And let me just say to all of our witnesses, to all of our nominees this morning, your full statements will be included as part of the record. And any supporting documents or other materials you'd like to share with the committee will be included as well. And that will apply to everybody who we have here before us this morning.
But we're prepared to receive your opening statement, Arturo.
MR. VALENZUELA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's an honor and a privilege for me to appear to you today as President Obama's nominee to be the assistant secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere .
I'm deeply grateful for the trust and confidence President Obama and Secretary Clinton have placed in me to serve our country at this critical moment in the relationships between the United States and the countries of the Americas . I'm also very grateful to Senator Menendez, who agreed to introduce me, and for his service to our country and his commitment to the Hispanic community here, and also for all the work that he's done in Latin America , including his initiatives on the social progress fund, investment fund, and other initiatives that he's undertaken at this particular time.
As you noted, I planted my first roots in this country in the great state of New Jersey , where, at the age of 17, I attended Drew University .
I also must say, Mr. Chairman, that those of us who have devoted our lives to improving relations be-tween the United States and the other countries in these Americas owe a great debt of gratitude to your commitment and your leadership to the same cause.
Finally, I want to thank you and the distinguished members of this committee for the vital role it plays in addressing the numerous challenges the United States faces in today's world.
At her confirmation hearing, the secretary said consultation is not a catchword for her but a firm commitment. I want to second that sentiment, and I assure you that if confirmed, I will make it a top priority to maintain open and frequent lines of communication with members of this committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as the many senators and congressmen who have strong interests in the hemisphere.
Before I proceed, I'd like to introduce my wife, Katie Much (ph). My children, Mark and Jenny (sp), were unable to be with me today, but they're rooting from me from afar.
I see this as a very promising moment in the Americas , Mr. Chairman. In that sense, I echo your opening remarks. With challenges, for sure, but also with many opportunities. It's easy to forget that in the recent past, many of the countries of the region were governed by military dictatorships and that Central America was in the throes of open civil conflicts, or that changes of government often came through military coups rather than through the peaceful accession to office by elections.
Indeed, from the 1930s through the 1970s, 38 percent of all transfers of power in Latin America were through unconstitutional means. That pattern was extremely damaging to the prospect for democratic consolidation. Every time the military, always backed by disgruntled civilian sectors, would step in to solve a political crisis or reverse the mandate of the electorate, it undermined the prospect for strengthening the rule of law and the institutions of democratic governance. Resorting to unconstitutional and undemocratic solutions cannot solve the problems of democracy; they must be solved within democracy in accord with constitutional precepts.
The end of the Cold War and the discrediting of military regimes that failed to bring about promised economic and political reforms ushered in an unprecedented era of constitutional governance in America . Never before in history did so many leaders make their way as elected -- you know, through elected succession, in all countries save Cuba . The peaceful and democratic transfer of power on June 1 of this year between parties that fought each other in El Salvador 's civil conflict is particularly noteworthy.
This new pattern would not have been possible without the determined effort of the nations of this hemisphere, acting through the Organization of American states, to make clear that the interruption of democracy would violate the fundamental norms of the Inter-American system.
…<
President Obama has taken some steps, in the direction of reforming U.S.-Cuba policy, mainly regarding travel for Cuban- Americans, remittances and migration. But much more needs to be done.
A broader dialogue with Cuba , in areas ranging from human rights and democracy to energy and com-mercial issues, would benefit the standing of the United States in the region.
Haiti represents another opportunity to foster inter-American cooperation and establish a long-term, multilateral approach to aiding the poorest country in the Americas . I appreciate the deep experience Mr. Merten would bring to the Haiti ambassadorship.
….
MR. VALENZZUELA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. I thought a lot about these problems over the years, and let me suggest sort of five general principles I think are important for us to follow in dealing with the region now.
I think the first would be that we need to avoid a Manichaean view of the world that divides the countries or leaders in good guys and bad guys, but rather understand the complexities and the challenges that stem from the individual histories of individual countries. And I see the individual realities of certain countries as far more different than what many view as similarities. So we need to avoid lumping countries into certain kinds of baskets. Even if maybe they themselves self-define themselves as being lumped in a certain kind of basket, we run the risk of engaging in a serious self- fulfilling prophecy if we do that.
And so I think that there's no question that we -- by understanding clearly the histories of each one of the various countries, we need to engage them on their own merits and on their own grounds. And I'm confident, Mr. Chairman, that despite the difficulties -- and I am perfectly aware of the fact that there is going to be times when the United States is going to disagree with events that are going on in particular countries, and we'll make that very clear, but we need to work with individual countries to see where our common interests are and to encourage the proper direction. That's -- the first point, then, is to avoid a Manichaean view of the world.
The second is to avoid a foreign policy that's simply based on rhetorical blasts when we disapprove of particular developments. It should be a policy of engagement, one that is -- that is not shy in raising differences and concerns in pursuit of our own interests. And I think the president's speech in Cairo , for example, underscores very clearly that our concern for the strengthening of democratic governance and a respect for human rights are core principles that we must adhere to.
But then the third, you know, fits in with the broad approach that I think that we need to strengthen, and that is that we have to strengthen our partnerships to work collectively. This is an extraordinary region of the world. You know, it's one of the few regions in the world where we don't have the threat of irredentist politics; that is, a politics where ethnic, linguistic or religious nationalisms are driving a force towards -- to create a separate nation-state. You know, we don't face those kinds of problems, but we face other kinds of problems. And the best way to address those is through collective work.
And we have to work in supportive initiatives emerging from the hemisphere. We should not worry so much about efforts, for example, within the region to set up sub-regional agreements for cooperation and integration. Rather, we should encourage them. They can also help to mobilize a will to work together to resolve problems.
And then, very brief -- very quickly, I think the fourth is that we need to be cognizant not only of our common challenges and opportunities, but also of the great diversity in the region. You know, we can't make the mistake that cookie-cutter approaches need to apply to this region. There are some countries that are very consolidated democracies. There are some countries that are very successful economically. There are some countries that are at the bottom of the list, really, in terms of these various different sorts of criteria. Brazil and Mexico are among the two largest economies in the world. So we need to be aware of the differentiations in the region.
And then finally, let me say this. I am very encouraged by what's happening -- been happening recently in the strengthening of the inter-American system; beginning in Trinidad and Tobago, where the presidents met and decided that we're going to try to have a different approach to our relationships, then that was followed by the general assembly in Honduras. And in Honduras, the Organization of American States agreed to discontinue the effects of the 1962 resolution excluding Cuba, but at the same time underscored that Cuba would have to request readmission, followed by a process of dialogue that would ensure that Cuba accept core practices and purposes -- above all, the principles of the OAS. And I think that the process now having to do with Honduras is actually, Mr. Chairman, a strengthening of the inter- American system.
So those are the core principles, I think, that we need to follow in working with this hemisphere.
SEN. DODD: Let me -- I appreciate that obviously this is a complicated question. Let me quickly jump to Cuba, because you've just mentioned it in passing and talked about the OAS resolution -- ironically, in Tegucigalpa -- and obviously, the efforts that were made there to try and achieve some results.
I think all of us, I presume, would agree that a peaceful, democratic transition in Cuba is the most desirable result and believe that our approach over the past -- at least I believe that our approach over the past 50 years has been counterproductive. The best evidence I offer is we're still where we were this many years later with the present situation in Cuba . It failed to achieve the objectives of a peaceful, democratic Cuba.
President Obama in April, I think, took a positive step in lifting the limitations on family travel and remittances, limiting it to Cuban-Americans being able to engage. It's short of policies that were earlier articulated in the Clinton administration. It moved more to expand that to a larger population.
Let me just ask you a couple of quick questions. In your consultations in preparation for this hearing and nomination, have you undertaken any commitments regarding your perspective on Cuban policy? I'd like to know that.
And secondly, the State Department has variously informed this committee that it's undertaking a policy review towards Cuba , and then we're sort of led to believe it's not. I'm not clear where we are in this. If we are taking a policy review, I'd like to know that. And if we're not, I'd like to know that, as well. So would you respond, if you could, to those observations and also two questions.
MR. VALENZUELA: Okay. I'll answer your question directly on -- I have certainly made no commitments.
And Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any policy review that's going on. At least I haven't been informed of that. The situation of a nominee is a delicate one because you're not a member of the administration; you're going to, presumably, come into the administration if the Senate confirms the nomination. So I have not, in fact, been privy to discussions along these lines.
I do share, of course, the fact that, you know, our fundamental starting point must be a return of Cuba to the concert of nations as a viable democracy respecting fundamental human rights. And I think that the administration has moved in the right direction by shifting the policies with the two sets of measures that you described.
The president has also made it clear that he does not think that the relationship is going to be -- that's been frozen for 50 years, as you point out, is going to necessarily change overnight, nor does he expect Cuba to send out signs of liberalization quickly. You know, certainly our approach to Cuba policy should be to find ways to encourage how Cuba can become more respectful of the rights of its people -- permit political participation, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to travel, and so on. And it's a policy that is open to engagement, I think, in a way that is not heavy-handed and where there's going to be a discussion of matters that are vital to U.S. interests.
Mr. Chairman, from my own studies, if I might throw this out, of transitions from authoritarianism and totalitarianism in other contexts, it's quite clear to me that change often takes place when there are elements within regimes that begin to liberalize -- sort of the tension between softliners and hardliners. And a smart U.S. policy is one that finds ways to try to encourage that kind of process.
But I -- but as I say, this is a policy that I'm not privy to and that I will be engaging with. And as I've stated before, this is one of those areas where there is disagreement and where I think that we ought to move forward and engage with you and with this committee in a process of consultation with members and staff to see how, indeed, we might be able to move forward in what is one of the greatest challenges, really, for our policy in the years ahead.
SEN. DODD: Well, let me -- just quickly, on this -- I've taken a long time; I apologize. But first of all, I commend the administration in Honduras for the handling of that resolution. I think it was very deft, and I think it was very smart and worked out, I think, in a good way.
And obviously, as you point out, now the -- in a sense, the president's invited Cuba to respond. And they've got to decide whether or not they want to be a part of this organization and meet the criteria of getting in. I thought it was very well handled.
And the only point of difference I'd take, when you talk about a return to democracy in Cuba , I would make a case that there really wasn't much of a democracy in Cuba . I'm not applauding the present situation in the slightest, but to suggest that the predecessor government was a democratic institution would be an exaggeration, to put it mildly. I know you share that view.
MR. VALENZUELA: No, I agree. If Prio Socarras hadn't been overthrown, Mr. Chairman, maybe Cuban history would have been different.
SEN. DODD: Very different, I think as well.
….
SEN. WEBB: p; Very quickly, because my time is limited here, I'd like to also follow on with the question that Chairman Dodd asked about Cuba . I spent a good bit of time working on the situation in Vietnam, when we had sanctions and a -- and, quite frankly, a much more difficult situation for the country, following a war where 58,000 people had been killed, 300,000 had been wounded, and a communist regime had taken over a government that we -- most of us believed in.
But over the process of several years, it became very clear to me that the best way to resolve these sorts of antagonisms in a constructive way is to do something very similar to what you just said, and that is, bring the people from the midlevels of these governments out, let them see the rest of the world, allow people to come in so the average citizen can get a different look at what's going on, and it would seem to me that logic would have some application with respect to Cuba. What would you say about that?
MR. VALENZUELA: I would agree with that, Senator. I think that it's important for us to be clear that we need to pursue our interests. But a the same time, that does not exclude a form of engagement in order to advance those interests. And I think that this is where this whole issue of smart power comes in, Senator, if I might say. We really need to understand the dynamics of change that are taking place in some of these contexts, as well.
One of the things that's important about this time regarding Cuba is that we're facing a significant evolution of the situation internally. We don't quite understand fully, I don't think -- at least I haven't been able to understand fully -- what the ramifications and the implications of that are. But certainly there must be an -- there is an opportunity there. There are too many other examples, as you point out, not only in Vietnam but also the experience that we went through in the transformations in Eastern Europe, that suggest that there are ways of engaging in a smart way in order to be able to bring about fundamental change.
SEN. WEBB: And by the way, just to add another perspective to your comment, when you said that if you have more moderate elements in a regime who would argue for change and create a different dynamic inside a regime -- the other reality is that when you take this excuse away from a regime, the entire regime has to become accountable to its people in a different manner, which is very much, I think, what happened in Vietnam.
My time is up. But thank you.
MR. VALENZUELA: If I might just add, we don't want to -- we want to make sure we don't reify the hardliners in a policy of this kind.
SEN. WEBB: We agree.
---
SEN. MENENDEZ: Yeah. So here's why concern -- why I raised these series of questions. I ob-viously have -- and for the record, since it seems in my absence it was asked whether the previous witness had given me any guarantees of anything as it relates to Cuba policy, I've never asked for -- anyone for guarantees on Cuba policy, and certainly no one at this table has given me any.
But let me now move to -- I have different views than some of my colleagues here. I see in the case of Mexico and Brazil two countries that are vying for their view of leadership in the hemisphere. And in that context, they have a much different role. So they have their own interests. Brazilians have engineering companies that they want to have a lot of infrastructure or offshore drilling. The Mexicans have tourism. The Spaniards have tobacco industry, as well as tourism. So there's a lot of economic interest here.
And despite their statements about they don't like our policy, they do absolutely nothing about promoting human rights and democracy in Cuba . Millions of visitors from Mexico , Canada , Latin America, Europe have produced absolutely nothing except to give the regime large amounts of money. And there are more people in prison, there's less political freedom, and so I marvel at how that is going to suddenly change the process when those millions of visitors from all over the hemisphere and the country have not -- of these other countries have not.
So my question is -- you know, I read Ambassador Pascual, some of the writings that you have had at Brookings. And one of them is where you say we too closely embrace Cuba 's brave dissidents, and in doing so, we have an excuse to denounce their legitimate effort to build a more open society. That's what we did with Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and others. That's what we're doing in some parts of this hemisphere.
How does that reconcile itself? How does it reconcile itself to say that our unilateral actions -- that we should act unilaterally without any expectation of the Cuban regime doing things in reciprocity. And I raise these questions only in these cases because the two countries that you will be representing us in are major players as it relates to the future of possible democracy inside of Cuba, and your interlocutors -- what they hear from you is going to be very important.
And so that is my concern. That is my concern. So I'd like to hear from you on the record some res-ponses to those questions.
MR. PASCUAL: Senator, thank you very much for raising and continuing to draw attention on these issues, particularly related to Cuba .
I would say, first of all, and just underscore, as we had an opportunity to discuss in your office, my primary responsibility would be, if confirmed by the committee, to ambassador to Mexico and to focus on U.S.-Mexico relations. And any issues related to Cuba that I dealt with would be based on the guidance that I received from the department on how to address those questions. And I know you had questions about that, and I think it's important, and I'm very happy to continue the dialogue on these issues.
On the issues of reciprocity, let me just say simply I agree with you on the principle of reciprocity. The question that arises with Cuba is whether it's written down or not. There's an absence of trust in the relationship between the United States and Cuba , and we know, in a sense, that anything that's written down as a condition for Cuban actions, Cuba simply will not take those actions. So in some cases we have to make unilateral judgments about whether or not the reciprocity is in fact actually being pursued, and it was in that spirit that those words were actually written in the report.
On the question of human rights, I agree again with you completely. We should never be apologetic for our defense and support of human rights. The question becomes at some times whether governments might actually use our support and embrace of certain human rights groups and organizations as an excuse to crack down on them. And then the question becomes, are there other mechanisms that can be brought into play to create better -- greater space for those human rights activists to be able to operate in an environment?
So in some cases, it may be a question of tactic, but never a question of principle. I firmly and truly believe that the United States should always be a supporter and an advocate for human rights. And it's something which I am personally very dedicated to.
MR. SHANNON: And sir, in regard to our relationship with Brazil , we do have an active discussion with Brazil on Cuba , and part of that is the issue of human rights. The United States and Brazil understand this from different points of view, but that doesn't limit the way in which we pursue those goals; quite the contrary. We believe, as President Obama has noted, that the liberty and freedom of the Cuban people are the touchstone of our policy in regard to Cuba, and that as we work with countries around the region in fashioning our own Cuba policy but also understanding how they engage that our advocacy for that liberty and freedom and for a peaceful transition to democracy has to be a key component of our engagement and a powerful part of our message.
And in that regard, we all have personal experiences that affect how we understand the problem and how we engage. My own are several. To begin with, throughout the -- my foreign-service career, I have worked in countries that have been in transition -- democratic transition, economic transition. And it has always been my goal to operate in a way in which we can bring the promise of democracy to those countries and to those relationships.
I was the chief U.S. negotiator for the Inter-American Democratic Charter. The line in the first article of that charter which reads that the -- that democracy is a right, that the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it, is my language.
I was the one who put the democracy clause into the Quebec City summit in 2001 that made democracy a key component of our -- of the summit process and a requirement for participation in the summit process.
And previously I served four years in South Africa as a labor attache, in which I worked exclusively in the townships with the variety of groups in the townships, attempting to find a way to address the legacy of apartheid and create a multi-party system based on elections.
I'm proud of that action. These have been fundamental, formative aspects in my career. And I bring them to my work, wherever that is. And it is -- that has certainly been brought to my work in regard to ( Cuba ?).
SEN. MENENDEZ: Well, I appreciate your answer. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions for these nominees, and I'll submit them for the record and look forward to your written answers.

Migration Talks

2009-07-12T06:33:00.000-07:00

Troubled waters
US and Cuba look for a bridge, but there's a lot of water between them.

By Nick Miroff
Published: July 2, 2009 14:38 ET
Updated: July 9, 2009 18:01 ET
HAVANA — In their diplomatic relations, the U.S. and Cuba are like a bitterly divorced couple, whose shared history is so marred by grudges and recriminations it's hard to figure out how to start talking again.
So with the Obama administration offering a fresh start and an open hand, and Cuba welcoming the overtures, the two sides are preparing to meet for talks on a topic of common concern: migration. The discussions are widely viewed as potential building blocks for a broader dialogue between the two countries.
And yet, as icebreakers go, Cuban migration to the U.S. is not exactly the stuff of small talk. In some ways, the issue is at the core of the two nations' 50-year standoff, and several long-held tenets of American policy are likely to come under renewed scrutiny if the Obama administration actually engages with Cuban grievances.
"In the context of economic warfare against the Cuban Revolution," reads a statement from Cuba's Foreign Ministry, "the migratory policy of the United States has constituted one of the most important instruments of American hostility toward the island, designed to destabilize Cuban society, discredit its political system, drain Cuba of human capital and lay the groundwork for counter-revolutionary movements tasked with carrying out terrorist attacks and aggressive acts against the Cuban people as they strive to build a new nation."
In other words, there's some history here.
Central to Havana's ire is the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, the U.S. law allowing most Cuban migrants who reach American soil to become permanent residents and receive government assistance — a privilege, in the words of a recent U.S. congressional report, "that no other group or nationality has." According to the report, some 50,000 Cubans became permanent U.S. residents in the 2008 government fiscal year, making the island the fifth-largest source of legal permanent residents to the U.S., after Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines.
Some Cuban migrants make the 90-mile journey in smugglers' speedboats or homemade rafts. But an increasing number arrive at U.S. entry points via Mexico, with nearly 10,000 Cubans entering through the Laredo border crossing in the 2008 fiscal year. While migrants from other countries try to sneak in, the Cuban Adjustment Act allows Cubans to come into the country right through the front door, regardless of whether or not they have a visa.
That special privilege, according to the Cuban government, has resulted in a powerful and insidious incentive for its citizens to leave the island, often at great personal risk. On the one hand, Havana argues, the U.S. tries to squeeze the island economically with trade sanctions, while on the other, it bestows favored treatment upon Cuban migrants seeking to escape the island's poverty.

Cuba calls the policy "the killer law," blaming it for the deaths of Cuban rafters who disappear in the Florida Straits each year or drown — like the mother of Elian Gonzalez, the boy who returned to the island with his father after a massive custody dispute partly fueled by the peculiarities of U.S.-Cuba migration rules.
U.S. officials maintain that Cuban migrants are refugees from the island's communist system and failed state-run economy, and the differing vision has periodically resulted in crisis. During the Mariel boat lift of 1980, 125,000 Cubans arrived en masse in Florida, and another 40,000 came during the 1994 rafter crisis, an event that shaped key parts of the current migratory agreement between the two countries.
As part of that arrangement, Cubans who are intercepted at sea by U.S. authorities are returned to Cuba, while those who successfully reach U.S. soil are allowed to stay under the terms of the Cuban Adjustment Act. The policy is known as "wet foot/dry foot," and the Cuban government says it increases the riskiness of the crossing, benefiting smugglers, who can charge $10,000 or more for the harrowing midnight speedboat ride to Florida.
Since 1995, the number of Cuban migrants picked up at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard has soared, according to U.S. government data, reaching an all-time high of 2,868 during the 2007 fiscal year.
Both the U.S. and Cuba would rather migrants use a visa program called the Special Cuban Migration Lottery, known on the streets of Havana as "el Bombo," that was also set up following the 1994 rafter crisis.
Visa recipients are said to have "won" the Bombo if chosen, and each year, the U.S. is supposed to grant 20,000 immigration visas through its Havana-based consular offices, though the actual number has routinely fallen short of that (for which each side blames the other). During the last registration period, in 1998, some 541,000 Cubans submitted their names for the lottery system, according to U.S. officials — roughly 5 percent of the the island's entire population of 11 million.
The 1994 agreements also established that the two countries would meet semi-annually in the interest of safe, orderly and legal migration. But in 2004, those meetings were broken off by the Bush administration.
Now those talks are expected to provide the framework for wider engagement. Acting on an Obama campaign pledge to reach out to Cuba, the U.S. administration announced earlier this month that it would resume the migration talks. Cuba has accepted a proposal to discuss the resumption of direct mail service as well, and asked to expand the discussions to include matters of mutual interest like anti-narcotics enforcement, hurricane preparedness, and counter-terrorism efforts.
"President Obama and I are committed to a new approach," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at the time. "We believe we have made more progress in four months than has been made in a number of years."
No date for the meetings has been set, but State Department officials said they are close to finalizing an agreement.

Gen. McCaffrey Calls for New Approach

2009-06-23T20:27:00.000-07:00

A new approach to Cuba
BY BARRY R. MCCAFFREY
www.mccaffreyassociates.com

ARLINGTON, Va. -- The Obama administration has made an excellent first step to eliminate some restrictions on travel to the island, to loosen constraints on remittances and to re-engage in migration talks. Positive, multiple lines of engagement are clearly the way forward. Broader contact and leverage with Cuba through additional commercial and people-to-people contacts will in time help promote a more pluralistic, less impoverished, and more open society.

While President Obama's incremental changes in policy toward Cuba are positive, they are also insufficient. Now is the time for decisive and rational efforts to bring Cuba back into full engagement with the economic and political dynamics of the Americas.

For starters, we're still a lot closer to the status quo than to the decisive break from past policies, which is where we need to be. The status quo is a loser. The long-term U.S. government policy of isolating the Castro regime has failed to bring about either democracy or regime change. Cuba has broken out of the box and created well-established diplomatic and economic relations with a range of international partners -- China, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, and members of the European Union. The Castro regime has successfully survived multiple economic and natural disasters (e.g. ending of Soviet economic support) at significant cost to its people.

Second, there are both economic and security incentives for moving forward. The Cuban state has been unable to meet the economic and democratic aspirations of the Cuban people. Cuba must double their economy within the coming decade. Its ability to do so, always doubtful given the regimented dullness of that Marxist state, is in greater question now, lashed as its economy has been by last year's horrendous storms and the continued battering of the global financial crisis. The hard-liners here who are counseling that we tighten the noose now in hopes that we'll break the regimes back would allow average Cubans to suffer mightily, put our security interests at risk with a massive boatlift, and turn the rest of the region against us for decades. Strangulation is no solution.

Political transitions from authoritarian to democratic regimes have successfully occurred in Latin America and Eastern Europe following decades of dictatorship. The poor Cubans will almost have to start from scratch in building the political institutions that are essential to good governance and participative policy making. Continuation of ineffective and punitive U.S. diplomatic and economic policies will not accelerate political transition on the island. In fact, this failed strategy of political isolation is used by the Castro Regime as a rallying point. The United States has become the raison d'etre of this regime's continued defense of its failed experiment with a directed, authoritarian, socialist state.

It's time for a realistic policy shift on Cuba. In my judgment, Congress and the administration should move to:

• Remove Cuba from the State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The poverty of ideas and resources forced the Cuban government to end its ineffective support of revolutionary movements long ago.

• Repeal enforcement of the ''Helms-Burton'' legislation. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton signed provisions allowing for waivers of the outmoded law's provision.

• End the economic embargo on Cuba. Market forces should determine the level of trade between our nations.

• End U.S. restrictions on travel by American citizens to Cuba. There are no similar restrictions to other non-democratic nations, including North Korea.

• Close the detention facility at Guantanamo and return the base to Cuban sovereignty. The place has become an international embarrassment to us.

• End the ''Wet Foot/Dry Foot immigration policy'' and treat illegal immigrants from Cuba as we do those from Mexico or any other country.

• Formalize coordination on anti-drug trafficking matters with Cuba's law enforcement and security forces.

• Provide significantly increased funds to the U.S. Agency for International Development so that we can support economic development as democratic political transition inevitably occurs in Cuba.

• End U.S. opposition to Cuban participation in the Western Hemisphere multilateral fora (lifting Cuba's suspension from the OAS was a good start) because diplomacy and engagement, not shunning, will open Cuba to liberal political ideals.

We should not doubt that there will be an eventual political transition in Cuba. Change is now inevitable as Castro edges off the stage of history. The critical issue for the United States is whether we are going to be a constructive guiding agent in this process of change.

The United States has enormous power to unilaterally change policy toward Cuba and shape the agenda of change. We do not have to negotiate with the Cuban government to modify the ways we deal with illegal migrants from the island. Modifying punitive economic and travel policies should not be viewed as making concessions to an authoritarian regime. Instead, they should be viewed as a belated recognition that our past policies were ineffective and will not promote democratization in Cuba. Obama is uniquely positioned to take these decisive steps and he should do so.

Barry R. McCaffrey is a retired Army general and an adjunct professor of international affairs at West Point; he served as U.S. drug czar from 1996 to 2001.

©2009 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1109984.html

China Reports Cuba Won at OAS

2009-06-06T10:15:00.000-07:00

Cuba wins OAS diplomatic battle
www.chinaview.cn 2009-06-05 12:47:02

HAVANA, June 4 (Xinhua) -- Cuba has won a major diplomatic battle against the United States at the Organization of American States (OAS), when the organization revoked a resolution issued 47years ago to exclude Cuba, although the island country said it will not return to that mechanism.

The 1962 resolution to exclude Cuba from the OAS was revoked on Wednesday during the 39th OAS General Assembly held in San Pedro Sula, Honduras.

The document revoking the resolution, at the beginning, was agreed by a special group of 10 ministers and then it was presented to the delegates from the 34 member countries by Honduran Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas.

Cuban authorities said on Thursday in a communiqué broadcasted by local TV that the OAS decision was a "historic rectification."

"In a historic day..., the OAS General Assembly derogated without conditions the resolution that excluded Cuba from that organization," the communiqué said.

"Cuba has not requested (rejoining the OAS) and it does not want to return to the OAS... But it recognized the political value, the symbolic significance and the rebellion of this decision boosted by the people's governments of Latin America," the communiqué said.

The official daily "Granma" said on Thursday that "Fidel (Castro) and the Cuban people will be absolvent by history," when mentioning the words of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya at the General Assembly.

The newspaper also carried remarks by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who said the revocation "leaves without effect the expulsion of Cuba, it cleans a spot over the organization."

Cuba was excluded from the OAS in 1962 after most of the member countries, under the pressure from the United States, agreed that Cuba's socialism was incompatible with the principles of the Inter-American system.

At the end of 2008, a number of Latin American leaders, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua's Ortega, Bolivia's president Evo Morales and Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, requested the reentry of Cuba to the continental political dialogue.

The issues was discussed at the 5th Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad and Tobago in April, but due to disagreements between the United States and Latin American countries, participants agreed to bring the issue to the General Assembly in Honduras.

Despite the revocation, some Cuban experts believe the discussion of Cuba at the OAS itself showed there are no common interests in the region and that it is necessary to form a Latin American and Caribbean organization.

But experts agree that it is a recognition of the "dignity and strength" of Cuba for 50 years of the Socialist Revolution.

The main loser of the battle is the United States, which failed to block the process of revocation.

With the door open for Cuba to rejoin the OAS, experts say, the next step is expected to be the lifting of the U.S. embargo against Cuba, which was imposed some 50 years ago.

Panamanian Prediction that Cuba Will Enter OAS

2009-06-06T04:19:00.000-07:00

Cuba to Join OAS After ‘Emotion’ Passes, Blades Says (Update1)

By Fabiola Moura and Eric Sabo

June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Cuba will rejoin the Organization of American States after “a lot of emotion” passes, said Ruben Blades, tourism minister in Panama, a member of the Washington- based group.

“There is a lot of emotion right now in the world,” Blades, also a six-time Grammy Award winning singer, said in an interview in New York. “So it’s a matter of processing. Eventually we will see a different scenario in Cuba as we have seen everywhere else.”

Blades’s prediction is at odds with the latest statements by Cuban officials. Cuba said yesterday it won’t seek to rejoin the OAS after the group of Western Hemisphere nations lifted its 47-year-old suspension, saying the OAS is irrelevant.

The OAS decision June 3 reflected a compromise between Latin American leaders, eager for President Barack Obama to lift its trade embargo against Cuba, and the U.S., which has pressed the communist nation to carry out democratic reforms.

The resolution stipulates that the communist country must still re-apply for membership and meet OAS standards for democracy and human rights.

Blades, 60, who plans to resume his musical career after leaving his post June 30, said he is hopeful the Obama administration will improve U.S. ties with Latin America after the country committed “a lot of mistakes in terms of the way it handled foreign policy” in the region.

‘Good Agenda’

“I do believe he is going to be able to create a good agenda for Latin America,” Blades said in the interview yesterday. “He managed to convey both proximity and at the same time authority” at the Trinidad and Tobago Summit of the Americas in April, he said.

The U.S. lifted all travel limits for Cuban-Americans visiting family in the island in April as well as restrictions on how much money they can send relatives there.

The OAS was founded in 1948. Cuba, the only country in the hemisphere that isn’t a democracy, has been excluded from OAS participation since 1962, according to the OAS Web site. The U.S. imposed an embargo on Cuba after Fidel Castro, who came to power in a 1959 revolution, expropriated land of U.S. citizens and companies and allied with the Soviet Union. Raul Castro succeeded his brother as president last year.

“The scenario in Cuba is going to change and the way we judge other societies is also going to change,” Blades said. “I don’t think that the invitation now for Cuba to join is just an empty gesture. It is the result of an evolution that has been occurring for decades.”

Presidential Run

Blades, who made an unsuccessful bid for president in 1994, said he doesn’t rule out running again. He served as tourism minister the past five years.

“Now I have administrative experience, which I did not have in 1994,” Blades said. “Everything is a five cushion shot, you can have the ball in front of the hole but you can’t put it in there. This is the way bureaucracy is conceived.”

Blades, whose last album, “Mundo,” won the 2002 Grammy for world music, plans to go back to his musical career, after spending the last five years without playing the guitar at home.

“I can’t afford another five years,” said Blades, adding he is returning to the private sector after accumulating debt as a public official. “I’ve got to do some of my own things.”

The minister said he won’t take any official position in the next government but will help his successor, Salomon Shamah.

“I don’t split my passions, because it makes me half or a third of what I am,” Blades said. “I have to concentrate in order to carry it through.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Fabiola Moura in New York at fdemoura@bloomberg.net. Eric Sabo in Panama City at esabo1@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: June 5, 2009 09:04 EDT

OAS Opens Doors to Cuba Without Conditions

2009-06-05T12:32:00.000-07:00

By Thelma Mejía

SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras, Jun 3 (IPS) - After heated debate, the 39th General Assembly of the Organisation of American States (OAS) decided Wednesday to lift its 47-year suspension of Cuba, without conditions.

At its meeting in Honduras, the OAS sought to "fix an historic error" committed when socialist Cuba was expelled in 1962 from the main forum for political cooperation in the hemisphere as a result of pressure from the United States.

The OAS resolution adopted Wednesday by consensus revoked the Jan. 31, 1962 decision to suspend Cuba on the grounds that its "adherence...to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system."

Honduran Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas, one of the main architects of Wednesday´s resolution, said that "as of now, Cuba´s participation in the OAS will be reinstated by means of dialogue on Cuba´s request and in the framework of the democratic practices that govern the OAS."

"(A)s the host country for this assembly, we are pleased with the amends made to the island nation. We have begun to build a new history in our relations, of tolerance, respect, solidarity, the self-determination of nations and the right to organise ourselves," said Rodas.

After the resolution was read out, the ministers and other officials at the assembly gave a standing ovation.

The leaders taking part in the conference included Nicaraguan and Paraguayan Presidents Daniel Ortega and Fernando Lugo, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who left the assembly early to join President Barack Obama in Egypt.

The tense debate on readmitting Cuba completely overshadowed the main theme of the general assembly, "Toward a Culture of Non-Violence", while protests were held outside the convention centre where the two-day meeting took place in the northwestern Honduran city of San Pedro Sula

The demonstrators included anti-Castro Cubans led by dissident Huber Matos, a former ally of Fidel Castro, as well as supporters of the government of Raúl Castro belonging to social movements from Honduras and Nicaragua.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said Wednesday that "dialogue has prevailed and we are observing an historic event - the coming together again of the countries of the Americas, of which we are proud.

"I want to tell Cuban comandante (and former president) Fidel Castro that today history has done him justice, today the world has been given a lesson in international law, and we can proudly say that the Cold War is over in the Americas," added the centre-left leader.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon said "We removed an historical impediment to Cuba's participation in the OAS, but also established a process of engagement with Cuba, a pathway forward based on the principles, purposes, values and practices of the OAS and the inter-American system." After stating that the United States had reaffirmed its commitment to building good relations with its neighbours based on respect, dialogue and cooperation, he said the focus is now on the future, "rather than on having a stale 47-year debate." He hailed the decision as an important step for the future of the OAS because it will strengthen the hemispheric body, and said the United States worked hard to achieve a resolution backed by a broad consensus.

In a speech that received a one-minute ovation from the conference, he added that Obama had called for a new start to relations with Cuba, that the administration was gradually moving in that direction, and that he hoped negotiations would begin soon.

He also said that while the Obama administration had given out signals for change with Cuba, it would not stop defending democratic principles and respect for human rights.

Clinton said in a statement that "This outcome is in keeping with our forward-looking, principled approach to relations with Cuba and our hemisphere.

"We must now build on this success by meeting our goals with actions that move us beyond rhetoric to results, and advance the mission which each of our nations have pledged to pursue," she added.

Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Fender Falconí said the most significant aspect of the resolution was that it was adopted "without conditions of any kind, which is a good sign, because an historic error has been corrected."

Falconí told reporters that the consensus was reached "at the last minute after two days of continuous deliberations, when at least three different texts were discussed, until we found the right one...to keep the meeting from becoming a failure."

The representatives of Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Costa Rica highlighted the vote by acclamation and the role played by the delegations of the United States, Mexico, Canada, Brazil and Argentina which, along with their counterparts from Venezuela, Nicaragua and Honduras, made every effort to hammer out a consensus agreement.

Several foreign ministers said it is now up to Cuba to decide whether it will join the OAS under the "democratic principles" outlined in the hemispheric body´s charter.

Cuba has often stated that it is not interested in joining the OAS, which Raúl Castro said in April "should disappear."

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez said last week that "the OAS is totally anachronistic. It serves other interests.''

In 1962, 14 countries voted in favour of suspending Cuba, and there were six abstentions - Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Mexico - and only one vote against, cast by Cuba.

Later resolutions slapping OAS sanctions on Cuba only received two-thirds support.

"The people of the Americas are celebrating that this blotch against Cuba has been wiped away and that justice was done to Fidel Castro and the Cuban people," Honduran trade union leader Carlos Reyes told IPS.

In an opinion column published Wednesday in the Cuban state press, before the OAS resolution was announced, Fidel Castro praised the signs of "rebelliousness" by the countries that advocated Cuba´s full return to the hemispheric body. (END/2009)

Text of OAS Resolution and US Draft

2009-06-05T10:29:00.000-07:00

Unofficial text; taken from English simultaneous translation as read to the Assembly of the OAS, 6/3/09, prior to unanimous vote of acclamation.

The General Assembly, recognizing the shared interest in the full participation of all the member states, guided by the purposes and principles of the OAS, embodied in the Charter of the organization and its other fundamental instruments related to security, democracy, self-determination, non-intervention, human rights and development;

Considering the open mindedness that characterized the dialogue of the heads of state and government at the 5th Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain; and that in the same spirit the member states wish to establish a revitalized and ample framework of cooperation in Hemispheric relations;

And bearing in mind that, pursuant to article 54 of the OAS charter, the General Assembly is the supreme organ of the organization, resolves

1) that resolution 6 adopted on January 31st 1962, at the 8th meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs which excluded the government of Cuba from its participation in the inter-american system hereby ceases to have effect in the Organization of American States. (55 seconds of applause)

2) that the participation of the Republic of Cuba in the OAS will be the result of a process of dialogue initiated at the request of the government of Cuba and in accordance with the practices and purposes and principles of the OAS

***************

Original US Draft

Resolution of the General Assembly

CUBA AND THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM

(Presented by the United States)

Recognizing:

The shared interest in the full participation of all Member States;

That some of the circumstances since Cuba's suspension from full participation in the Organization of American States may have changed;

The spirit of openness that encouraged dialogue among the heads of state and government at the V Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, and that, consistent with that spirit, the Member States desire to establish a period of renewed hemispheric relations;

That frank and open dialogue is one of the hallmarks of multilateral relations between sovereign states and between sovereign states and multilateral organizations;

Recalling the OAS Charter, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which are instruments universally applicable to all Member states, as well as the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance; and

Taking into account, in accordance with article 54 of the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), that the General Assembly is the supreme organ of the OAS;

RESOLVES:

1. To support the interest of the Member States in facilitating the eventual reintegration of Cuba into the Inter-American system in a manner that is consistent with the commitments, principles and values of the OAS Charter, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and other instruments.

2. To instruct the Permanent Council to initiate a dialogue with the present Government of Cuba regarding its eventual reintegration into the inter-American system, consistent with the principles of sovereignty, independence, non-intervention, democracy and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as enshrined in the OAS Charter, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and other OAS instruments.

3. To instruct the Permanent Council to present the results of the dialogue prior to the next General Assembly.

4. To review the report of the Permanent Council at the next General Assembly and determine what, if any, steps could be taken towards the eventual reintegration of Cuba into the inter-American system, in a manner consistent with the spirit of consensus that governs the institution.

5. To reaffirm our will to act in accordance with our commitments to the fundamental principles of the inter-American system.

Guardian story on OAS Assembly

2009-06-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

Organisation of American States decides to readmit Cuba
Pan-regional body rebuffed the US and revoked 47-year-old cold war measure

Rory Carroll, Latin America correspondent
Wednesday 3 June 2009 23.08 BST

The Organisation of American States tonight lifted Cuba's half-century-old
suspension in a dramatic decision to bring Havana back into Latin America's
diplomatic fold.

The pan-regional body rebuffed the United States, which lobbied against the
move, and revoked a 1962 cold war measure which had marked the communist
island as a pariah.

"The cold war has ended this day in San Pedro Sula," said Manuel Zelaya, the
president of Honduras, who hosted the 34-member organisation in Honduras's
second city.

Dozens of foreign ministers from the Caribbean as well as central and South
America stood to applaud when the announcement was made at the end of the
two-day summit. "This is a moment of rejoicing for all of Latin America,"
Ecuador's foreign minister, Fander Falconi, told reporters.

Cuba said it had no interest in rejoining the OAS, which Fidel Castro this
week called a "Trojan horse" for US interests, but the opening of the door
was a diplomatic victory for Havana and exposed Washington's isolation.

Much of Latin America once considered Castro an anachronistic despot but
since the 1990s the "maximum commandante" has won respect as an elder
statesman and symbol of Latin American nationalism. Only the US still lacks
diplomatic relations with the island.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said Havana should not be
readmitted until it made concessions on democracy and human rights, a line
echoed by the advocacy group Human Rights Watch which said political
prisoners and repression continued under President Raul Castro.

Those arguments were swept away by largely leftist governments who thought
the organisation had been beholden to Washington for too long. "The vote to
readmit Cuba to the OAS represents an unprecedented assertion of Latin
American power in a hemispheric institution long dominated by the US," said
Daniel Erikson, an analyst at the Inter-American Dialogue thinktank and
author of The Cuba Wars.

Washington recently softened its economic embargo against Cuba - a
controversial policy enshrined the same year the OAS suspended the fledgling
Castro government - but that was not enough to appease Latin leaders
demanding bolder steps.

"The vote sends a powerful signal to the Obama administration that the path
of moderate, incremental change in US policy towards Cuba is depleting
America's political capital in the region at an alarming rate," said
Erikson.

Latin leaders gave Obama a rapturous reception at an April summit in
Trinidad and Tobago, his regional debut, but today's decision showed a
steely resolve to stand up to the "gringo" superpower which is considered to
have bullied the region for over a century.

The US had hoped to engineer a compromise which would hinge Cuba's entry on
the condition it met OAS democratic requirements. Instead, isolated and
outnumbered, the US was cornered into a consensus agreement which said Cuba
could rejoin after a "process of dialogue" in line with OAS "practices,
proposals and principles".

A US state department spokesman put a brave face on the outcome and said the
US had dissuaded other members from automatically readmitting Cuba. "The
historic action taken today eliminates a distraction from the past and
allows us to focus on the realities of today."

In contrast to its diplomatic shine, Cuba's economy darkened this week.
Government austerity measures cut fuel and food rations in response to
tumbling government revenues.

Post OAS spin by Clinton, Shannon and Restrepo

2009-06-05T10:22:00.000-07:00

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/06/124305.htm

OAS Resolution
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 3, 2009

________________________________________
The member nations of the OAS showed flexibility and openness today, and as a result we reached a consensus that focuses on the future instead of the past: Cuba can come back into the OAS in the future if the OAS decides that its participation meets the purposes and principles of the organization, including democracy and human rights. Many member countries originally sought to lift the 1962 suspension and allow Cuba to return immediately, without conditions. Others agreed with us that the right approach was to replace the suspension – which has outlived its purpose after nearly half a century – with a process of dialogue and a future decision that will turn on Cuba's commitment to the organization’s values. I am pleased that everyone came to agree that Cuba cannot simply take its seat and that we must put Cuba’s participation to a determination down the road – if it ever chooses to seek reentry. If and when the day comes to make that determination, the United States will continue to defend the principles of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and other fundamental tenets of the organization. This outcome is in keeping with our forward-looking, principled approach to relations with Cuba and our hemisphere.
We must now build on this success by meeting our goals with actions that move us beyond rhetoric to results, and advance the mission which each of our nations have pledged to pursue: strengthening good governance, democratic institutions, an unwavering commitment to fundamental human rights and freedoms, and the rule of law — the underpinnings of democracy and the founding principles of this organization.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525178,00.html

June 4, 2009
VAN SUSTEREN: We talked about the travel. I know you've been to Honduras. The OAS, after you left -- it looks like Cuba's going to be invited back in.
CLINTON: No, that wasn't the outcome.
VAN SUSTEREN: It wasn't the outcome? What happened?
CLINTON: Well, we were very adamantly opposed to those who wanted to lift the 1962 suspension and leave it at that. That was not acceptable to the United States. That's, unfortunately, the path that they were on earlier. And we made the case to many countries and found a receptive audience that we could agree to lift something from so long ago that was really part of the cold war, but we had to reaffirm the values and principles of the OAS. We had to explicitly reaffirm democracy and human rights. And then we had to have a process.
So yes, you can lift the suspension, but that's the beginning, that's not the end. Then Cuba has to decide whether it wishes to become a member of the OAS. And then the OAS must, according to its practices, purposes and principles, enter into a dialogue with Cuba and make a decision.
So this was the beginning. Unlike what some had hoped, to have a kind of fait accompli, we were able to create a consensus that the majority of countries in the OAS agreed with the United States.
VAN SUSTEREN: So we haven't been snubbed.
CLINTON: Oh, not at all. In fact, this was a very good example of the kind of diplomatic engagement that we want to be involved with. Now, of course we had to make the case, and I did it very vigorously with many of my counterparts, that we believed that we needed to do exactly what I said. We couldn't throw over the OAS, throw over democracy and human rights, which we have worked so hard on in the hemisphere, but we would welcome changes by the Cuban government. We really want to see the Cuban people brought back into the hemisphere and be part of what we hope will be a more prosperous and progressive future.

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/rm/2009/124309.htm

The OAS Ministerial in Honduras
Thomas A. Shannon, Jr.
Assistant Secretary
Special Assistant To The President and Senior Director For Western Hemisphere Affairs at The National Security Council Dan Restrepo
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
Briefing Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
June 3, 2009

________________________________________
MR. AKER: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us today for a read-out of the results of the OAS Ministerial in Honduras, which has just concluded. We have with us today Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon and Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council Dan Restrepo. We’ll start out with a statement by Mr. Restrepo.
MR. RESTREPO: Thank you very much. And thanks, everybody, for getting on this call this afternoon. We just wanted to get you all up-to-date on what has happened here at the OAS General Assembly.
Today has been a historic day for the inter-American system. You’ve seen two things occur in a resolution passed by consensus by the organization, one that leaves without effect the 1962 suspension of the current government of Cuba from participation in the OAS, and second that establishes a path forward that has multiple steps to it, beginning with whether the Cuban Government asks to come back to the organization or not, a question that may be complicated for that government given what it has been saying about the organization in recent weeks and actually throughout the last 40 years, but a process that is clearly enunciated on the face of the resolution that it has to be in accord with the basic principles, purposes, and practices of the OAS, which itself is defined in the resolution to be based on the OAS Charter and other fundamental instruments that defend democracy, self-determination, non-interference, human rights, development, and security.
So what we’ve seen today is really a testament to the hard work of multilateral diplomacy. A couple of weeks ago, if you had stopped and asked all the countries in the Western Hemisphere what they wanted to do with the 1962 resolution, they would supported a three-line resolution doing – lifting the 1962 resolution and allowing Cuba to automatically return to the OAS. The United States and other countries from various parts in the hemisphere fought, defended, and prevailed in saying that this was not an automatic process, that yes, let’s leave an argument of the past in the past, let’s not become prisoners of the past, but let us ensure that we are defending the basic principles of democracy and human rights and non-intervention and non-interference as the path forward to Cuba’s return to the organization.
Simply put, for Cuba to return to the organization, the organization has to agree that Cuba is abiding by the same rules that everybody else is abiding by. That is a historic achievement. We think it is an important day that reflects a policy that listens to the concerns of the region with respect to lifting the ’62 suspension and defend the core principles of the Americas shared by the United States, all in defense of ensuring that they are shared by and enjoyed by all the people of the hemisphere, including the people of Cuba. So instead of being focused on an argument that is nearly 50 years old that has done little to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people, we can return to the focus to today, to the realities of today, and to the realities of the issues not just in Cuba but throughout the Americas.
MR. AKER: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, do you have any additional comments?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHANNON: No, I think we can go to questions.
OPERATOR: If you would like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone telephone and please clearly record your name when prompted. One moment for the first question, please.
The first question does come from Patricia Mello (ph) with Estado. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Hi, Dan. Hi,Tom. My question is I would like to understand what exactly changed in terms of the U.S. agreeing on a consensus decision to revoke the suspension.
MR. RESTREPO: I’m not exactly sure I understand the (inaudible). The United States agreed to do what we said all along, that we would stand by the basic principles of the organization, defend those principles, and seek a consensus – seek to build a consensus with partners from throughout the hemisphere around that premise; that the lifting of the ’62 suspension would not – did not mark the automatic return of Cuba to the organization. That is a position we staked out. We’ve been consistent about, and that we rallied support with the help of countries from throughout the region and throughout the hemisphere.
And I think it’s important to note that last night there was a document on the table when conversations ended, seemingly in an impasse, when the country – the ALBA countries would not accept the text, that there was generalized consensus around. This morning, without changing a word, they came around to join the consensus that had been formed under the leadership of the United States and other country – other important countries throughout the hemisphere.
QUESTION: So I’m sorry, just to follow up. The consensus demands that Cuba adopts democratic causes and there are some demands?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHANNON: I mean, as it stands right now, the resolution makes very clear that the process by which Cuba must follow in order to reenter the OAS, requires first that Cuba request permission. Secondly, that it enter into a dialogue with the relevant organs of the OAS, and that that dialogue and the decision rendered by the OAS must be in accord with the practices, purposes, and principles of the OAS. And the resolution makes very clear that the fundamental instruments and documents in the OAS, like the Inter-American Democratic Charter, will be the guiding documents as the OAS engages with Cuba.
So as Dan noted, what’s important here is we’ve lifted an historical impediment while facing up to the challenge of today, which is how do you – how does the OAS, an organization committed to democracy, relate to a country that is not democratic? And how does the OAS and the inter-American system, which is characterized by open societies and market-based economies, relate to a country that has a closed society and a closed economy? And in this regard, as Dan noted, the OAS has remained true to its core principles and purposes. And this was the result of leadership by the United States and by our partner countries, but especially by Secretary Clinton.
And I’d like to highlight the fact that the resolution that was approved today was based on a resolution presented by Secretary Clinton yesterday, following extensive conversation and negotiation with a broad range of partners. And so it is the product of a collaborative dialogue with key partners around the hemisphere. And it was such a powerful document and such a powerful coalition of countries that those countries that felt uncomfortable with aspects of it, ultimately were not able to change it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
OPERATOR: The next question comes from Jill Dougherty, CNN. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Hi, it’s Elise – actually, it’s Elise Labott. We’re trading out.
I think what is a little unclear is when some senior State Department official spoke to us last week, we were under the impression that you didn’t want the resolution – you wanted the resolution that kind of formulated a dialogue with Cuba about its future in the organization, but you did not want to rescind. You weren’t ready to rescind this kind of edict. And what some of the other member countries were saying was, even if you do kind of lift this, you know, official ban, the long-time ban that was from the Soviet era, it wouldn’t mean that Cuba would get back into the organization anyway, because it still had to meet the fundamental principles of a democratic charter. So it does seem to be that you’ve moved on this issue. And I’m just wondering what it was that made the United States comfortable signing onto this resolution, because as of last week you didn’t seem so comfortable with the idea.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHANNON: Elise, this is Tom. And since I think I was that senior official, I think I could respond to this question.
QUESTION: Well, I didn’t know if we’re on the record here so I just didn’t want to –
MR. AKER: Yes, we are on the record.
QUESTION: Yeah, so I didn’t want to hang you out to dry, Tom. (Laughter) But now you’ve hung yourself.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHANNON: But listen, first of all, I think – I think I would kind of rephrase, you know, how you described what we talked about the other day. Because I think if you went back and looked at the transcript, I think what’s clear is that, number one, we want a forward approach on Cuba, not a backwards approach on Cuba. And – because ultimately, you know, what the region made clear to us in our talks that had been ongoing for quite some time is that they wanted to find a way to deal with Cuba that wasn’t based on Cold War instruments or decisions that the OAS had taken, but instead was is based on the current instruments related to democracy, to human rights, to self-determination, non-intervention, security, and development.
And what the President made clear in Trinidad and Tobago is that we want a new relationship that is a forward-looking relationship, and one that is based on the future of the Cuban people, the well-being of the Cuban people. So in this regard, I think we accomplished our core goal, which, again, was not to defend a resolution that is 47 years old, but instead to recognize that as we try to construct a new relationship with Cuba, we have to help the rest of the region construct a new relationship.
QUESTION: So – but it sounds over the last couple of days that you have softened your approach to this. I mean, would it be fair to say that after consultations with your hemispheric colleagues that you – that, you know, it was a compromise that, you know, as long as the organization kind of made clear that it was going to stick to the fundamental principles of the charter, that you were comfortable signing on to this resolution?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHANNON: Well, again, you know, multilateral diplomacy is like several-dimensional chess. It requires acting on several different levels, but it requires a lot of cooperation, a lot of dialogue, but it also requires precision as we work through resolutions and language. And obviously, we wanted to make very clear that we were listening to the region, and that the relationship the President had promised in Trinidad and Tobago, one of collaboration and dialogue, was going to be made real here. And so we were prepared to listen to the concerns expressed and to try to accommodate them in a reasonable way. But ultimately, for us, the bottom line has always been democracy and individual human rights.
And it’s important to understand also that aside from the Cuba issue, what we were able to accomplish here is, number one, get the ALBA countries to commit to broad instruments that they (inaudible) – like the Inter-American Democratic Charter. But also we were able to strengthen the OAS as an institution, because one of the broad – the bigger fears going into this is that a breakdown in talks here was going to provoke divisions in the different sub-regions of the hemisphere, but also within the OAS. And what we have done, I believe, is strengthen the OAS as an institution, and that is an important goal.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
OPERATOR: The next question comes from Carol Giacomo with The New York Times. Your line is open.
QUESTION: My question has to do with the fact that I still don’t see how you go forward here. If Cuba were to say tomorrow, “We want to be members of the OAS, “there are a lot of countries in the OAS who would immediately vote to include them. How – I mean, I understand that you – you know, you reference the charter and the other standards of the OAS that reflect democracy and human rights. But I mean, what if Cuba were to hold elections tomorrow and then come back to you and say, “Well, we held elections,” I mean, would that be enough of a marker to get them in? I mean, it’s not spelled out. That’s my question.
MR. RESTREPO: I think when you review the text of the resolution, you’ll see that a process is laid out. The process begins with what is a difficult decision for a Cuban Government that has spent 40 years railing against an institution because of its defense of democracy and individual human rights. They would have to swallow that to ask to get into the organization. And then a process consistent with the manner in which this organization functions, its practices, but more importantly, its principles and purposes, as defined in this resolution itself, would be the guide to its participation in the organization. I mean, those are clearly enumerated. There is reference to the fundamental instruments of the organization, and to democracy, security, human rights, self-determination, non-intervention, and development.
So there is a clear process here. There are practices that guide how the organization operates. One of those very important practices is the practice of consensus, and we have seen in this process how consensus can work. It can address the concerns of members while staying true to the basic principles that we have defended throughout this process. That’s what we saw and that culminated here today. The work on how we go forward and how we focus on policies and approaches that support the Cuban people’s desire to freely determine their own future is where our focus is, rather than having a stale 47-year-old debate.
OPERATOR: The next question comes from Arshad Mohammad with Reuters. Your line is open.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you to respond to a statement from Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who says, quote, “Rather than upholding democratic principles and fundamental freedoms, OAS member-states, led by the OAS Secretary General, could not move quickly enough to appease their tyrannical idols in Cuba. Today’s decision by the OAS is an affront to the Cuban people and all who struggle for freedom, democracy, and fundamental human rights,” close quote.
MR. RESTREPO: I think the important thing to underscore of what happened today is that in a – as a result of effective diplomacy, the United States and other partner countries through the region converted a situation where the OAS may have been on the verge of a four-line resolution that simply lifted the 1962 suspension and extended open arms to a government that does not abide by the basic principles that are at the core of our values and the values of the system. Instead of that result, we have a result that lays out a process that specifically refers to the fundamental instruments of this organization of democracy, human rights, self-determination, and other enumerated rights that are precisely the rights that this Administration is working to advance and defend in Cuba and throughout the Americas. This is a day – a positive day in the process forward on the issue of supporting the desire of the Cuban people to freely determine their destiny, like the people in our country and throughout the hemisphere get to do on a regular basis.
OPERATOR: The next question comes from James Rosen with Fox News. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Gentlemen, thank you for conducting this conference call on, apparently, short notice. You’ve both made clear repeatedly just in the course of this conference call that at various points along the way – three weeks ago and even yesterday – we were, as Dan just said, on the verge of a four-line resolution that would have agreed to readmit the Cubans with no conditions placed. And at the same time – and that that would have been, as you would agree, in contravention of OAS’s own charter, practices, principles, purposes. And yet they were ready to do it at various points. We were on the verge.
And now you’re telling us that they’ve passed a resolution which, if and when the Cubans do seek readmission, requires some demonstration from the Cubans to the satisfaction of these very same people who were prepared to act this way, that they’re suddenly on the right path.
So my question is: What gives you confidence that if and when that day comes and the Cubans seek re-admission, that the same feckless characters who were on the verge of a four-line resolution but for our strenuous intervention won’t prove similarly feckless in regard to their own practices, purposes, charter, and so forth?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHANNON: Excellent question, a several-part answer.
First, most of the countries around the table wanted (inaudible) as part of the consensus. They recognized at the end of the day this decision about Cuba had to be something that strengthened the OAS and not weakened it. And when we made very clear that our commitment to the core principles of the OAS was not up for negotiation, then these countries realized they had to find a way to work with us in a fashion that protected those principles. And that – that was an important moment, number one.
Number two, as we got deeper into this discussion, many of the countries we worked with realized that the short form of the resolution raised more questions than it answered, and that ultimately the members of the negotiating teams of the different countries began to explore just what a short resolution would mean. And ultimately, they were uncomfortable with it and they recognized that the resolution really needed two parts, one part being lifting the suspension. The second part being – describing the process by which Cuba would seek readmission if it wanted to, and what purpose, practices, and principles would guide it.
So again, this is all about diplomacy. It’s all about working with countries to help them understand their own interests and values, how those interests and values are tied into a larger multilateral network. And in this regard, I think the active participation of Secretary Clinton, the active participation of many high-ranking officials in our government, was vital in getting this message through.
MR. RESTREPO: I think one other thing that’s important to note is that the United States remains committed to defending these principles. And I think what we have done through this process is it strengthened our hand in that defense. We’ve rallied other countries behind us, put them on record as standing up for these principles and this process as the guide forward. And so by engaging in a constructive dialogue and listening to their concerns, we made folks more open to our concerns. And that I think, at the core, is how this is a clear sign of the effective use of all the power of the United States, and here the diplomatic ability of the United States, to change the course of events that would not have served our national interests and our core values into one that strengthened our national interests and our core values, and the partnership that we have with important countries throughout the Western Hemisphere.
QUESTION: And just to follow up. In terms of crafting policy both unilaterally and multilaterally through this organization toward Cuba that is forward-looking and not backward-looking, what evidence or signs can you point to suggest that Cuba is likewise committed to that kind of forward progress under Raul Castro as far as we can see?
MR. RESTREPRO: That first thing, there’s one premise in your question that I’m going to have to challenge. It’s very important to separate the U.S.-Cuba bilateral relationship from the multilateral environment in which we found ourselves and which we find ourselves at the Organization of American States. The United States and President Obama in his Administration has been very clear about how he believes it is best to advance our national interests and support the Cuban people and the desire to determine their own future and to improve our relations with the Cuban people and to open a new era in bilateral relations. That remains the guidepost in the bilateral context. So I just wanted to make sure that that was very clear. And I think Tom had some on the rest of the question.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHANNON: Yeah. I mean, ultimately, as Dan noted, you know, we are pursuing effectively a two-track approach on Cuba. One is to enhance people-to-people contact and ensure that we are looking ways for improve the well-being of the Cuban people and increase their capacity to have a meaningful voice in determining their national destiny.
The second track is a government-to-government track it – that then is determined to see whether or not we can have a dialogue with Cuba across areas of mutual benefit and interests. We have made a proposal to Cuba on migration talks and direct mail talks. The Cuban Government has agreed to both of those. It has also suggested that we need a broader and more comprehensive dialogue. These are good signs. But ultimately, we are going to determine in the course of our engagement both in our effort to help the Cuban people and in our effort to establish some level of dialogue with the Cuban Government whether or not they are as future-oriented as we are.
MR. RESTREPO: And one last thought, as the President said at the summit in Trinidad and Tobago, he is open to a new relationship, a new era in relations between the United States and Cuba. He’s not interested in talk for the sake of talk and that this is about actions. This is a process that will take time. It will be hard. And I think to underscore that we’re not interested in talk just for the sake of talk, this week is an example of where talk was a very effective tool to advance our interests and get – and reach an outcome that defends the core principles that we have stood by and that we stand by and that we’ll continue to stand by, by getting an outcome that makes very clear that the return of Cuba to the OAS is not an automatic event at this point, but one, a process that leads – that is founded and grounded in the core principles like democracy and human rights. So I think that’s a clear example of where talk is a very effective mechanism of advancing our national interests.
OPERATOR: Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. AKER: Thank you. We have -- we’re about out of time. We have, at most, time for one final question.
OPERATOR: And the last question does come from Jesus (inaudible) with (inaudible) magazine. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Thank you. Dan, I have a quick question for you on – if I understood – he wants to respond. There’s already reaction in Capitol Hill. Some members of the Republican Party are proposing legislation to suspend the money that the U.S. give to the – the U.S. give to the Organization of America States. What the Obama Administration is going to do in order to stop this kind of action by the Republican Party, who obviously are not happy with this decision?
MR. RESTREPO: This decision is a couple of hours old. I think upon time and reflection, people will recognize that we did exactly what we stated we would do here, which was stand up for the core values of democracy and human rights, and to make Cuba’s eventual return to the organization (inaudible) to make process consistent with the practices, principles, and purpose of the OAS which are in the resolution itself defined to be embodied in the OAS charter and other fundamental instruments (inaudible). We all know that those other fundamental instruments in the Inter-American Democratic Charter.
And so I believe upon further (inaudible) we will continue to work closely with Congress. We will consult closely with them and discuss this issue moving forward, because we all share the common goal, and that common goal is to see a day when the Cuban people get to decide their own future (inaudible) consistent with that enjoyed by people across the hemisphere (inaudible), which is what, ultimately, we want to see. And we believe we are taking steps in that direction. Rather than being rooted in an argument of the past, we are focused on the presence and the future. This is an important step in that direction and we look forward to working with Congress on this and many other issues of hemispheric concern.
MR. AKER: Thank you.
MR. RESTREPO: Thank you all very much for participating. And we will talk again soon, I imagine. Thanks.
MR. AKER: Thank you, everyone. And just a reminder – this is an on the record briefing. And in addition, I would like to point out that the Department of State will be issuing a statement on the results of the ministerial soon, so stayed tune. Good-bye, everyone.

OAS Speech by Tom Shannon

2009-06-05T10:19:00.000-07:00

Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon’s speech at the OAS

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak at this important and historic moment. I regret that Secretary Clinton is not here to make this intervention, but I am happy to do so in her place….

We also want to express our appreciation to the many countries around this table who have worked so hard to achieve consensus around this resolution. Statesmanship is a rare virtue. It requires maturity, vision and persistence. It also requires a clear headedness that avoids prejudice and rhetoric but instead attempts to build confidence and understanding while it fashions agreements. But statesmanship to be effective, to be an effective element in expressing our national purpose, must remain true to our fundamental values and interests.

Today’s resolution was an act of statesmanship. Today we addressed and bridged an historic divide in the Americas while reaffirming our profound commitment to democracy and the fundamental human rights of our peoples. We removed an historical impediment to Cuba’s participation in the OAS but also established a process of engagement with Cuba, a pathway forward based on the principles, purposes, the values and the practices of the OAS and the Inter-American system.

What we did today I believe also has to be understood as an action that affirms our commitment as a member of the OAS and as a member of the Americas to build a relationship with our neighbors and partners based on dialogue and collaboration. And finally today’s events also have to be understood as an important step forward for the OAS and as a resolution that fundamentally strengthens the OAS in the Americas.

I had an opportunity to speak with Secretary Clinton on her way to Egypt and she asked me to extend her congratulations to all present and she expressed her pride in having participated in this historic OAS General Assembly, especially her pride in participating in the working group that fashioned the text that became the document that we could agree on consensus. This is a text that was acclaimed twice, once in the meeting of heads of delegations and here today and it still sits in the style committee being worked and we look forward to its final redaction in accordance with the acclamation that took place in the meeting of the heads of dialogue; but her role in this and her ability to work with colleagues around this table and show that we all have this ability to create a broad consensus and a pathway forward is an important step. And I would like to recall that during her meetings with her colleagues and in her several interventions in the working group she reminded us that at the Summit President Obama called for a new beginning to the US-Cuba relationship; he lifted restrictions on family travel and remittances in Cuba. Two weeks ago he asked Cuba to restart migration talks, a request which Cuba has accepted, along with discussions on direct mail and we look forward to talks beginning soon. And as I noted at this Assembly, we have helped fashion and submitted the resolution that became the basis for today’s historic resolution.

Together these actions on the part of the United States signal the biggest change to our approach to Cuba in the last 40 years. We are not interested in fighting old battles or living in the past. We are committed to building a better people, a better future for all of the Americans, by listening, learning and partnership based on mutual respect.

At the same time we will always defend the timeless principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law that animate our societies and serve as a beacon for those around the world who are oppressed, silenced and subjugated. The United States looks forward to the day when a democratic Cuba rejoins the Inter-American system. Until then we will seek new ways to engage Cuba that benefit the people of both nations and of the hemisphere. We will continue to advocate for democratic governance in Cuba and throughout the Americas and the people of this hemisphere look to the OAS to do the same.

Our organization, the Organization of American States, represents a region covering more than a quarter of the earth. From the tundra of northern Canada to the Amazonian rain forests to the Pategonian ice fields, our citizens speak dozens of languages, celebrate many faiths and traditions and hail from every region of the world. But underneath our differences we are joined by geography, history, politics, economics, culture and family. Our futures and fortunes are linked.

Now we must stand together to affirm our shared values, face down common challenges and seek opportunities for the benefit of all our people.

FRD Press Felease on OAS Resolution

2009-06-01T12:24:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Dobbs Ferry, NY

Contact: John McAuliff, 914-231-6270, 917-859-9025

Administration Puts Partisan Spin on OAS Charters

“Editors should give serious attention to how reports of the OAS Assembly in Honduras characterize the debate on Tuesday and Wednesday regarding Cuba’s membership,” urged John McAuliff, the head of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, a New York based non-governmental organization that advocates normalization of Washington-Havana relations.

“First, Cuba is still a member of the OAS. It was suspended, not expelled, in 1962 as the result of an intense and still-resented campaign by a US government more dominant than today. Justifications for suspension did not include internal democracy or human rights and are now moot.”

“Second, virtually all OAS members support ending Cuba’s suspension without conditions, not only more left-leaning governments.”

“Third, nothing in the OAS Charter, or subsequent documents, including the Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC) precludes Cuba taking up full and active membership. The IADC is quite explicit about measures to be taken in the face of ‘unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order of a member state’, i.e. a military coup. It incorporates aspirations that all members be representative democracies with respect for human rights but does not affect restoring the status of an existing member with a different political orientation.”

“Fourth, the US embargo and forced transition agenda with Cuba seriously violate the OAS Charter, which is quite explicit that ‘No State...has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference...against its political, economic, and cultural elements.’" (Article 19, see also 3e and 20)

McAuliff concludes, “Secretary Clinton should abstain if the OAS votes on ending Cuba's suspension without conditions. She will demonstrate we are listening and serious about a new collaborative role, even if domestic politics bars joining the affirmative vote. Finally the Administration must show Sen. Menendez (D, NJ) that he cannot control US foreign policy with bluster and threats to cut off OAS funding.”

Additional background
from two American University professors here
and from FRD here and here

[The Fund for Reconciliation and Development was founded in 1985 to bring about normal US relations with Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and, in the last decade, Cuba. John McAuliff visits Cuba regularly, most recently in January and May of 2009.]

OAS Membership for Cuba: Two Views from American University

2009-05-20T15:38:00.000-07:00

Dr. William LeoGrande
Dean, School of Public Affairs
American University

The issue of Cuba’s OAS suspension is a complicated one. First, it will require a two-thirds vote to lift the suspension of Cuba’s membership, as specified in Article 6 (f) of the OAS Charter, just as it took a two-thirds vote to impose it in 1962.

How you apply the democracy condition of OAS membership to the Cuban case is a bit tricky from a legal point of view (and I remind you that I’m not a lawyer). The Santiago Commitment to Democracy (1991) and the Inter-American Democratic Charter (2001) provide for the suspension of a member state in which there is “an unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order or an unconstitutional alteration of the regime that seriously impairs the democratic order” (Inter-American Democratic Charter, Articles 19-21). There is a clearly defined process for doing this, but at the end of the day, the issue is a political one because two-thirds of the voting members can take any position they please on the issue of suspension or lifting suspension.

In Cuba’s case, the United States might argue that Cuba’s suspension should not be lifted because it fails to meet the democracy requirement, even though the original purpose for the suspension was somewhat different. But the Cuban case doesn’t really fit under the Democratic Charter’s provisions regarding the interruption of an existing democratic order. Cuba’s friends could argue that OAS documents list a great many desirable aspects of democracy, that none of the member states meet them all, and that Cuba meets enough of them to be restored to full membership. The closest the OAS comes to specifying necessary conditions for qualifying as a democracy is in Article 3 of the Democratic Charter:

Essential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.

The Cubans would argue that they meet all but last two of these conditions, and they have shown that they are willing to accept broad statements about democracy (in places like the Ibero-American Summit and the Rio Group) when there’s no real enforcement mechanism.

Moreover, even the Inter-American Democratic Charter doesn’t quite say that fully meeting the criteria of Article 3 is a condition of OAS membership. Article 2 comes closest, reading:

The effective exercise of representative democracy is the basis for the rule of law and of the constitutional regimes of the member states of the Organization of American States. Representative democracy is strengthened and deepened by permanent, ethical, and responsible participation of the citizenry within a legal framework conforming to the respective constitutional order [emphasis added].

This could be read as an imperative, that a member state must be a representative democracy, or it could be read as a simple declaration that they are.

In short, all the democracy language seems to have crafted with an eye toward situations where existing democratic institutions are being threatened and therefore the provisions don't fit the Cuba case very well. Cuba’s friends could very well argue that gradual improvements in Cuban democracy are more likely to be obtained if Cuba’s suspension is lifted rather than if it is maintained. The question is whether two-thirds of the membership agrees.

What will the U.S. do? It could oppose lifting the suspension, more or less vigorously. It could abstain. Or it could even vote in favor, as it did in 1975 when the OAS lifted mandatory diplomatic and economic sanctions, allowing each state to decide on sanctions for itself. My bet is on opposition, but not too vigorous, with the expectation that even if the suspension is lifted, Cuba will not become an active member again, based on recent statements by Fidel and Raul.

***************

Dr. Philip Brenner
Professor of International Relations and History
American University

1) Representative democracy is not a condition for membership, per se. All of the OAS members signed the 2001 Inter-American Charter on Democracy, and profess their adherence to democratic principles. Insulza has said that this would not bar returning Cuba to full membership, and at worst could be fudged by including some statement about democracy as a goal for the future. Note that Cuba still is a member of the OAS. It was not removed from the organization; its membership was suspended.

2) I believe suspension required a 2/3 vote. Presumably un-suspension would require a 2/3 vote. I can imagine that a basis for such a vote would be a review of the formal reasons for the suspension in 1962, which were that Cuba had introduced an alien (non-hemispheric) ideology into the hemisphere (Soviet communism), and in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine, the OAS asserted that the hemisphere did not want alien ideologies (in the case of the Monroe Doctrine the alien ideology in question was monarchism). A second reason was that Cuba supported armed insurrections in member countries. Both reasons no longer have validity in OAS terms, and so un-suspension would be warranted.

3) I can imagine that Cuba would allow an OAS office to be opened in Havana, but its purpose would need to be clear. Perhaps such an office could be used at first for OAS-sponsored hemispheric projects on which Cuba might want to participate. In fact, if the OAS withdrew suspension of Cuba, an OAS office would be a good compromise position -- between outright rejection of the OAS (and hence supporters of un-suspension such as Lula) and full acceptance by Cuba of the offer to be a full member. I do not think that at the moment Cuba wants to be a full member of the OAS.

4) Recall that the United States actually sponsored the OAS resolution in 1975 (which passed) ending the OAS embargo against Cuba -- and the US voted for it. That was in response to Latin American pressure, especially from Argentina.

Reuters Report on Uncertain Progress

2009-05-18T11:04:00.000-07:00

ANALYSIS-No bloom yet in US-Cuba ties after April overtures
05.17.09, 11:17 AM ET

United States -

* Overtures in April raised hopes of rapprochement

* Conditionality debate suggests breakthrough not near

* Eye on bills in Congress to further ease trade embargo

By Jeff Franks

HAVANA (Reuters) - The United States and Cuba offered a glimmer of hope last month that they might be ready to end years of hostility, but neither side has moved much since then to widen that window of opportunity.

In mid-April, President Barack Obama pledged a "new beginning" with Cuba after slightly easing the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo against the communist-ruled Caribbean island that reflects decades of Cold War enmity.

But Obama quickly made clear that further moves toward normalization hinged on Cuba freeing political prisoners and showing progress on human rights.

From his side, Cuban President Raul Castro made what some called a groundbreaking public offer to hold talks with Washington about everything, including political prisoners.

But Havana swiftly clarified this by insisting it had no intention of making concessions to satisfy the Americans.

Despite news from the U.S. State Department that informal talks were subsequently held with the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, many observers fear the good vibes of April may be fading as both sides fall back on old positions.

"There is no process, nothing under way. The story now is of deflated expectations," said Washington attorney Robert Muse, who specializes in Cuba issues.

Obama has said he wants to "recast" U.S.-Cuba ties. On April 13, he ended Bush era restrictions on Cuban Americans' right to travel and send remittances to their homeland. He also removed curbs on U.S. telecommunications firms who want to operate on the island 90 miles from Florida.

But while Obama has moved away from the aggressive hard line of President George W. Bush, who openly urged the overthrow of Cuba's government, the insistence that further steps depend on Cuban concessions has disappointed groups pushing for normalization of relations.

Critics say this same conditionality was pursued unsuccessfully by most of the preceding 10 U.S. presidents who served since Fidel Castro took power in a 1959 revolution.

"I don't see that the Obama administration has really done anything to change the policy, the atmosphere," said Wayne Smith, former head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana who is now with the Center for International Policy in Washington.

BILLS IN CONGRESS

"We need to make it clear that our policy is no longer as it was under Bush -- to bring down the Cuban government. Our policy is to have dialogue and begin to resolve problems and disagreements between us," he said in a recent trip to Cuba.

While anti-embargo groups voice frustration with Obama, they generally assume his current position is not fixed in stone and is more likely a product of political bargaining or perhaps inexperience, than a reflection of his true beliefs.

Some say he may be trying to aid the passage of bills pending in the U.S. Congress that would lift the ban on travel to Cuba for all Americans.

"I suspect it has to do with bills in Congress he wants to get through and he's receiving signals that if he goes too far, they (opponents) will try to block the measures," said Smith.

Cuba, which presents itself as the aggrieved victim in U.S.-Cuba relations, has done little to encourage Obama.

Fidel Castro, now 82, who was replaced as Cuba's president by his younger brother, Raul, last year, said Raul's offer of talks was misinterpreted by the Obama administration.

Since then, Cuban leaders have struck a consistently negative tone by deriding Obama's embargo-easing steps as minimal, maintaining their harsh rhetoric against the U.S. and offering nothing concrete to get negotiations started.

"We have to do absolutely nothing, except take note of and recognize the corrective steps when they take them," Ricardo Alarcon, president of Cuba's parliament, told CNN last week.

Raul Castro had already said in a January television interview: "We are not in any hurry. We are not desperate."

On the key U.S. issues of political prisoners and human rights, Cuba has said these are sovereign domestic matters.

The European Union, which has restarted talks with Cuba after years of strained relations, got a taste of what may lie ahead for the United States at a meeting last week in Brussels with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez.

He described EU concerns about human rights in Cuba as "obsolete" and "an obstacle to the process of normalization".

The Cuban side argued there were "no political prisoners" in Cuba, said Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout.

Human rights groups estimate Cuba has 200 political prisoners. Raul Castro has offered to send some to the United States in exchange for five Cuban agents imprisoned there.

Supporters of a changed U.S. Cuba policy say they hope Obama will move ahead without concessions from Havana because the wait for compromise could be a long one, especially since there is broad world support for an end to the U.S. embargo. (Editing by Pascal Fletcher)

**********

My comment:

What Raul said was all political prisoners not some. Also the Cubans have made it pretty clear that they are prepared to talk about prisoners if the US shows mutual respect i.e. listens to their concern about prisoners arrested and convicted for political reasons in the US, the five.

Someone should ask the Cubans whether they would allow the released prisoners to stay in Cuba if USINT functioned under normal Vienna Convention diplomatic protocol rather than as a sponsor of dissidents.

Lou Perez Op Ed (excellent summary)

2009-05-04T04:09:00.001-07:00

McClatchy Washington Bureau

Posted on Sat, May. 02, 2009

Commentary: Welcome change in U.S.-Cuba policy, but not far enough
Louis A. Perez Jr. | The Progressive Media Project

May 01, 2009 02:33:25 PM

We are witnessing a welcome change in U.S.-Cuba relations, but it does not go far enough.

President Obama has rescinded most restrictions on family travel and remittances to Cuba.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has acknowledged the old, unbending and hostile policy toward Cuba has failed.

At the Summit of the Americas, the president talked of "a new beginning with Cuba," adding he was "prepared to have (his) administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues."

And Congress is now preparing legislation to end travel restrictions to Cuba.

The impetus for change is gathering momentum, and originates from some of the most unlikely sources.

No less a person than Jorge Mas Santos, chairman of the Cuban-American National Foundation, bemoaned the persistence of a "static, reactive" policy that "does not advance or promote the best interests of the United States or of the Cuban people."

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, insisted on the need to "re-evaluate a complex relationship marked by misunderstanding, suspicion and open hostility."

The disavowal of an untenable policy, however, does not necessarily mean the renunciation of the unrealized purpose, which has always been about toppling the Cuban government, or in Lugar's words – the more common euphemism – about "bringing democracy to the Cuban people."

Policy approaches often change, to be sure, but assumptions rarely do, and with Cuba they never do.

Obama's "new beginning" possesses a wearisome familiarity: the United States as self-appointed arbiter professing to act in behalf of the well-being of the Cuban people, to bestow upon the Cubans the liberty they are apparently unable to achieve for themselves.

In a recent interview with CNN, Obama demanded "changes in how Cuba operates that assures that political prisoners are released, that people can speak their minds freely, that they can travel, that they can write and attend church and do the things that people throughout the hemisphere can do and take for granted."

These remarks could just as easily have been uttered by William McKinley, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush.

There is a pathology at work here, of course, one profoundly inscribed in the assumption that Americans have a moral entitlement to determine Cuban needs.

With its announcement of new family travel regulations, the White House proclaimed the "promotion of democracy and human rights in Cuba is in the national interest of the United States."

Only in Cuba?

Why is it not in the national interest of the United States to promote democracy and human rights as a condition of relations with Vietnam?

Or Saudi Arabia?

Or China?

For the United States to keep using the embargo to insert itself in Cuban internal affairs makes a mockery of the very position Obama adopted at the recent Summit: "The United States' policy should not be interference in other countries."

A policy of enlightened self-interest would seek to eliminate the perception of the United States as a threat to Cuban sovereignty, thereby denying to those in Cuba who would use U.S. hostility as pretext to limit public debate and restrict political dissent.

A policy of enlightened self-interest would engage Cuba in normal political and economic interactions, and thereby contribute to the creation of space in which Cubans themselves could proceed to address their most pressing issues, on their terms, within the logic of their own history, and act accordingly.

Most importantly, a policy of enlightened self-interest would show respect for the Cuban people by acting on the premise that Cubans themselves know what is in their best interest.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Louis A. Perez Jr. is the J. Carlyle Sitterson Professor of History and director of the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His most recent book is "Cuba in the American Imagination" (UNC Press, 2008). He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

© 2009, Louis A. Perez Jr.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/commentary/story/67200.html

Americans Want Real Change in Cuba Policy

2009-04-23T08:08:00.000-07:00

Americans Favor New Approach to Cuba: Lift the Travel Ban, Establish Diplomatic Relations

A majority of Americans feel that it is time to try a new approach to Cuba, according to a national poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org. More specifically, the public favors lifting the ban on travel to Cuba for Americans and re-establishing diplomatic relations as well as other changes.

By a wide margin the American public believes that increasing trade and travel will lead Cuba to become more open and democratic rather than having the effect of strengthening the Communist regime.

These are among the findings of a new national poll of Americans on the subject of Cuba policy conducted March 25 - April 6, 2009 among 765 adults (margin of error +/- 3.7 percentage points).

Time for Changing US Policies

A majority (59%) of the American public endorses the view that it is "time to try a new approach to Cuba, because Cuba may be ready for a change". Thirty-nine percent of Americans endorsed the opposing position on this issue, that "the Communist Party is still in control; therefore the US should continue to isolate Cuba."

A clear majority of Democrats (71%) favor trying a new approach while Republicans are divided with 52 percent favoring continued isolation and 47 percent favoring a new approach. Independents are also divided (50% - new approach, 45% continued isolation).

The public, by a large majority, feels that US government leaders should be ready to meet with Cuban leaders. Overall 75 percent of those interviewed feel that US leaders should be willing to meet their Cuban counterparts; only 23 percent feel this is a bad idea. On this issue, partisan groups agree. A majority of Republicans (66%), independents (64%), and Democrats (86%) all have the view that US leaders should be ready to meet with Cuban leaders.

Travel to Cuba

The American public (70%) feels that in general Americans should be free to visit Cuba, and only a minority (28%) feels that Americans should be prohibited from visiting the island. Freedom for Americans to visit Cuba is broadly supported by Republicans (62%), by independents (66%), and by Democrats (77%). Lifting the prohibition on visiting Cuba would require a change in US policy that has been in place since 1963.

The public by a very large majority approves of this Obama Administration policy announced on March 11, 2009 which relaxed restrictions on travel to Cuba for the purpose of visiting relatives (79% approve, 19% disapprove). Republicans show substantial majority support (71%) even though the policy change is clearly linked in the question and in press treatments to the new Democratic president. Independents (70%) and Democrats (90%) by large margins also support the policy change.

Diplomatic Relations

Americans likewise favor re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba by a clear majority - 69 percent favor, only 28 percent are opposed. All partisan groups support re-establishing diplomatic relations, though Democrats do so in larger numbers (82%) than Republicans (57%) or independents (58%).

To understand trends in American opinion, the diplomatic relations question was drawn from a question used by the Gallup organization in 2002, 04, 06, and 08. Over this period, the proportion of Americans which favors re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba has increased from 55% (2002, 2004), to 67% in 2006, 61% in 2008 and currently 69%. The Program on International Policy Attitudes asked a quite similar question in 1998 and found that 56% of Americans supported re-establishing relations. Other organizations (CNN, Associated Press) have also reported that a majority of Americans support diplomatic relations with Cuba, and the trend favoring diplomatic relations seems to be increasing.

Impact of US Travel and Trade

One of the core arguments in Cuba policy is whether increasing all kinds of contact between the US and Cuba - travel, trade, diplomacy - will strengthen the Castro regime or will have a liberalizing effect on the system.

Americans feel, by wide margins, that increasing travel and trade between Cuba and the United States is more likely to have the effect of leading "Cuba in a more open and democratic direction" (71%) than to "strengthen the Communist regime in Cuba" (26%). Clear majorities of Democrats (80%), independents (69%) as well as Republicans (59%) share this view.

The public is almost evenly divided, however, when asked specifically about the desirability of continuing the US trade embargo of Cuba or ending the embargo: 48% favor continuing the embargo and 49% favor ending it. Underlying this division is majority Democratic support (58%) for ending the embargo, independents who are divided (46% end the embargo, 49% continue), and majority support for continuing the embargo on the part of Republicans (59%).

Differences between partisan Democrats and Republicans on some aspects of Cuba policy should not be surprising in that they reflect central tendencies within the parties. While Cuba policy was not one of the major issues of the 2008 presidential campaign, the platforms of the two parties, and the positions of the candidates, differed on Cuba. The Democratic platform supported unlimited family visits and remittances; the Republican platform largely reiterated the policies of the Bush Administration. Obama-Biden campaign materials and comments by Senator McCain during the campaign tended to reflect these differences and were generally consistent with their respective party platforms.

The Associated Press - IPSOS poll posed an identical question on lifting the trade embargo in 2007 and found that 40 percent of the public favored ending the embargo. The 49% support for ending the embargo in the current 2009 study is a statistically significant increase from 2007. It appears that American public opinion is trending towards support for lifting the embargo, though it is not presently a majority view.

Appraisal of the Cuban Threat and American Policy

Few Americans feel that Cuba is a very serious threat (7%) to the United States, or even a moderately serious threat (27%). The majority sees Cuba as just a slight threat (33%) or no threat at all (30%) to the US.

This assessment is common across partisan groups: 51 percent of Republicans think Cuba poses little danger to the US, labeling it as "just a slight threat" or "no threat at all" and a clear majority of independents and Democrats (both 70%) see Cuba as being either a slight threat or no threat.

To gauge the public's assessment of the impact of US Cuba policy, respondents were told, "after Fidel Castro came to power, the US ended diplomatic relations, imposed a trade embargo, and prohibited Americans from traveling to Cuba" and were asked what effect they felt these policies have had on the Castro government. Only 29 percent of Americans overall feels that these policies have weakened the Castro government. About half of all Americans (52%) say the policies "neither weakened nor strengthened" the Castro government, and another16 percent say that the policies have strengthened the government. The assessment that US policies towards Cuba have been ineffective, that is, the policies have neither weakened nor strengthened the Castro government, or that they have strengthened it, is by far the most common view across each partisan group - Republicans (63%), Democrats (70%), and independents (73%).

US policies towards Cuba, particularly the embargo and the associated Helms-Burton Act which subjects to legal action non-US companies who trade with Cuba, have provoked ill feelings and criticism in Europe and among friendly countries in the Americas. Americans are divided on whether lifting restrictions on trade and travel with Cuba will affect the image of the US. While 42 percent say that lifting such restrictions would have mainly a positive effect on America's image in the world, 46 percent say it would have neither a positive or negative effect. Only 10 percent say it would have a mainly negative effect. Democrats are more likely (57%) to say lifting these restrictions would have a mainly positive effect than independents (31%) or Republicans (29%).

Among demographic variables, the respondent's education has the largest and most consistent effect on attitudes. People with more education (a bachelor's degree or higher vs. less than a bachelor's degree) are significantly more likely to favor a new Cuba policy 77 percent with a bachelor's degree or higher support re-establishing diplomatic relations, and 65 percent with less education. Similarly, 62 percent of the most educated favor ending the trade embargo and only 44 percent do so with less education.

A similar education effect appears in the public's views that: Cuba is just a slight threat or no threat to the US (rather than a serious threat); it is time to try a new approach to Cuba; it is a good idea for US leaders to be ready to meet with Cuban leaders; Americans in general should be free to visit Cuba; increasing travel and trade will lead Cuba in a more democratic direction; relaxing restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba will have a mainly positive effect on America's image in the world. The impact of higher education on attitudes about Cuba policy is consistent and fairly robust; those with more education show greater support for change and liberalization.

Overview of Partisan Differences and Similarities on Cuba Policy

Cuba policy has been an issue where the political parties have sometimes clashed. In this study, on nearly all questions one can observe statistical differences in views between Republican and Democratic partisans. Republicans do oppose lifting the trade embargo, whereas, Democrats favor ending it. However, on most of the other issues polled concerning Cuba policy, the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats agree.

• US government leaders should be ready to meet with Cuban leaders (Republicans 66%, Democrats 86%).
• The Obama Administration's relaxation of Cuban American travel restrictions are supported (Republicans 71%, Democrats 90%).
• Americans in general should be able to visit Cuba (Republicans 62%, Democrats 77%).
• Diplomatic relations with Cuba should be re-established (Republicans 57%, Democrats 82%).
• Increased travel and trade will lead Cuba in a more open, democratic direction (Republicans 59%, Democrats 80%).
• Cuba is "just a slight threat" or "no threat at all" to the US (Republicans 51%, Democrats 70%).

While issues related to Cuba are deeply felt and polarizing for some Americans, there appears to be a broad consensus in favor of more normal relations with the island.

The findings in this study are based upon a nationwide survey conducted March 25 - April 6, 2009 among 765 American adults (margin of error +/- 3.7 percentage points). This WorldPublicOpinion.org study was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide online panel. This panel is randomly selected from the entire adult population and Internet access is provided to households that need it. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/600.php?nid=&id=&pnt=600&lb=

Cuban American Support for Obama and All Travel

2009-04-22T11:48:00.000-07:00

Posted on Wed, Apr. 22, 2009
Poll: Cuban Americans support Obama's Cuba plan
Lesley Clark
The Miami Herald
A majority of Cuban Americans support President Barack Obama and back his moves to improve relations with Cuba, according to a new poll that suggests the community's staunch support for a tough U.S. stance against the Castro government may be eroding.
The survey said 64 percent of respondents favor Obama's directive to lift all restrictions on remittances and visits by Cuban Americans to family in Cuba. Twenty-seven percent of respondents said they were opposed to the measure.
The telephone survey of 400 Cuban-American adults in Florida, New Jersey and other states was conducted in Spanish and English on April 15-16, days after Obama announced his administration would relax sanctions against Havana. The margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.
"Ten years ago, you wouldn't have seen anything near these numbers. Now it's the reality of where the community is," said Fernand Amandi, a pollster with Miami's Bendixen & Associates, a Democratic firm that did the survey. "It's unprecedented to suggest that the community for the first time is aligned with a Democratic president when it comes to Cuba policy."
Though Obama stopped far short of endorsing travel for all Americans, the poll suggests he would have support for that measure, too. The poll found that two-thirds of Cuban American adults – 67 percent – support lifting travel restrictions so that all Americans could travel to Cuba.
Obama has said he supports keeping in place the 47-year-old economic embargo against Cuba and the survey notes that the community is split on maintaining the embargo. Forty-two percent of respondents believe it should be continued, while 43 percent believe it should be scrapped.
Amandi said the poll reflects that more recent arrivals from Cuba and second- and third-generation Cuban Americans "don't necessarily share the hard-line point of view their predecessors had" and that some older exiles may be "changing their minds as well.
"There would have been tremendous opposition to any kind of loosening of sanctions six or 10 years ago," Amandi said. "This represents a 180-degree change, a realization that after 50 years nothing has been done to bring liberty to Cuba."
Mauricio Claver Carone, a leading pro-embargo lobbyist, noted, however, that the three Miami Republican members of Congress who back hard-line sanctions – and criticized Obama for lifting the remittance cap entirely – were re-elected in November even as Obama garnered an estimated 35 percent of the Cuban-American vote in South Florida.
"The Cuban-American members of Congress who are considered hard-liners outperformed both presidential candidates in South Florida in every precinct," Claver-Carone said. "Which means that there are people who voted for Barack Obama and voted for these pro-embargo stalwarts. These polls are almost nonsensical."
But the poll finds Obama with "surprisingly high ratings from Cuban Americans" – a voting block that traditionally favors Republicans. Two-thirds of Cuban American adults in the poll – 67 percent – give Obama a favorable rating, while only 20 percent gave him an unfavorable rating.
"If I were a Republican strategist, I'd look at these numbers with some trepidation," Amandi said.
The poll suggests that the number of Cuban Americans who send money to relatives in Cuba will not increase significantly – 44 percent said they already send money – but that the amount of remittances will climb.
Thirty percent of respondents said they were planning to send more than $1,000 to their family members every year and 7 percent said they'd send more than $3,000 a year.
Under the Bush administration, remittances had been capped at $300 per quarter.

Axelrod and Summers on Sunday Shows

2009-04-21T07:30:00.000-07:00

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_041909.pdf

HARRY SMITH: The President eased travel restrictions with Cuba earlier this week. Raul Castro came
back and said we want to talk. The same question again applies to Cuba. What does Cuba have to put on
the table to say we actually are interested in having in-- more normal relations or something close to
normal relations?
DAVID AXELROD: Well, as you know, Mister Castro made an interesting speech in which he said
everything was on the table--human rights, political prisoners, democracy. He also said something
interesting. He said we may not have been right about some of our assumptions, which is the first time
we’ve heard that from the Cubans.
So if all of that pans out, it’s-- it’s an encouraging development. And certainly we’re going to pursue that.
But there are certain things that they should do right away. One is we’ve now eased remittances from
families here back to Cuba. The Cuban government should stop taking thirty percent off the top of that
money when it arrives.
We’ve suggested that our cabe-- our cellular companies can begin to negotiate contracts there. The
Cuban government should receive that and act on that, because it would be positive for both-- both Cuba
and the world for there to be free flow of communications.
HARRY SMITH: Although there are-- there are European companies that have cable and cellular
contracts there. I mean, it’s not like this is--
DAVID AXELROD: (Overlapping) No, but it would make an enormous difference if this was done.
And thirdly, they ought to begin to move on the issue of political prisoners. That would be a very positive
sign.
But look, there’s no doubt that the fifty years of policy we’ve had has not been very successful in
changing the realities on the island of Cuba. And this is an encouraging week.
HARRY SMITH: Any thought in the White House now to lifting the embargo?
DAVID AXELROD: Well, we’re a long way from that. As I said, there are-- there are many steps that need
to be taken. But we-- these are encouraging signs. And we intend to pursue them.

Meet the Press

MR. GREGORY: Cuba and a potential thaw between U.S. and Cuba relations has really dominated the summit business there, even though it hasn't officially been on the agenda. This week the administration eased up some of the restrictions on travel between Cuban-Americans going back to see relatives and also the flow of money, sending money back to relatives back in Cuba. Cuba has also signaled that it's willing to have a more open dialogue with the Obama administration, and increased calls for the U.S. to lift the embargo against Cuba. This is where the politics meets the economic. Under what circumstances would President Obama lift the 47-year-old embargo?
DR. SUMMERS: That's way down the road, and it's going to depend on what Cuba did--Cuba does going forward. You know, what the president announced this week is what he's been talking about for two years. It's a set of measures that are grounded in American interests, that are grounded in morality, letting families get back together, together again. Cuba's known what it needs to do for a very long time and it's up to them in terms of their policies, their democratization, all of the steps that they can take. And we'll have to see what happens down the road.
MR. GREGORY: What is the economic case for lifting the embargo?
DR. SUMMERS: Obviously it's, it's desirable to be able to trade in as many directions as possible. But fundamentally, David, this is an issue that's going to get decided on the basis of Cuba's behavior, on the basis of the steps that they, that they choose to take or that they choose not to take in terms of their policies in this hemisphere. And it's about really whether they want to rejoin the community of nations in Latin America or not. And we'll have to see, we'll have to see what they're prepared to do. The president's decisions are really going to be grounded in what's best for the United States.

Briefings for and at the Summit

2009-04-21T07:29:00.000-07:00

April 19, 2009

BACKGROUND BRIEFING
BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
ON THE PRESIDENT'S MEETINGS WITH
PRESIDENT PREVAL OF HAITI AND PRESIDENT BACHELET OF CHILE

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You know, I would, Jeff. And I think that we had a lot of reporting in the run-up about how there would be this big clash. We didn't see that. Saw a lot of run-up about how there will be a lot of fighting over Cuba. We didn't see that. Because frankly I think the President set a tone in making clear that there are certain things that all the people represented here today hold in common, and it's the one thing -- it's one of the things that Cuba doesn’t have, namely, democracy, freedom of the press, freedom of association.
And so some of the worries that people set up didn't materialize. I think that's because the President came down with a very senior team -- not necessarily represented in this room. (Laughter.) He came down with a very robust agenda on issues that are of intense mutual interest: security, narcotics trafficking and energy and climate. So I think the President wanted to -- as he made clear in his opening statement -- look forward, not look back, not get dragged into these stale debates of the past that marked for him and for many of us social studies projects in high school, but now these are actually people's lives that are in the balance. And I think they had a very workmanlike, work-person-like summit.
Q Speaking of Cuba, was there any discussion today -- can you tell us if there was any discussion today in the SICA meeting? (Central America Immigration System)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The word was never uttered in the room.
Q Which word?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Cuba. It didn't come up in the SICA meeting at all.

April 18, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY SECRETARY OF ENERGY STEVEN CHU
AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS
DENIS McDONOUGH
ON THE SECOND AND THIRD PLENARY SESSIONS
OF THE SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS

Q Yes, Denis, still on Cuba, coming into this Chavez and some of the others were insisting there have got to be changes, we've got to talk about lifting the embargo in the final summit communiqué. Are there going to be any changes or is that going to be exactly as it was negotiated all along, as you said?
MR. McDONOUGH: I don't anticipate any further changes in the communiqué. I haven't seen the most recent draft -- I don't know if Dan has. I think it's fair to say that there's a disagreement on Cuba and the President was clear on that.
April 18, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS,
CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL LARRY SUMMERS,
AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS DENIS McDONOUGH
ON THE FIRST PLENARY SESSION OF THE SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS

Q We were told this morning, on Cuba, that the President was asked about this issue and was pressed by South American leaders to try to do more. I just wanted to see -- two quick points. Now that you've had a little bit of time to assess the developments over the last couple days, is it clear from the White House how you're viewing what Castro has said? Is this a breakthrough? Are you still in a wait-and-see mode?
MR. GIBBS: Well -- and I'll let these guys discuss what was said in the meeting -- and I'd reiterate what I said a second ago and even some yesterday on the plane.
The President believes, and believed throughout the campaign, that we should change our policy; at the same time, understanding that what some in the hemisphere and in this region want is also -- has to be up to the actions of the Cuban government.
I've said this, the President has said this throughout this trip, that if the Cuban government and people in this region desire greater freedom for the Cuban people, the Cuban government is free to take those actions. The Cuban government can release political prisoners. The Cuban government can stop taking money from remittances that -- and money that's being spent -- sent back into their country. They can do more on freedom of the press. There's a lot that the Cuban government can do to demonstrate its responsibilities and its willingness to change that relationship, as well.
I think the President is -- believed that the action that he took had to be taken and is pleased with the reaction that it's had thus far.
Q Are there any next steps for the U.S. government, though, beyond waiting to see what Cuba does on those points?
MR. GIBBS: Well, as we said earlier this week, we will continue to evaluate and watch what happens. We're anxious to see what the Cuban government is willing to step up to do. And I think the President believes that significant action has been taken, and by all accounts, Cuban Americans are planning for the first time in a while to travel back to Cuba and see friends and family that they otherwise wouldn't have been afforded to do except on a very minimal basis.
Q So the ball is still in the Cuban court?
MR. GIBBS: It always has been. It always has been. They --
Q But especially since Monday?
MR. GIBBS: Well, but even before Monday. I mean, you know, the -- you know, I can only imagine what you guys might do if the President gave a three-hour speech about -- about the care and concern for their people --
Q Is it fair to say since Monday's moves, you're looking for something reciprocal?
MR. GIBBS: But I think that -- hold on -- you know, but even before the President outlined changes in our policy related to Cuban Americans' travel and remittances, the Cuban government was and still is capable of making change.
I'm sorry, Major, what was your thing?
Q I'm saying, since Monday you're looking for more signs of reciprocation since the White House took some definitive moves toward liberalization of the relationship. It would seem natural to suspect that you would want them to take moves now in light of those actions.
MR. GIBBS: I think that's very fair to say. I think the -- I think as much as it's been a topic over the last few days, I think -- as I said earlier, actions are always going to speak louder than words regardless of how long those speeches are. And I think it's -- we're anxious to see the actions of the Cubans. As Denis and Larry said, the smiles and handshakes and the desire of one leader to say to the President that he wants to be his friend, again is a wonderful opportunity to match actions with words. And the President and others in the administration will be anxiously awaiting those new actions….
Q There was a question during the campaign about whether words matter. We're hearing very different kinds of words now from the Castro government. Does nothing change at all?
MR. GIBBS: I think the "words matter" might have been over a slightly different topic, but I'll indulge you on this instance. (Laughter.)
Q Thanks for that, and I'll indulge you in your sports analogies.
MR. GIBBS: Maybe we'll do this discussion in, oh, say, Ohio.
Q But -- so we're hearing very different rhetoric, very different kinds of words from the Castro government. Does this change nothing, though, in terms of the U.S. posture? I mean, are you saying then that nothing has changed, that you --
MR. GIBBS: No, no, I don't --
Q -- even before you wanted to see action, now you want to see action --
MR. GIBBS: Well --
Q Does this change nothing in relationships?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I -- look, I think -- I think it does -- I think we've certainly changed the relationship. I do think -- and I said this yesterday on the plane -- I think we have been and there have been instances in what was said over the past 48 hours that have struck us as a change in their rhetoric. I noted this off of a story that Raul Castro said that they were human beings and they could be wrong. That was most assuredly taken note of and discussed within our administration. We think that was a change in their rhetoric that we haven't seen in quite some time and one that certainly bears more investigation and more looking into on our side.
Do you want to add anything?
MR. McDonough: Yes, you know, I'd just say that -- as long as we're looking back a little bit -- the President has been talking about some of these steps that have been announced over the course of the last five days for two years now, and they're steps that the President has taken because he believes they are in our interest. He also believes that we ought to get out of the business of regulating contact between families, particularly after the difficult hurricanes that we saw in Cuba last fall.
The opportunity for family members to support their family members on the island in a way that gives them some of the basic, everyday needs, as the President talked about last night in the opening address, is something that he believes is a fundamental moral value, but is also something that is in our interest.
And he'll continue to evaluate the situation, the words, as Robert said, the admission that the Cuban government could be wrong. And he'll continue to evaluate that, but he'll continue to make decisions about these particular policy matters based not on what the Cuban government does or says, but based on what our interests dictate.

April 18, 2009

BACKGROUND BRIEFING
BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
ON THE PRESIDENT'S MEETING WITH UNASUR COUNTRIES

There was discussion of Cuba. This was brought up by more than one of the Latin America Presidents. There was a general appreciation for the steps that the President has announced and for his words last night. The President -- and there was some expression, as well, that these countries would like to see us go further, particularly in relation to lifting the embargo.
The President responded that he understands the importance of Cuba for Latin America. He said we are on a path of changing the nature of our relationship with that country. He said that change will not happen overnight. He is interested in dialogue but not talk for talk's sake. He said that everything that we do in relation to Cuba is informed by a real concern for democracy. And he made the point that the members of UNASUR are all democratically elected, and that democracy and the rule of law for the people of Cuba, in his view, is or should be a concern for them -- that is, the other leaders, as well….
Q Thank you, hi. I'm Laura Meckler, from The Wall Street Journal. I have two questions. One is, in his conversation about Cuba, did the President -- did President Obama at any point ask them to use their influence with the Castros to get them to make some sort of substantive move in response? And my second question is whether President Chavez was at this meeting, if there was any further interaction between he and President Obama?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: First question was, did the President ask for any specific action on the part of the other countries vis-à-vis Cuba. The answer is the President talked in general terms about how everyone in the room was democratically elected, the goal of rule of law and democracy, respect for human rights is what motivates our policy in Cuba, and that he hoped that he would have cooperation from them in this….
Q Did Obama receive any requests from any President yesterday about going a little bit quicker and further on the Cuba issue?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think it's clear that, at least speaking of this meeting this morning, that in my view -- although it was not expressed by every one of them -- but I think all of the Presidents there would like to see us move expeditiously to lift the embargo.
Q When the President was discussing the U.S. goals for Cuba and talking about how a democratic Cuba is in everybody's best interest, what was the reaction by the other South American, Latin American leaders in the room?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think he -- the question is was there a particular reaction to the President. I think at that point actually, that was -- he was responding to comments that had been made, and so that was sort of the last word on Cuba. So there wasn't a specific response to what he said….
Q Would you say that Cuba took up 50 percent -- what percentage of the session did the discussion of Cuba take up?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, I think it was one of, I don't know, maybe 20 percent --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, it was one of multiple issues. In fact, it wasn't really the focus, it's just that it did come up.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It came up, but it wasn't -- they didn't spend all their time talking about Cuba. They talked about cooperation, they talked about other issues. It was there, but it wasn't dominating. In fact, no one issue dominated.
Q Two questions. The President said and you reiterated that he came to listen, as well. So when he hears these leaders talking about lifting the embargo or moving to do it more expeditiously -- is he listening and does it affect his position, is my question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I can't speak for the President on that. I think he's laid out -- I think the best place was last night -- laid out his thinking on taking an initial step. He'd like to see the nature of the relationship change. This is going to take time. I think we have to see what kind of further steps are taken, including from Cuba, perhaps including from other countries.
Yes.
Q One of the President's talking points these days since Mexico City, but also last night, and according to what you said at the meeting this morning, is that other countries in Latin America, instead of just being upset with the U.S. for imposing the embargo need to also look at the policies that the Cuban government imposes on its people that are behind the embargo. And I'm wondering what kind of response the President got when he talked about the fact that Cuba is not a democracy, for instance.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, this question was asked earlier, and the point was that the President's comment came at the end of a point or points made about Cuba by other speakers. It was a back-and-forth. And his comment was more by way of summary, in which he said, look, what guides us is our concern for democracy; you are democracies, as well, and we think that that should be a concern for you.
Q And there was no response?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, the conversation did not go back and forth in a staccato manner. We moved on to another topic; I can't remember what it was.
Q Well, what about in other discussions that you and the --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I did not hear the brief on other discussions.
Q Did the President -- did the President give any indication of where this relationship with Cuba now stands in terms of -- we've had Castro's comments, we've had reaction from the United States. Are there now -- did the President indicate or did anyone ask what happens next? Are there meetings planned or --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, nobody asked that, and I don't have an answer for you. I think everybody realizes that we're taking some initial steps here, and let's see what happens.
Q Can you say there's a different standard for trade with Cuba than, say, with China? You say what guides us is the concern for democracy; we have enormous trade with China, but certainly they're not a democracy.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Look, our relations with the -- each country in the world are a product of our history, our domestic politics. I think if you're arguing for consistency, it's something that we strive for but don't always reach. And that's, you know, that's obviously the case. And so, no, I'm not going to enter into a philosophical discussion.
Q Well, does the embargo still have more to do with politics than with diplomacy?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I really can't tell you.
Q Come on. You could tell.
Q You actually could, yes.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I probably could. (Laughter.)
Q You're uniquely qualified to do that, I think.
Q When you say -- when you say the President wants dialogue, do you think the President might go to Cuba soon to speak with the Cubans?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. There was absolutely no discussion of that….
Q Did the discussion get past kind of microphone rhetoric -- did anybody bring an actual message from Cuba?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No….

Q And on Cuba, the President has said for some time that Cuba has to take concrete steps for the U.S. to engage more with Cuba. Does that position still stand, that Cuba has to take those additional steps or concrete steps?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Look, I think what we are is at a beginning, an initiation of a new process. The President has been clear that our goals are to see a democratic Cuba. He's also been clear that there are many issues that we have that we could discuss with Cuba -- human rights being one of them -- but there are other issues that relate to just the nature of a relationship between two countries in the same hemisphere. Migration, for instance, is a big issue that I don’t believe we've had recent talks with Cuba about.
So, no, there's no concrete benchmarks that have been laid out. What we're talking about is a process here….
Q The President has been asking for help to -- the other countries to participate in this process towards Cuba. I would like to know what kind of help can they offer. Do you expect, for example, Brazil to be a mediator, a facilitator, or what kind of support?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There is no request on the table by the President for any other country to be a mediator.
Q But when he speaks about helping, well, what does he mean?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think when he speaks about helping is the concern that we have that we live in a hemisphere of democracies, and for many of the countries, including many of the countries at the table this morning -- although he did not say it this way, I'm not putting words in the President's mouth -- they've lived through periods of dictatorship themselves and have a real understanding of what it means not to have a free press and open discussion and political parties and what have you. And that experience, perhaps, should in some way be reflected in how they deal with another dictatorship.
April 18, 2009

PRESS GAGGLE
BY
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL

Then the CARICOM brought up the issue of Cuba. The President reiterated what he had said in his remarks earlier in the evening, in terms of his interest in a new relationship with Cuba, but making clear that he's made his first step in terms of significant promotion of a new policy in terms of the lifting of restrictions on remittances and travel of Cuban Americans that you're very familiar with by now. And that now what we need to see is change coming from the other side.

April 17, 2009

PRESS GAGGLE BY
A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL

Q Following up on that, almost every speaker aside from the President called on the U.S. to stop its embargo of Cuba. And I know you've -- all of you have said in the last few days you'd like this summit not to be about Cuba. Is it, though, by way of what the leaders have already said?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You know, I think it's just started, obviously, and as I said I think the President believes that this is a very good opportunity to get to take advantage of all these heads of state and heads of government in one -- one location. And they have an awful lot of work to do.
And, Jeff, I think the President made very clear that we hope to see a new day in relations with Cuba. He reiterated what he has said in the past -- namely, that he believes and is very much open to his administration engaging with the Cubans, or with Cuba, on a variety of issues, and he enunciated that tonight.

April 17, 2009

PRESS GAGGLE
BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
Aboard Air Force One
En Route Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago
Q What's the reaction to the comments that Raul Castro made last night?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think -- I think the strongest reaction that we've all had is the admission by Castro that they might well have been wrong. I think we were particularly struck by that.
But I think you guys have all heard the President talk, and the American people have all heard the President talk about this notion of a greater engagement of the Cuban people at a time and place of our choosing if that engagement could further our national interest.
He took some concrete steps, probably the first and most decisive steps in the past two decades to change our policy with Cuba during the past week by lifting travel restrictions for Cuban Americans and lifting restrictions for remittances. And I think he is -- that was keeping a campaign promise to change the policy -- to begin to change the policy with Cuba.
So -- and I think -- I mean, largely, I just don't think that this notion of engagement is anything that's a surprise to us because it's something that we've talked about.
Q Where does it go from here, based on any reaction to what he said? Does it change the state of play at all?
MR. GIBBS: Well, as I said last night, I still believe -- and as you heard the President say last night -- there are actions that the Cuban government can take beyond wanting to have any dialogue with the American government. They're certainly free to release political prisoners. They're certainly free to stop skimming money off the top of remittance payments as they come back to the Cuban island. They're free to institute a greater freedom of the press. There are a number of things that they're -- that they can and, we believe, should do to bring greater freedom to the Cuban people. And the President will address some of -- Cuba in his remarks tonight during the opening ceremony.
Q Robert, Castro said we have sent word to the U.S. government in private and in public that we're willing to discuss everything -- human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners -- everything. Two questions on that, following up what Peter said. Simply put, does President Obama believe him? Does he take Castro at his word?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think the rephrasing of the question changes my answer. Again, I think we were most struck by a few statements later saying they're human beings; they could have been wrong. That certainly stood out and struck us. But greater engagement at a time and place of our choosing has been something that the President has talked about for almost two years.
Q The President spoke yesterday about wanting to see signals from Cuba. Does this count, that kind of word?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we sent a signal earlier this week about our desire to change the policy. It was more than just talking for talking sake. It was change in relating the way Cuban Americans are able to travel and send money to their family and friends in Cuba. As I said yesterday, and as the President said, there are some concrete actions that the Cuban government can and should take, as well.
Q One other on this. When he says he's been communicating -- Cuba has been communicating in public and private, can you explain that at all -- how the two nations have been communicating?
MR. GIBBS: Occasionally the Cuban government gives lengthy speeches. I don't have any information on private communications….
Q One more question about Cuba. The President's remarks tonight -- are they in response to Raul Castro's remarks of last night -- were they written before?
MR. GIBBS: The bulk of the speech was. I'll check and see if anything has changed as a result of that. But the steps that the President had desired to take on Cuba had been out there for quite some time.
Q How did the President find out about Raul Castro's comments?
MR. GIBBS: I don't know who did; I'm sure somebody just showed him one of the stories.
Q Thank you.
Q Robert, does the President think the trade embargo has been -- has served its purpose?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there's -- you could certainly debate the effect of the embargo, and I think the President is less concerned with the debate about the past and more concerned about how we move forward in our relationship. But, Mark, again, I would -- this is not a one-way street; this is a very busy two-way thoroughfare. And the steps that can be taken by one country can also be matched or met by steps taken by another country.
So this is -- this is a responsibility that each government has to its people and to the greater world community. And we hope that each nation is willing to understand those responsibilities and act on them.

Friday, April 17, 2009
PRESS BRIEFING TO
PREVIEW THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO THE SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
BY
JEFFREY DAVIDOW, DIRECTOR, SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS;
DAN RESTREPO, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS;
DENIS McDONOUGH, DEUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS;
AND ROBERT GIBBS, PRESS SECRETARY

Q We were told that President Obama spoke with Lula, the President of Brazil, today. Do we know what they talked about? The Brazilians are saying that they talked about Cuba. What else?
MR. RESTREPO: President Obama had a conversation with President Lula of Brazil today where they talked about the Summit of the Americas, on issues that may arise at that summit, and the need to work together to ensure that the summit remains focused on a positive agenda, a common agenda on these issues that are of paramount importance to the people of the Americas.
They had a lengthy conversation that touched on a host of issues -- I'm not going to go into great detail -- but the thrust of the conversation that they had was on how do we make sure that the summit engages pragmatically on the issues facing the people of the Americas today and how can we work towards forming effective partnerships on a host of issues to start the hard work of making progress on, again, the economic -- dealing with the economic crisis, on energy and climate future, and on issues related to citizens' safety.
Q Can I follow up on that? Who initiated the phone call?
MR. GIBBS: I think we did….
Q Are you guys worried that Cuba could overshadow or hijack the agenda?
MR. RESTREPO: No. I think we're -- we -- sorry -- I think the issues that face the Americas today, particularly the economic crisis and the effects of the economic crisis, are going to be the principal concern of the vast majority of the countries and leaders who come to the summit, will be the principal focus of the conversations -- in addition to those that are the summit topics, the original themes of the summit, obviously set before the economic crisis. So I think the real focus -- as evidenced by Vice President Biden's trip, Secretary Clinton's to the Americas, Secretary Clinton's trip here and other places in the Americas today -- people are focused on how do we deal with the economic crisis, how do we ensure that Latin America doesn't end up in another lost decade, and how to ensure that the economic growth that comes from recovery here reaches all levels of society. We're confident that that's going to be the principal issue of discussion at the summit. Other issues will be discussed, but I think the primary focus will be on the challenges that face the region today.
MR. GIBBS: And Chuck, let me -- I assume you've seen a transcript of what the President -- the President was asked about this -- the administration promised and took decisive action, making considerable changes in travel and remittance policy for Cuban Americans as it relates to Cuba. If there's going to be discussion about next steps, I think as the President said, the ball, so to speak, is probably in a different court.
If there are those that are serious about openness and freedom and any other concerns that might be enumerated by other leaders that attend this summit -- seeing an increased freedom of the press; seeing a release of political prisoners; as Dan and I talked about the other day in announcing the policy, seeing the Cuban government walk away from taking a hefty portion of remittances that do come back to the island; allowing citizens to travel, as the President said.
We'd be interested to know what the leaders in Cuba and what leaders that might be coming to the summit with that issue on their mind, what they're willing to do and talk about with those in order to demonstrate that there's a willingness to see something happen on the other side. I think that could actually produce something that's worthwhile as well….

Q Robert, back on Cuba. Just to pick up on what you said, the ball being in someone else's court. I just want to make sure I understand -- in Trinidad-Tobago will the President say his administration is not going to make any more moves regarding liberalization of relationships with Cuba until there are definitive actions by the Cuban government on the things you've outlined, and that no amount of pressure or jawboning or complaining; and the advocates who will be there speaking on behalf of the Cuban government could change that policy?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I'll do this, then I'll have Dan do this, as well. The administration and the President have taken significant steps. We certainly continually evaluate the foreign policy of the United States. I think the President was pretty clear in the campaign about the steps for further action that needed to happen in order for us to believe that there was a seriousness on both sides about a different sort of relationship.
Again, I think the steps that the President took -- I don't want to minimize the steps that he took in this process, and I think, again, you know, we talked a little bit about, in the announcement, opening up of communications, including satellite television. To use my "ball in the court" analogy, if the government in Cuba -- I don't know why the government in Cuba would feel threatened by the free flow of information from other countries to their citizens. I don't think it would threaten the Cuban government for somebody in Cuba to be able to watch one of its pitchers throw a baseball game.
And I think if -- I've finally worked my baseball analogy into a serious policy answer. I'm altogether fairly pleased about that. (Laughter.) But, again, I think that we will see and judge the seriousness of this versus the rhetoric of this based not simply on the actions that we've already taken but by the actions that others can and, we believe, should undertake….
Q Can I follow on that. The President, Hugo Chavez, say that he would veto the declaration of the summit because it made no mention of the exclusion of Cuba from the summit. How serious do you consider that threat to be?
AMBASSADOR DAVIDOW: The declaration of the summit is a document, a fairly lengthy document that's been negotiated for the last nine months by all 34 countries, including Venezuela. It's been a laborious process of negotiation. Many of Venezuela's points were accepted, as were the points of the United States and other countries.
This decision to -- as announced -- to not sign the document is something that just came up in the last day or so, and is inconsistent with the negotiations that have been going on for almost a year.
Q Can I just follow-up on that specific point -- it's just that Nicaragua and Bolivia have also said that -- because the document doesn’t talk about the lifting of the embargo, that they wouldn't sign.
MR. McDONOUGH: As Ambassador Davidow was saying, the declaration process -- these declarations on some occasions have been signed by the member states at the summit, and other occasions they have not been signed by the member states as a group.

Obama Opening Statement and Press Conference at Summit

2009-04-21T07:26:00.000-07:00

April 17, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
OPENING CEREMONY

And we've heard all these arguments before, these debates that would have us make a false choice between rigid, state-run economies or unbridled and unregulated capitalism; between blame for right-wing paramilitaries or left-wing insurgents; between sticking to inflexible policies with regard to Cuba or denying the full human rights that are owed to the Cuban people….
…There's been several remarks directed at the issue of the relationship between the United States and Cuba, so let me address this. The United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba. I know that there is a longer -- (applause) -- I know there's a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day. I've already changed a Cuba policy that I believe has failed to advance liberty or opportunity for the Cuban people. We will now allow Cuban Americans to visit the islands whenever they choose and provide resources to their families -- the same way that so many people in my country send money back to their families in your countries to pay for everyday needs.
Over the past two years, I've indicated, and I repeat today, that I'm prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues -- from drugs, migration, and economic issues, to human rights, free speech, and democratic reform. Now, let me be clear, I'm not interested in talking just for the sake of talking. But I do believe that we can move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new direction.
As has already been noted, and I think my presence here indicates, the United States has changed over time. (Applause.) It has not always been easy, but it has changed. And so I think it's important to remind my fellow leaders that it's not just the United States that has to change. All of us have responsibilities to look towards the future. (Applause.)
I think it's important to recognize, given historic suspicions, that the United States' policy should not be interference in other countries, but that also means that we can't blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere.

April 19, 2009

PRESS CONFERENCE
BY THE PRESIDENT

This summit has been held at a time of great challenge and great opportunity for the United States and the Americas. The consequences of a historic economic crisis are being felt across the hemisphere, putting new pressure on peoples and governments that are already strained. Migration to and from each of our nations has serious implications for all nations. The safety and security of our citizens is endangered by drug trafficking, lawlessness and a host of other threats. Our energy challenge offers us a chance to unleash our joint economic potential, enhance our security and protect our planet. And too many citizens are being denied dignity and opportunity and a chance to live out their dreams in Cuba and all across the hemisphere.
These are some of the issues I discussed here in Trinidad and Tobago with leaders like President Garcia of Peru, President Bachelet of Chile, President Uribe of Colombia, President Preval of Haiti, and Prime Minister Harper of Canada. The subject of many of these meetings and conversations has been launching a new era of partnership between our nations. Over the past few days, we've seen potential positive signs in the nature of the relationship between the United States, Cuba and Venezuela. But as I’ve said before, the test for all of us is not simply words, but also deeds. I do believe that the signals sent so far provide at least an opportunity for frank dialogue on a range of issues, including critical areas of democracy and human rights throughout the hemisphere.
I do not see eye to eye with every regional leader on every regional issue. And I do not agree with everything that was said at this summit by leaders from other nations. But what we showed here is that we can make progress when we're willing to break free from some of the stale debates and old ideologies that have dominated and distorted the debate in this hemisphere for far too long. We showed that while we have our differences, we can -- and must -- work together in areas where we have mutual interests, and where we disagree we can disagree respectfully. We showed that there are no senior or junior partners in the Americas; we're simply partners, committed to advancing a common agenda and overcoming common challenges….

But I firmly believe that if we're willing to break free from the arguments and ideologies of an earlier era and continue to act, as we have at this summit, with a sense of mutual responsibility and mutual respect and mutual interest, then each of our nations can come out of this challenging period stronger and more prosperous, and we can advance opportunity, equality, and security across the Americas….
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said during the summit that you were here not to debate the past. You also said we must learn from our history. You just referred to this history. What have you learned over two days of listening to leaders here about how U.S. policy is perceived in the region? And can you name a specific policy that you will change as a result of what you've heard?
THE PRESIDENT:
…One thing that I thought was interesting -- and I knew this in a more abstract way but it was interesting in very specific terms -- hearing from these leaders who when they spoke about Cuba talked very specifically about the thousands of doctors from Cuba that are dispersed all throughout the region, and upon which many of these countries heavily depend. And it's a reminder for us in the United States that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence and have -- have a beneficial effect when we need to try to move policies that are of concern to us forward in the region.
And I think that's why it's so important that in our interactions not just here in the hemisphere but around the world, that we recognize that our military power is just one arm of our power, and that we have to use our diplomatic and development aid in more intelligent ways so that people can see very practical, concrete improvements in the lives of ordinary persons as a consequence of U.S. foreign policy….
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You've heard from a lot of Latin America leaders here who want the U.S. to lift the embargo against Cuba. You've said that you think it's an important leverage to not lift it. But in 2004, you did support lifting the embargo. You said, it's failed to provide the source of raising standards of living, it's squeezed the innocent, and it's time for us to acknowledge that this particular policy has failed. I'm wondering, what made you change your mind about the embargo?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, 2004, that seems just eons ago. What was I doing in 2004?
Q Running for Senate.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it while -- I was running for Senate. There you go. Look, what I said and what I think my entire administration has acknowledged is, is that the policy that we've had in place for 50 years hasn’t worked the way we want it to. The Cuban people are not free. And that's our lodestone, our North Star, when it come to our policy in Cuba.
It is my belief that we're not going to change that policy overnight, and the steps that we took I think were constructive in sending a signal that we'd like to see a transformation. But I am persuaded that it is important to send a signal that issues of political prisoners, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy -- that those continue to be important, that they're not simply something to be brushed aside.
What was remarkable about the summit was that every leader who was participating was democratically elected. We might not be happy with the results of some elections; we might be happier with others; we might disagree with some of the leaders, but they all were conferred the legitimacy of a country speaking through democratic channels. And that is not yet there in Cuba.
Now, I think that as a starting point, it's important for us not to think that completely ignoring Cuba is somehow going to change policy, and the fact that you had Raul Castro say he's willing to have his government discuss with ours not just issues of lifting the embargo, but issues of human rights, political prisoners, that's a sign of progress.
And so we're going to explore and see if we can make some further steps. There are some things that the Cuban government could do. They could release political prisoners. They could reduce charges on remittances to match up with the policies that we have put in place to allow Cuban American families to send remittances. It turns out that Cuba charges an awful lot, they take a lot off the top. That would be an example of cooperation where both governments are working to help Cuban families and raise standards of living in Cuba.
So there are going to be some ways that the Cuban government I think can send some signals that they're serious about pursuing change. And I'm hopeful that over time the overwhelming trend in the hemisphere will occur in Cuba, as well. And I think that all of the governments here were encouraged by the fact that we had taken some first steps. Many of them want us to go further, but they at least see that we are not dug in into policies that were formulated before I was born….

More Positive Indicators from the Summit

2009-04-17T12:49:00.000-07:00

OAS, US warm up to Cuba after Raul Castro overture

By VIVIAN SEQUERA – 35 minutes ago

PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad (AP) — The head of the Organization of American States said Friday that he will ask its members to readmit Cuba 47 years after they ousted the communist nation. And in another step toward improving relations, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Cuban President Raul Castro's latest comments a "very welcome gesture."

After a series of overtures by U.S. President Barack Obama, Castro said Thursday that he is ready to talk with the U.S. and put "everything" on the table, even questions of human rights and political prisoners.

That prompted a warm response from Clinton: "We welcome his comments, the overture they represent and we are taking a very serious look at how we intend to respond."

As leaders of 34 nations converged on Trinidad for the Summit of the Americas — an OAS-sponsored gathering that includes every nation in the region but communist Cuba — expectations were soaring for a thaw in U.S.-Cuba relations that have been largely frozen since the Cold War.

Things seemed to be moving quickly. Obama and Clinton had earlier said that Havana needs to reciprocate after Obama's "good faith" gesture of removing restrictions on some American money and travel to Cuba. But Raul Castro's conciliatory response seemed to be enough to move things forward even without a more concrete move on U.S. sticking points.

"We're going step by step," OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza said, explaining that he will ask the group's general assembly in May to annul the 1962 resolution that suspended Cuba.

Other leaders arriving in Trinidad also offered to help. Jamaica's prime minister, Bruce Golding, said the 15-member Caribbean Community is willing to mediate any Cuba-U.S. talks on easing tensions and lifting the decades-old American trade embargo against Cuba.

Golding told The Associated Press that Caricom leaders also agreed to not push Obama too hard on the issue during the summit.

"I'm hoping that nothing is done that will make the process more difficult and that we seek to encourage further progress rather than cause the situation once again to become polarized and intractable," he said.

Washington provides more than 70 percent of the OAS budget, which affords it certain privileges. And for 47 years, the Washington-based organization has officially considered Cuba's communist system to be incompatible with its principles.

But there is a growing clamor in the region to end efforts to isolate Cuba, not just from Raul and Fidel Castro's close friends, but also from conservative U.S. allies like Mexico.

Raul Castro spoke Thursday at a meeting of leftist leaders in Venezuela who vowed to represent Cuba's interests in Trinidad. Vehemently defending his government's resistance to the U.S., he said "the OAS should disappear" and that Cuba would never want to join the organization he called a tool of the U.S.

"The North Sea will unite with the South Seas, a serpent will be born from an eagle's egg before Cuba joins the OAS," Castro said.

Inzulza said Castro's feelings are only natural: "If my country were suspended from an organization for nearly 50 years I'd be very upset."

Castro's other comments about negotiating with the U.S. represented the most conciliatory language that either Castro brother has used with any U.S. administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower in early 1961, when the nations broke off relations.

Raul Castro has previously said he would be willing to discuss all issues with Obama. But Cuban officials have historically bristled at including human rights or political prisoners in the talks, saying such matters are none of the Yankees' business.

Now, he even suggested that "many other things" could be up for discussion. "We could be wrong, we admit it. We're human beings," Castro said. "We're willing to sit down to talk as it should be done, whenever."

Castro said his only conditions are that Washington treat his government as an equal, and respect "the Cuban people's right to self-determination."

Most Cubans, however, likely heard little about these overtures, unless they watched TV using illegal satellite hookups.

The Communist Party newspaper Granma on Friday did not carry Castro's comments about the U.S., focusing instead on his talks on regional matters with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other Latin American leaders. Granma also ignored Obama's statements about Cuba, and dealt instead with Mexican President Felipe Calderon's call to drop the embargo.

And Fidel Castro, who still pens enormously influential columns from the sidelines of power, was silent on Friday.

Obama said a relationship frozen for 50 years "won't thaw overnight." But their words seemed as historic as any that leaders of the two nations have made to one another.

Relations warmed briefly during Jimmy Carter's administration, adding direct flights between Miami and Havana and opening interests sections in lieu of embassies in each country. But that honeymoon soon ended with a refugee crisis when 125,000 Cubans fled to the United States from the Mariel port west of Havana in 1980.

Warming relations under Bill Clinton were put in the freezer after Cuban fighter jets shot down two civilian planes off the island's coast in 1996, killing the four exiles aboard.

Obama said he acted in good faith to lift restrictions on visits and money sent by Americans with families on the island — steps he called "extraordinarily significant" for the families. But he ruled out a unilateral end to the embargo, even as Clinton said Friday that "we vew the present policy as having failed."

No one should expect a sudden, major breakthrough in U.S.-Cuba relations, but these latest developments should not be lightly dismissed, said Peter DeShazo, a Latin America expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former U.S. diplomat.

"These are very preliminary steps," he said in a telephone interview in Washington. "But they are significant" not only as symbolic gestures of good will but also as building blocks of a foundation for a new relationship.

Associated Press writers Christopher Toothaker in Cumana, Venezuela, Frank Bajak and Bert Wilkinson in Trinidad; and Anita Snow in Havana and Robert Burns in Washington contributed to this report.

AP Story on Dramatic Obama and Castro Statements

2009-04-17T09:52:00.000-07:00

US, Cuban presidents open door for new relations

By BEN FELLER Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press
April 16, 2009

MEXICO CITY — The new presidents of the United States and Cuba, in a surprisingly direct exchange, appeared to open the door Thursday for negotiations toward a new relationship between the two countries divided by 90 miles of water and 50 years of cold war.

After removing some of the restrictions that lock Americans and their money out of Cuba in what he called a show of good faith, Barack Obama said Thursday that it was up to Havana to take the next step.

Within hours, Raul Castro replied from a summit in Venezuela: "We have sent word to the U.S. government in private and in public that we are willing to discuss everything — human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners, everything."

That was the boldest and most conciliatory language Castro or his brother Fidel — who handed him the presidency a year ago after falling ill — have used with any U.S. administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower in early 1961, when the nations broke off relations. It appeared to be a transcendent development, the best opportunity for talks in a half-century.

Raul Castro has previously said he would be willing to discuss all issues with Obama. But Cuban officials have historically bristled at the suggestion that they might discuss human rights or political prisoners with the Americans, saying such matters are none of the Yankees' business.

Talking about the issues, of course, is no guarantee that Cuba is ready to offer the reciprocity Obama says the U.S. needs to see before making any more changes in its policies toward the island. And Fidel Castro, who still pens enormously influential columns from the sidelines of power, could still throw a bucket of cold water on the conciliation.

Indeed, Obama said a relationship frozen for 50 years "won't thaw overnight."

But their words seemed as historic as any that leaders of the two nations have made to one another.

Relations warmed briefly during Jimmy Carter's administration, which featured short-lived direct flights between Miami and Havana and the opening of interests sections that provide some contact in lieu of embassies. But that short honeymoon ended with a refugee crisis that saw about 125,000 Cubans flee to the United States from the Mariel port west of Havana.

Warming relations under Bill Clinton also were put in the freezer after Cuban fighter jets shot down two civilian planes off the island's coast, killing the four exiles aboard.

Raul Castro said his only conditions for talks now are that Washington treat them as a conversation between equals and respect "the Cuban people's right to self-determination."

Earlier this week, Obama lifted restrictions on visits and money sent to Cuba by Americans with families there — steps he called "extraordinarily significant" for those families.

On a visit to Mexico City, Obama said Cuba needs to reciprocate to his overtures with actions "grounded in respect for human rights," possibly including lifting its own restrictions on Cubans' ability to travel and to voice their opinions.

President Castro did not mention Obama's comments specifically — and stopped short of promising any action.

"We're willing to sit down to talk as it should be done, whenever," he said, while also condemning decades of efforts by Washington to undermine the Cuban government. "What's going on is that now ... whoever says anything, they immediately start (talking about) democracy, freedom, prisoners."

Both leaders signaled that deep problems remain in their relationship.

Obama said the U.S. won't unilaterally end its trade embargo against Cuba, even though the policy is widely seen as a failure that has complicated U.S. relations throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

Castro called for the release of five Cubans imprisoned in the U.S. after being convicted of espionage, and denounced U.S. funding for opponents of his government.

"I'm confirming it here today: If they want the freedom of those political prisoners, who include some confessed terrorists ... free our prisoners and we'll send them to you with their families and whatever they want," he said.

Obama spoke at a news conference after meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who called the U.S. embargo a failed strategy. Asked what the U.S. should do on Cuba to improve its image across Latin America, Calderon said "we do not believe that the embargo or the isolation of Cuba is a good measure for things to change."

Before Obama spoke, a similar message was sent by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on a visit to Haiti.

"We stand ready to discuss with Cuba additional steps that could be taken," she said. "But we do expect Cuba to reciprocate."

"We would like to see Cuba open up its society, release political prisoners, open up to outside opinions and media, have the kind of society that we all know that would improve the opportunities for the Cuban people and for their nation," she said.

Castro spoke at a meeting of leftist leaders in the seaside Venezuelan city of Cumana, in advance of the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad, where Obama and most leaders of the Americas will meet beginning Friday.

Castro is not invited because his country is not democratic — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called the U.S. position a "show of disrespect."

___

Associated Press writers Jonathan M. Katz in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Christopher Toothaker in Cumana, Venezuela, and Anita Snow in Havana contributed to this report.

Cuba Dialogue at Obama Calderon Press Conference

2009-04-17T09:17:00.000-07:00

President Obama, you said in an op-ed that was out today that your new Cuba policy was part of an effort to move beyond the frozen disputes of the 20th century. Why then is it so limited? Why not open the door for all Americans to visit Cuba? And what will you say to your colleagues at the Summit of the Americas who want you to do more?

And, President Calderon, what do you think the United States should do more on Cuba in order to improve relations with the region? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think that we should dismiss the significance of the step that we took. We eliminated
remittance restrictions and travel restrictions for Cuban Americans who have family members in Cuba. For those families, this is extraordinarily significant. For the people in Cuba who will benefit from their family members being able to provide them help and to visit them, it's extraordinarily significant. We took steps on
telecommunications that can potentially open up greater lines of communication between Cuba and the United States.

And so I think what you saw was a good-faith effort, a show of good faith on the part of the United States that we want to recast our
relationship. Now, a relationship that effectively has been frozen for 50 years is not going to thaw overnight. And so having taken the first step, I think it's very much in our interest to see whether Cuba is also ready to change. We don't expect them to change overnight. That would be unrealistic. But we do expect that Cuba will send signals that they're interested in liberalizing in such a way that not only do U.S.-Cuban relations improve, but so that the energy and creativity and initiative of the Cuban people can potentially be
released.

We talk about the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba, but there's not much discussion of the ban on Cuban people traveling elsewhere and the severe restrictions that they're under. I make that point only to suggest that there are a range of steps that could be taken on the part of the Cuban government that would start to show that they want
to move beyond the patterns of the last 50 years.

I'm optimistic that progress can be made if there is a spirit that is looking forward rather than backward. My guidepost in U.S.-Cuba policy is going to be how can we encourage Cuba to be respectful of the rights of its people: political speech and political participation, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of travel. But, as I said before, I don't expect things to change overnight. What I do insist on is that U.S.-Cuban relationships are grounded with a respect not only for the traditions of each countrybut also respect for human rights and the people's -- the needs of the people of Cuba.

And so I hope that the signal I've sent here is, is that we are not trying to be heavy-handed. We want to be open to engagement. But we're going to do so in a systematic way that keeps focus on the hardships and struggles that many Cubans are still going through.

PRESIDENT CALDERON: I would not pretend to give advice or suggestions to President Obama on this matter or any other. Let me just say what I personally believe -- or rather what I believe about the Cuban reality. The question that has to be posed rather is whether the U.S. embargo on Cuba has worked. The reality is that the embargo has been there long before we were even born, and yet things have not changed
all that much in Cuba. I think we would have to ask ourselves whether that isn't enough time to realize that it has been a strategy that has not been very useful to achieve change in Cuba.

I do think -- I share fully the idea we do not believe that the embargo or the isolation of Cuba is a good measure for things to change in Cuba. On the contrary; the reality that we see there is that the reality has not changed. And it's because of internal factors, mostly, of course, but also because of external reasons,such as the embargo. Because of that, the Cubans have become impoverished.

I greet -- I welcome the measures that President Obama has taken in order to change this attitude, and to try to attempt -- and the attempt must be appreciated -- to change the policy towards Cuba little by little. But what is clear to me is that we both share the same ideals. I think we would both like to see the world living at
some point under a full democracy, a world with full respect for human rights, with no exceptions whatsoever. We would like to see a world working with people being able to take care of their families, to live in peace, and those principles that must protect humanity. That we do share.

We also share the idea that each nation must be respected in its own decisions. It's like we were saying a moment ago when we were talking about the prohibition of assault weapons. Of course, we do not want those weapons to be out in the streets, but at the same time we want those decisions to come from the people themselves and to be self-determinant. And it's the same for Cuba. But I believe that the
steps President Obama has taken are very positive.

Mexico is a good friend of Cuba, and Mexico is also a good friend of the United States. We want to be a good friend of Cuba and of the United States. We want both things. And we know that one day, the day that these principles we believe in prevail, that day we will be able to be neighbors, the three of us -- the United States, Cuba and Mexico.

What are the principles we believe in? Democracy, human rights, but also liberty, property, trade, free trade, free economy. And I think as long as those principles can function and bring benefits to the Cuban economy, then things can begin to change. We cannot change anything that has already taken place in the past, but I am certain that as heads of state, we can do a lot to try to make a different
future, both for the world, both for our countries, and also in relation to Cuba.

I told President Obama that the best of luck in this panorama that is now so totally different from what U.S. policy has been in the past. I hope for the best, and I hope that more expeditious steps could be taken so that we can move forward in this regard, and that everything will be done with good understanding. And as Mexico can contribute in any way for two of our friends to work out what they have between themselves, I hope that we can contribute. And if our best contribution is just to maintain our respect, that is fine.

=================================================================
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Mexico City, Mexico)

Detroit Free Press Lauds Obama's Mature Policy

2009-04-16T20:41:00.000-07:00

White House sets more mature policy on Cuba

Detroit Free Press Editorial

April 16, 2009

Nobody is leaping to any hasty conclusions, but it looks as though the Obama administration is ready to concede that Washington's trade embargo against Cuba, imposed half a century ago in an effort to force a young upstart named Fidel Castro from power, has been a spectacular bust.

In what those on both sides of the Florida Straits acknowledged as the most significant change in Cuban-American relations since the Kennedy administration, the White House this week relaxed restrictions on Cuban exiles' ability to visit and send money to family members on the island. Under a new executive order, Cuban Americans will be able to visit as often as they like and send as much money as they want to any Cuban who is not a senior government or Communist Party official.

The order disappointed Latin American leaders who would like the United States to normalize trade relations with Cuba and its leader, Raul Castro, but it also signals an unmistakable retreat from Cold War policies that likely did more to inhibit Cuba's democratic movement than Fidel Castro's Communist Party.

In an age when the United States enjoys robust commerce with China, Syria and Iran, among others, the Cuban trade embargo is a glaring anachronism. So is the travel ban that forbids Americans not born in Cuba from traveling to the island. The House and Senate are considering legislation that would end travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens, a welcome sign that Congress, too, is warming to a more grown-up strategy of engagement.

The impulse to isolate Cuba has always betrayed a curious and unwarranted lack of confidence in the power of example. There is every reason to believe that increasing Cuba's exposure to American products, American currency and Americans themselves would strengthen the island's democratic impulse, and no reason to fear that normalization would confer legitimacy on a regime that has been enjoying all the legitimacy it needs for five decades.

Now that President Barack Obama has finally nudged the door to normalized relations open, there's less than ever to be gained by lingering outside.

Latin American and Caribbean Expectations on Cuba

2009-04-14T04:10:00.000-07:00

Latin Leaders Will Push Obama to End Cuban Embargo at Summit

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a0_zyWMi297I&refer=uk

April 13 (Bloomberg) -- When Barack Obama arrives at the fifth Summit of the Americas this week, Cuba will be at the heart of the U.S. relationship with the rest of the hemisphere, exactly as it has been for half a century.

While Latin American leaders split on many issues, they agree that Obama should lift the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. From Venezuelan socialist Hugo Chavez to Mexico’s pro- business Felipe Calderon, leaders view a change in policy toward Cuba as a starting point for reviving U.S. relations with the region, which are at their lowest point in two decades.

Obama, born six months before President John F. Kennedy imposed the embargo, isn’t prepared to support ending it. Instead, he will likely try to satisfy the leaders at the April 17-19 summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, with less ambitious steps -- such as repealing restrictions on family visits and remittances to Cuba that were imposed by former President George W. Bush.

That would mesh with his stated goal of changing the perception of “U.S. arrogance” that he attributed to his predecessor in his sole policy speech on the region last May.

“All of Latin America and the Caribbean are awaiting a change in policy toward Cuba,” Jose Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Washington-based Organization of American States, said in an interview. “They value what Obama has promised, but they want more.”

White House Statement and Briefing on Family Travel

2009-04-13T20:14:00.000-07:00

The text of the White House Statement on family travel can be found here:

The intellectually dubious reasons for taking a morally proper action can be found in the White House press briefing below.

April 13, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

AND DAN RESTREPO, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
AND SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS

MR. GIBBS: Before we do our regularly scheduled program, I’ve got a short announcement. And I am joined for the bilingual portion of this announcement by Dan Restrepo, a Special Assistant to the President and a Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council.

Today, President Obama has directed that a series of steps be taken to reach out to the Cuban people to support their desire to enjoy basic human rights and to freely determine their country’s future. The President has directed the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Commerce to carry out the actions necessary to lift all restrictions on the ability of individuals to visit family members in Cuba, and to send them remittances. He’s further directed that steps be taken to enable the freer flow of information among the Cuban people and between those in Cuba and the rest of the world, as well as to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian items directly to the Cuban people.

In taking these steps to help bridge the gap among divided Cuban families and to promote the increased flow of information and humanitarian items to the Cuban people, President Obama is working to fulfill the goals he identified both during his presidential campaign and since taking office.

All who embrace core democratic values long for a Cuba that respects the basic human, political and economic rights of all of its citizens. President Obama believes the measure he has taken today will help make that goal a reality. He encourages all who share it to continue their steadfast support for the Cuban people.

MR. RESTREPO: Thanks, Robert. (Speaking Spanish.)

MR. GIBBS: And while we have Dan here, if there are some specific questions on this we’ll be happy to take them.

Q Is this a first step toward diplomatic recognition?

MR. RESTREPO: This is a step to extend a hand to the Cuban people in support of their desire to determine their own future. It’s very important to help open up space so the Cuban people can work on the kind of grassroots democracy that is necessary to move Cuba to a better future. The President promised this during the campaign and he is making good on that promise today to extend his hand to the Cuban people, to ensure that they have more independence from the regime and the ability to start working down the path that we all want to see them succeed on.

Q Does it mean between the two countries that you have diplomatic relations?

MR. RESTREPO: This is reaching out to the Cuban people.

Q So the answer is what?

MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry, what was the --

Q I'm trying to find out if there's a movement towards the two countries getting together and having a diplomatic recognition.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think in many ways that depends on the actions of the Cuban government. The action that the President took today is one that allows -- one that allows families to visit families, one that allows families to send back some of their hard-earned money to help their family members. And I think maybe the best way to sum this up is the way the President summed this up last year -- to say that there are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. He said, and I quote, "It's time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent on the Castro regime."

Q Would the President like to see an improvement of relations, where you actually have some sort of --

MR. GIBBS: The President would like to see greater freedom for the Cuban people. There are actions that he can and has taken today to open up the flow of information to provide some important steps to help that. But he's not the only person in this equation.

Q Robert, several Republicans from Florida are charging today this is a mistake because they think it's going to -- they're claiming that it will mean something like hundreds of millions of dollars in money that winds up in the hands of the dictatorship. How do you answer that charge? And is there a way that you can specifically structure this so that you make it more likely that the money that gets -- actually get in the hands of the Cuban people and not the dictatorship?

MR. RESTRETO: There's two answers. One is that we think the positive benefits here will way outweigh any negative effects that there may have; that creating independence, creating space for the Cuban people to operate freely from the regime is the kind of space they need to start the process towards a more democratic Cuba.

And also the President is very clear that we're getting the United States out of the business of regulating the relationship between Cuban families. The Cuban government should get out of the business of regulating the relationship between Cuban families. It should stop charging the usurious fees that it does on these remittances. The call is very clear that that be done in addition to what we are doing.

But we are getting ourselves out. The Cuban government should get itself out of the way, and allow Cuban families to support Cuban families -- that creates the kind of space, in our view, that is necessary to move Cuba forward to a free and democratic Cuba.

Q In that same speech in Miami that you referenced, the President, as a candidate, said he would talk directly to the Cuban government without preconditions, but with a clear agenda. But he's also said that he's not going to lift the trade embargo because there are certain steps he wants the government to take that -- you know, and not give up that leverage first. So it kind of sounds like he's saying two things: first, it's talk without preconditions; then setting conditions in order for relations to move forward.

MR. GIBBS: And you may have something on this, too, but I think that -- I think the President has made clear that he is willing to talk to our adversaries. I think at the same time the President has said repeatedly that that is not talk for talk's sake, whether that's with -- well, whether that -- despite what adversary that might be.

But I think that the actions that were taken today are intended to, as I said, open up the flow of information, to facilitate that information from getting directly to the -- facilitate it getting directly to the Cuban people, and to set up a system whereby we see some results. And I think the President is willing to do that.

Q But are there conditions before he will engage the government directly or not --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I do think there are steps that we would -- that the Cuban government can and must take, and I think, as Dan said, the actions that the government undertakes regarding remittances should stop immediately.

Do you have anything to add to that?

Yes, sir.

Q Why are you and Dan making this announcement and not the President? I mean, he's here, right -- he's in the building?

MR. GIBBS: He is. He's -- I think he's in his office, yes.

Q Probably hearing the vibrations from the music.

MR. GIBBS: I was going to say, hearing the dance music, not unlike I am. (Laughter.)

Q Yes. So why isn't he making the announcement? Why -- I mean, it looks like as if you were trying to avoid having his voice and picture --

MR. GIBBS: I'll certainly try not to take any of that personally. (Laughter.) And I noticed the music stopped right as you asked. (Laughter.)

No, I mean, Chuck, I -- a few people showed up to today's briefing. I don't --

Q But this isn't a small talk -- this isn't a small change of policy. So having the President not talk to the camera about it seems to be a little like a political decision.

MR. GIBBS: No. Again, I'm standing in the White House briefing room as the spokesperson for the President of the United States. I assume that when you ask me questions when we get to pirates or anything else, that my answer won't seem less than what any President would make. As I undertake that task, the President is doing today what the President promised he would do, not only on camera, but in Florida many months ago.

So I think this is less about the so-called "choreography" of some announcement, and more -- has to do with the fact that the President is taking some concrete steps today to bring about some much needed change that will benefit the people of Cuba: to increase the freedom that they have, and more importantly, to allow Cuban Americans to see their families and to send them money.

Q Daniel, do you know -- is the Cuban government going to be represented at the Summit of the Americas?

MR. RESTREPO: They will not be.

Q Robert.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q If you guys could just explain a little bit more about the part of today's announcement that deals with telecommunications firms being allowed to – I mean, what --

MR. RESTREPO: Certainly. We want to increase the flow of information among Cubans, and between Cubans and the outside world. And one of the ways we can do that under U.S. -- existing United States law, back to the Cuban Democracy Act, is to allow U.S. telecommunications companies to seek to provide services on the island. The licensing process has never -- never really went forward. We're allowing that process -- the President is directing that that licensing process go forward, and directing that the regulations system be put into place to allow U.S. persons to pay for cell coverage that already exists on the island -- again, so Cubans can talk to Cubans, and Cubans can talk to the outside world without having to go through the filter that is the Cuban government.

Q So just cell phones is what this is talking about?

MR. RESTREPO: This is cell phones, satellite television, satellite radio. This is forms of -- modern forms of telecommunication to increase the flow of information to the Cuban people so that if anyone is standing in the way of the Cuban people getting information it is the Cuban government, and it is not some outside technical problem that can be pointed to.

Taking away those excuses and putting -- and trying to create the conditions where greater information flows among the Cuban people, and to and from the Cuban people.

Q To follow up on that, if I may. So if this happens as it's intended to happen, is the idea that a U.S. company would be providing sort of U.S. television programming on -- beaming it in -- onto the island, is that the idea?

MR. RESTREPO: The idea is to increase the flow of information, be it what we see here in the United States -- the global marketplace of television and radio, to make that a possibility for the Cuban people and to ensure that the United States government is not standing in the way of that; to make clear that more -- we stand on the side of having more information rather than less information reach the Cuban people, and for them to be able to communicate among themselves.

Q But the Cuban government would have to allow it to move forward? I mean, they could stop this if they wanted to I assume.

MR. RESTREPO: The Cuban government could stop this and they -- could stop part of this, part of the providing -- allowing U.S. persons to pay for cell coverage and ongoing services on the island today is something that the Cuban government would have a very hard time getting in the middle of. In terms of allowing or disallowing U.S. companies to provide services on the island is something that would clearly require participation of those entities that control information on the island.

MR. GIBBS: I'm going to go back there in one second, but I want to add something to your original question, Chuck. I think one of the things that's important about today's announcement -- I don't know Spanish, the President knows a few words of Spanish, but I think what's important today is we're doing this in a way that is not just going to be heard by a few people. We're doing this so that Cuban Americans can hear it loud and clear the steps that the President is taking --

Q Don’t you try to send a message to the Cuban people, as well, and his image --

MR. GIBBS: Well --

Q -- would you argue is an important image to --

MR. GIBBS: Again, Dan is not going to take that seriously -- (laughter.)

Q -- no, but to beam into Cuba?

MR. GIBBS: It is, but I think what's important, too, is that that image that is beamed in there today is in a language that they can all understand and take heart in.

Yes, ma'am.

Q This announcement comes in the wake of the Summit of the Americas. And several Latin American leaders have been pressuring for strong change of policy to Cuba, and they think of the embargo and the acceptance of Cuba in the OAS. How much of this is pressure by Latin American leaders, and do you expect this to quell some of the Cuba attention in the summit?

MR. GIBBS: Well, this is a fulfillment of a campaign promise that the President made a little less than a year ago. So this is in no way designed to, or done in a way to quell so-called pressure. It's simply the fulfillment of what the President believed was right in 2007, right in 2008, and in 2009 he has the ability to change.

MR. RESTREPO: I'm going to do that in Spanish for her. (Speaking Spanish.)

MR. GIBBS: Sheryl.

Q Robert, a couple questions. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers -- some lawmakers are urging the administration to go even further and lift all travel restrictions for all Americans to Cuba. So how does the administration feel about that? And secondly, it's my understanding that the State Department has said the Cuba policy is under review, which would suggest that there may be further changes coming, and if you could talk about that and whether you view this step today as perhaps a prelude to further normalization or greater diplomatic engagement with Cuba.

MR. RESTREPO: It's important to focus on what is being done today. This is a significant step in reaching out to the Cuban people and supporting their desires to live in freedom. We understand that others have different views on how best to accomplish that. The President is very clear today that this is the step that he is taking to advance the cause of freedom of the Cuban people, to advance our national interest. This is a decision driven by our national interests and how best to advance it and how best to bring to fulfillment the promise he made.

He was very clear that when he made that promise that the best ambassadors for freedom was to begin with family; to allow family members to support family members, to allow direct humanitarian reaching out, because you know where it's headed. That's an important piece here, and it's the most direct means of opening the kind of space that is crucial for advancing the cause of freedom in Cuba.

U.S. policy towards Cuba is not frozen in time. It's not frozen in time today. These are the steps that the President believes makes sense to advance the cause of freedom in Cuba. Obviously, like all aspects of policy, you have to react to the world that you encounter. And so I don't think we should think of -- that we shouldn't think of things as being frozen in time.

Q Do you have a position on the travel ban, the overall travel ban?

MR. RESTREPO: The President believes that a place to start is with allowing Cuban Americans to visit family members, to support them through remittances, to extend the flow of -- free flow of information, and to allow people to send humanitarian packets that have the full range of humanitarian aspects to it -- allowing people to send clothing and fishing supplies and seeds and soap-making equipment that was stripped out of what was allowed a few years ago; allowing people to do that again, allowing people to do that to anyone on the island who is not a member of the -- senior member of the Cuban government or the Communist party.

Those are the steps that the President believes are the most effective, under the current circumstances, to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.

Q So you're saying this isn't frozen in time. How long will you give this policy a chance to work before reassessing it and maybe going further?

MR. GIBBS: We just did this a few minutes ago. Let’s -- (laughter.)

Q No, the President has set timetables for other policy reviews. Does he have a timetable for the --

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q -- this review?

Q In light of what has gone over the -- gone on over the last two days in Somalia, it proves that failed economies create failed states, Robert. Is the President thinking of any programs, especially for some of the more fragile economies in this region, whereby he might enhance the travel exemption for purchasing power for the Americans who travel there; increase that kind of flow, as well?

MR. RESTREPO: Yes, I'm not sure I fully understood the question. In terms --

Q We've got quite a -- Americans get quite a substantial tax exemption when they travel to this area. In fact, I think it's the best for Americans. Will the President, because of the situation now, the economy, will he look for enhancing that tax exemption to allow more purchasing power for Americans as they travel to that area?

MR. RESTREPO: And when you say, "that area," you're saying Cuba or the Americas at large?

Q No, I'm not saying Cuba. I'm saying for the Caribbean and for South America, which is very generous to begin with.

MR. RESTREPO: I think that the President in -- as we look to the Summit of the Americas at the end of the week, is looking -- understanding that the economic crisis and the effects of the economic crisis are being felt very hard around the hemisphere; understanding that U.S. economic recovery is a very important piece of hemispheric economic recovery; understanding that the steps that were taken in London at the G20 have important implications for the countries of the hemisphere; and ensuring that assistance and support gets to the most vulnerable aspects of society throughout the region.

He's focused on those things. As we head in towards the summit, you're going to see more of that. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but you're going to see a very clear focus on the most compelling issue facing the Americas today, which is the same issue facing us, of how do you deal with the economic crisis and how do you ensure that economic recovery reaches all levels of society.

Q So this may be on the table?

MR. RESTREPO: I guess I'll have to admit -- plead ignorance as to the specific of what you're -- to my understanding of the specific thing you're talking about now. But I think as the week unfolds you will see a clear set of policy proposals and ideas that the President is going to put forward to help the economy and the Western Hemisphere.

Q When you come to this country, you're allowed to bring, I think, $1,500 worth of tax-free, duty-free goods. Will that be increased? Will that level be increased to increase -- attract commerce?

MR. GIBBS: I don't think that's something that we're working on right now.

Mark.

Q Will you allow -- does this announcement allow direct flights between the U.S. and Cuba? How will Cuban American families get there?

MR. RESTREPO: The announcement puts in place or directs the Secretaries of Commerce, Treasury, and State to authorize those transactions necessary to make this a reality. There are charter flights that exist, which Cuban American families under the current, very restricted travel, have access to. Those, in all likelihood, will have to be expanded if there is an increase in demand for that activity.

Q You would allow a commercial airline right now to start --

MR. RESTREPO: There are flights that -- there are flights --

Q Charter flights, I know that, but --

MR. RESTREPO: -- charter flights now.

Q -- you would allow a commercial airline to start more regularly scheduled stuff or --

MR. GIBBS: I think that's exactly what he's instructed --

Q To look into whether to allow that to happen?

MR. GIBBS: -- to looking at the best way to do that.

Q Does the President want to see -- excuse me -- does the President want to see Cuba admitted into the Organization of American States?

MR. RESTREPO: The President looks forward to the day when a Cuban government that respects the basic principles of the Inter-American Democratic Charter -- which are the rules that the hemisphere has come up with to govern itself -- abides by that. Everybody who abides by the Inter-American Democratic Charter should have a seat at the Organization of American States.

Q Let me follow up. The Latin American countries are going to be pressuring the American -- President Obama for greater normalization of relations. Is the announcement today an attempt to inoculate the President and the White House a bit from this?

MR. GIBBS: I think I answered that about four questions ago. The answer to that is no, because, like I said, Peter, this was a promise that the President made during the campaign I think in both of the years that we were a candidate. And it's fulfilling of that promise, not anything related to, as I said, so-called "pressure."

MR. RESTREPO: Do you want to do this in Spanish?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q Robert, could I ask --

MR. GIBBS: Hold on one second, we're going to do an OAS --

MR. RESTREPO: The OAS question in Spanish. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Un momento. (Laughter.) Pretty good, wasn't it? (Laughter.)

MR. RESTREPO: Actually, Robert, you can take over.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no. (Laughter.) You just hit my limit on --

MR. RESTREPO: (Speaking in Spanish.)

MR. GIBBS: Wendell.

Q You said the President would look into the idea of allowing direct commercial travel, presumably for relatives. I mean --

MR. GIBBS: Well, no, no, what I said was -- what's that?

Q For relatives.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the policy relates to Cuban Americans that have relatives in Cuba. I think what Chuck was asking was the -- no pun intended -- the delivery vehicle.

Q How they get here, yes.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, as Dan said, there are charter flights. I think they're -- in some of the stories I've seen travel agents in Florida talk about hearing from a far greater number of potential clients today, and in the previous couple of days, anticipating the change that the President announced today.

Q And the idea is that family travel might sustain direct, commercial flights between Miami and Cuba?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the answer to that is at current unknowable. But that is exactly why the President has directed the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce to come up with plans relating to the lifting of these restrictions.

Q Do you guys have anything back there?

Q I have a question.

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q After these steps -- the White House is waiting the Cuban government to do something similar towards this direction?

MR. RESTREPO: Everyone is waiting for the Cuban government to respect the basic human, economic, and political rights of the Cuban people; to release political prisoners unconditionally, not as a result of this decision, but as a result of complying with its basic international commitments. What the President has done today is to reach out to the Cuban people in support of their desire for the very same thing.

Q Can you repeat that in Spanish for us?

MR. RESTREPO: (Speaking Spanish.)

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me go back. Yes, sir.

Q There are economic implications to your announcement. I would bet that on Wall Street right now airline stocks are through the roof, and so are telecommunications.

In this first step, are there any other economic implications in this announcement?

MR. GIBBS: You're looking for a stock tip? (Laughter.) You just gave us two, for goodness sakes. (Laughter.)

MR. RESTREPO: Right. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Can you buy --

Q I'm the Washington editor from -- (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Maybe you can. (Laughter.)

MR. RESTREPO: The thrust here, again, is reaching out to the Cuban people, and making sure that the United States government isn't standing in the way of their desire to live in freedom, making a clear call to the Cuban government to also get out of the way, and to support that basic desire. The implications, kind of one way or the other, may distract from the central premise here, which is support for that day that everybody wants to see, where the Cuban people get to decide the future of their own country.

Q Now, translate that into financial talk. (Laughter.)

MR. RESTREPO: I'm bilingual, not trilingual.

MR. GIBBS: That would be inexplicable to virtually everyone here.

Lula Prepares for the Summit, Meeting Bruno Rodriguez and US Congress

2009-04-13T07:13:00.000-07:00

Lula stresses his diplomatic effort

EL NUEVO HERALD
April 8, 2009

http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs2375.html
A CubaNews translation by Will Reissner.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.

Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met separately today with the
Cuban foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez, and a group of members of Congress
from the United States, in his effort to bring both countries closer before
the start of the Fifth Summit of the Americas, the EFE press agency
reported.

Rodríguez stopped off in Brasilia without making statements to the press,
but diplomatic sources told EFE that one of the points dealt with in the
meeting was the expectations awakened by the Summit, which will bring
together all the Latin American countries, minus Cuba, with the United
States in Trinidad and Tobago.

It will be the first meeting between the leaders of Latin America and the
U.S. President Barack Obama, who was already told by Lula during a meeting
in Washington last March that Cuba is a “sensitive issue” for the region.

The diplomatic sources that EFE consulted stated that Lula spoke of the
matter with foreign minister Bruno Rodríguez, whom he met together with his
foreign minister, Celso Amorim. None of those present at the meeting made
statements to journalists, but official sources stated that Lula reiterated
his interest that relations between the United States and Cuba and “other
countries,” alluding to Venezuela and Bolivia, should be discussed at the
gathering in Trinidad and Tobago.

Lula “did not raise the issue with the aim of putting himself forward as
mediator between Cuba and the United States, but (in Trinidad and Tobago) he
will express his opinion that relations between the two countries must be
normalized, on the basis of mutual respect,” spokespeople of the Brazilian
government explained.

After the meeting with the Cuban foreign minister, Lula met with a group of
United States members of Congress, made up of members of the Democratic and
Republican parties.

“The points were basically the same,” stated spokespeople for the Brazilian
presidency, adding that the only difference between the two meetings was
with regard to bilateral issues, which were also covered in the two
meetings.

In the case of Cuba, relations are now fostered by Brazil’s interest in
participating in the exploitation of oil in Cuban deep waters.

With the United States, “the bilateral agenda is broader,” given that it is
Brazil’s principal trading partner, the sources explained, and they also
asserted that the fact that the meetings with the Cuban foreign minister and
the U.S. Congress members took place on the same day was “a mere
coincidence.”

Rodríguez’s visit to Brasilia is thought to be his first official trip since
he took over the Ministry of Foreign Relations in place of Felipe Pérez
Roque, who was removed from his post during the broad cabinet reform carried
out by Cuban President Raúl Castro in March.

These changes in the Cuban government were interpreted at the time as an
attempt by Castro to make his cabinet seem friendlier to the United States
by removing the “radicals,” like Pérez Roque for one, and replacing them
with more moderate political figures.

Along these same lines, some Brazilian analysts have pointed to the fact
that Rodríguez’s first visit as foreign minister was to Brazil and not to
Venezuela, whose president, Hugo Chávez, maintains some very close
ideological and economic relations with Cuba.

Despite these close ties with Chávez, Raúl Castro was not at the last Summit
of the Boliviaran Alternative of the Americas (ALBA), which Venezuela
sponsors, and Cuban sources have said that it is also not likely he will
attend the next one, which will take place on April 16 in Caracas, like the
first one.

Miami Herald Columnist Supports Right to Travel

2009-04-12T08:03:00.000-07:00

Lifting ban on travel to Cuba protects our rights
BY JACKIE BUENO SOUSA
jsousa@MiamiHerald.com

It's easy to see why anyone would think that a recent U.S. Senate bill to end the ban on Americans traveling to Cuba is a guise to loosen the embargo against the island.

It's true that the measure is more than what it seems, but not for the reasons one might think. Instead, its hidden depth says more about us as a nation than it could ever say about Cuba.

The bill specifically would forbid the president to ''regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens or legal residents.'' It also repeals all previous travel restrictions.

''In essence, it says it's not the place of government to tell people where they can and cannot travel,'' says Philip Peters, a Cuba expert with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., and former State Department official under Ronald Reagan.

The president, Peters notes, would have to justify his actions if he ever wanted to reinstate the restrictions. Few acts could better highlight the difference between the two countries.

HEAVY EMOTIONS

There are many reasons to empathize with arguments on both sides of the Cuba issue. For all their differences, however, the arguments often have one thing in common: they are laden with emotion. There's retributive anger on one side, misguided compassion on the other.

And through the decades of debate, we've been so focused on Cuba that we've overlooked our own principles, trapping them in the abyss that lies between opposing passions, like a child forgotten in the heat of a messy divorce. In more than 40 years of discourse, I've heard only one argument solid enough to justify the impediment of legitimate business activity and an individual's natural-born inclination to explore the world.

Interestingly enough, it came from our very own government, which decades ago successfully argued that it had the right to deny its citizens trade and travel as a matter of national security.

The current policy ultimately derives its legal powers from the Trading with the Enemy Act and President Harry Truman's declaration in 1950 of a national emergency to stem the threatening spread of communism. As a result, any justification for the embargo and travel ban centers on whether Cuba poses a threat sufficient enough to curtail our rights.

For more than three decades, the answer was an obvious ''yes,'' as Cuba had a powerful military alliance with the Soviet Union and was spreading its army worldwide. Today, the answer is less obvious. Cuba still gravitates toward inimical governments, such as Russia and Venezuela, but we trade with and travel to those countries.

FINDING A LOOPHOLE

Fearing that the national-security argument could be used arbitrarily and perpetually by the presidency, Congress in the mid 1970s more clearly defined the president's powers in impeding economic activity. It created procedural requirements to ensure that any national-emergency declarations be based on real threats and to ensure that a declaration would last only as long as the threat exists. However, to assure passage, the reforms applied only to future declarations, effectively exempting the Cuban embargo.

The upshot: When it comes to Cuba, our government can perpetually impede free trade and individual liberties without a need to justify it to the very people whose rights are being curtailed.

That, of course, is how things are done in Cuba. Over here, as the bill demonstrates, some of us still believe in tempering such state powers -- especially when the government in question is our own.

http://www.miamiherald.com/1434/story/986123.html

Kiplinger Says Reid Will Support Cuban American Hard Liners

2009-04-10T06:33:00.000-07:00

CUBA
Don't Buy Your Ticket to Cuba Just Yet
By Andrew C. Schneider |

Looking forward to Congress lifting the ban on travel to Cuba? Well, don't make plans yet. It's likely to happen, but not as soon as you think...unless you're a Cuban-American with family on the island.
Congress won't rush to end the 46-year-old embargo on American visits to the island (minus a brief lifting by President Carter), despite predictions to the contrary. Supporters of allowing travel include President Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus and many others, but the powerful Cuban-American lobby is dead set against it, and it has the backing of Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Robert Menendez of New Jersey.
Most lawmakers feel a fight is more trouble than it's worth. Instead, Obama will crack open the door with an order allowing unlimited travel to the island by all Cuban-Americans who want to visit family members back home. That short-term fix will prove a big long-term headache as the government tries to adopt different policies for different ethnic groups. The Treasury Department, which is responsible for enforcing sanctions on Cuba, will have to decide just who qualifies as Cuban-American and who has family to visit. The resulting chaos will increase pressure on Congress to act, but it will take awhile (and maybe another election cycle).

http://blog.kiplinger.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi

******************
My on-line comment:

Does it matter that 2/3 of Americans, and a like number of Cuban Americans, want to end all restrictions on travel--not to mention virtually every leading newspaper?

Sen. Reid has his Las Vegas Cuban American donors to attend to, but he also has to oblige a significant majority of his caucus. Sen. Menendez damaged his credibility, as reported in the Washington Post, by a one hour rant on the Senate floor, holding up the Appropriations Omnibus for several days, and putting an anonymous (sic) freeze on the President's two top science appointees.

John McAuliff
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
director@ffrd.org

View from Trinidad and Tobago

2009-04-09T19:20:00.000-07:00

No stopping Cuba now
Rickey Singh
Wednesday, April 8th 2009

Trinidad Express http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/print?id=161462205

THE majority of delegations from the 34 nations coming to Trinidad and Tobago for the Fifth Summit of Americas will be doing so with Cuba very much on their mind.

A clear understanding is emerging that a discussion on Cuba-USA relations cannot be deferred at this summit as one of the very significant, if not the most politically sensitive issues for Latin America and the Caribbean.

If up to this past weekend President Barack Obama's senior advisers were still of a differing persuasion, then they need to update themselves and listen carefully to the governments of the hemisphere, including that of host Prime Minister Patrick Manning.

With no malice towards the USA, but known for their solidarity with Cuba against America's unprecedented 47-year-old trade and economic blockade of that Caribbean country, the overwhelming majority of OAS members are simply anxious to avoid unnecessary skirmishes over a lingering problem that carries a bitter reminder of the worse features of America's 20th century hegemonic politics.

Had the advisers and strategists of the President, whose promised "politics of change'' continues to stir imaginations, had given some thought to a polite letter from Caricom to Obama before his inauguration last January, they would have been alerted to Caricom's current mood.

As a group of small and developing nations that form the single largest bloc of members within the OAS, Caricom-which was primarily responsible in the 1970s for breaking the US isolation of Cuba, regards America's punitive embargo against that country as the last cold war political issue of the 20th century.

As articulated by Caricom this problem reveals a "fracture in the hemispheric family'' that requires, as Obama has been informed, "unconditional dialogue'' between Washington and Havana.

But as rising voices have been proclaiming within recent weeks, the exclusion of Cuba from the OAS cannot any longer be sustained. No official response is known to have been received from Obama to the Caricom letter.

Nevertheless, Caricom shares the view that Cuba's readmission to the OAS, which the Obama administration could begin to talk about at the summit, will begin the healing process of the "fracture'' that had occurred back in 1962.

The veteran Republican Senator of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar- about whom Obama had favourably written before his election as President-has found it necessary to send a message to the 44th President that it was time to come to terms with normalisation of US-Cuba relations.

In his letter of March 30 Lugar told Obama: "At the Summit of the Americas you will be confronted with growing momentum within the region in favour of reincorporating Cuba as a member of the OAS....

"Cuban inclusion in the OAS,'' said Lugar, "presents challenges to the integrity of the organisation and its commitment to promote and defend democracy and human rights, as codified in the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights...''

President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are destined to hear of this and more from Caricom and Latin American leaders, starting with the summit's host, Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Caricom's current chairman Prime Minister Dean Barrow of Belize, during the formal opening session on April 17 when Obama will make his much-awaited address.

Other speakers at plenary sessions the following day, April 18, to underscore the necessity of ending the US embargo against Cuba and its return to the OAS, will include Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, Guyana's Bharrat Jagdeo, St Vincent and the Grenadines' Ralph Gonsalves as well as Jamaica's Bruce Golding and Dominica's Roosevelt Skerrit.

The legendary Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, has called on delegations at the summit to ensure firm support for an end to the exclusion of Cuba and termination of the US embargo.

In a regular column he writes for Granma, Castro ridiculed what he deemed "inadmissible concepts'' in the draft text of the "Summit Declaration''. He was given a copy by Nicaragua's President Ortega who paid him a visit. He said the summit would be a "trial by fire'' for the Caribbean-Latin America region.

Just this past Monday, Caribbean economist Norman Girvan, recently awarded with an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Havana, noted that, "Fidel Castro will be the unseen guest'' at the Fifth Summit for which "he is evidently a player'', to follow information coming out of various hemispheric capitals, among them Havana, Santiago de Chile, La Paz, Bolivia and Caracas.

Reuters Columnist Sees Low Hanging Fruit and Contradictory US Approach

2009-04-04T18:24:00.000-07:00

In Cuba, low-hanging fruit for Obama
Post a comment (27)
By: Bernd Debusmann
February 25th, 2009

– Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. –

A look at a list of the foreign policy problems facing U.S. President Barack Obama could send the sunniest optimist into depression.

The Arab-Israeli conflict: no solution in sight. Afghanistan/Pakistan: the outlook is bleak. Iran and its nuclear plans: tricky. No easy wins here. Iraq: the war is not over.

But in the foreign policy landscape, there is one low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking — Cuba - and the picking has just been made easier by a report commissioned by the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, and released this week.

Among its key points: the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, the only Cold War policy still in force, has been counter-productive; U.S. policies are harming national security interests by impeding cooperation on such key issues as narcotics traffic; and the U.S. image in Latin America has been tarnished by Washington’s insistence that the region share hostility towards Cuba’s communist government.

That government, first under Fidel Castro and now under his brother Raul, survived the hostility of 10 American presidents preceding Obama. It has normal relations with most of the world. Washington’s lonely stand on Cuba becomes embarrassingly apparent once a year when the U.N. General Assembly votes on lifting the embargo. The last count was 185 in favour, three against - The U.S., Israel and Palau.

In much of Latin America, Cuba has become a romanticized symbol of a small country that has stood up to the American giant. That image is exploited to the full in the anti-American rhetoric of such leaders as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, whose appeal rests in part on painting Uncle Sam as an Imperialist bully.

“Latin Americans would view U.S. engagement with Cuba as a demonstration that the United States understands their perspectives on the history of U.S. policy in the region and no longer insists that all of Latin America must share U.S. hostility to a 50-year-old regime,” the Foreign Relations Committee staff report said. “The resulting improvement to the United States’ image in the region would facilitate the advancement of U.S. interests.”

Portraying normal relations with Cuba as something that serves U.S. national interests strengthens the case of a growing number of lawmakers and business groups who think it is time to remove the last vestige of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere. It would also provide backing for Obama if he were inclined to go beyond his campaign promises on Cuba — easing restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba and sending money to relatives there.

CHANGE EASY, OVERDUE

In the words of Steve Clemons, a Latin America expert at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank, Cuba is “the lowest hanging ripe fruit on America’s tree of foreign policy options. Change is easy there — and overdue.”

There are two main reasons why Cuba policy has remained stuck in the Cold War, 18 years after it ended. For one, a succession of U.S. presidents expected that economic pressure on Cuba would topple the government and bring democracy to the island.

As importantly, Cuba has been as much a domestic issue as a foreign policy issue. For decades, the most determined opposition to changing policy on Cuba has come from the Cuban American community in Florida, a state which has often been decisive in presidential elections. No candidate has been willing to risk his campaign by offending the Cuban exiles, estimated at around 650,000.

But polls show that anti-Castro feeling is easing and the old guard of exiles is being replaced by a younger generation not as burdened as their elders by memories of fleeing the bearded revolutionaries who took power in 1959.

Obama won Florida last November, after a campaign during which he promised to ease restrictions on travel and cash remittances while saying the time was not ripe for an end to the embargo. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has described the embargo as “an important source of leverage for further change on the island”.

The thinking behind this phrase: Cuba must make concessions on human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of travel in exchange for the U.S. lifting the embargo. If not regime change in Cuba, then at least behavior change. Why this policy should work now when it has failed in the past is anyone’s guess.

And the argument is particularly difficult to make for Clinton after a February trip to China, a worse human rights violator than Cuba. She said disagreement with Beijing over human rights should not interfere with cooperation on broader issues. There’s no lack of broader issues in relations between the United States and Cuba.

– You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com

Obama action on family, Back delegation

2009-04-04T18:08:00.000-07:00

Obama to abolish limits on U.S.-Cuba family ties
Sat Apr 4, 2009 5:57pm BST

By Anthony Boadle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a move that could herald better ties between Cold War foes, the Obama administration is planning to abolish limits on family travel and cash remittances between the United States and Cuba, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

President Barack Obama has decided to fulfill a campaign promise and allow Cuban Americans and Cuban emigres to freely visit and send money to their families in the communist-led nation, the newspaper said, citing a senior administration official.

A White House official confirmed the administration's intentions to lift the restrictions, but said the measure was not a new policy statement and was not imminent.

"The administration has conveyed that our policy toward Cuba is being reviewed and the president has stated that there's a sense that restrictions on family visits and cash remittances should be lifted," the official told Reuters.

"Our focus remains on the need for democratic reforms and human rights" in Cuba, the official said.

The removal of limits on family travel and cash remittances would allow Cubans living in the United States to travel freely to the island, instead of once a year as at present. It would also remove the ceiling of $1,200 per person in cash remittances to needy family members in Cuba.

"This is a good humanitarian move that honors Cuban Americans' right to visit and aid their relatives as they see fit," said Cuba expert Phil Peters of the Lexington Institute.

"But it creates one class of Americans who can travel to Cuba at will, so it will add to the momentum in Congress to lift restrictions on all other Americans, who have a right to travel too," he said.

The Wall Street Journal said the move was probably meant to signal a new attitude toward both Cuba and other Latin American countries that have pressed Washington to end a trade embargo that has sought to isolate Havana for more than four decades.

TRAVEL AND REMITTANCES

During last year's presidential campaign, Obama favored easing U.S. restrictions on family travel and remittances, but said he would not eliminate the trade embargo until Cuba shows progress toward democracy and greater human rights.

The U.S. Congress is considering bills that would lift the ban on American citizens traveling to Cuba that was introduced with other sanctions in the early 1960s when Fidel Castro's revolution turned Cuba into a Soviet ally.

Obama is due to meet Latin American leaders at a summit in Trinidad and Tobago later this month.

The Wall Street Journal said Obama is not considering any specific diplomatic outreach toward Cuba, where Fidel Castro has been sidelined by illness and was succeeded as president last year by his brother Raul Castro.

U.S. lawmakers, who believe in increasing numbers that the embargo has proven ineffective in bringing political change to Cuba, have taken the initiative on the outreach front.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives arrived in Havana on Friday to meet with Cuban officials in a sign of accelerating efforts to improve relations.

Representative Barbara Lee said the group of seven Democrats wanted simply to "see what the possibilities are" and carried no messages from Obama or proposals for the Cubans. "We're here to learn and talk," she told reporters.

The congressional delegation is the first from the United States to visit Cuba since Obama took office in January.

"Change is in the air and our president, of course, talks very clearly about bilateral relations with all countries in the world," said Lee.

(Additional reporting Jeff Franks in Havana and David Alexander in Washington; Editing by Chris Wilson)

US View of the Role of Cuba at the Summit

2009-04-03T16:38:00.000-07:00

TRINIDAD EXPRESS
No discussion on Cuba trade, says Obama
BY JUHEL BROWNE
jbrowne@trinidadexpress.com

United States President Barack Obama does not believe there needs to be any discussion of his country's 47-year-old trade embargo against Cuba when he attends the Fifth Summit of the Americas here later this month.

Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is the special adviser to the White House for the summit, made this statement yesterday, although Prime Minister Patrick Manning told reporters in Brazil, on March 16, that "there is a meeting of minds as to how best the question of Cuba should be handled".

"We do not believe that Cuba is a topic of discussion at this summit," Davidow said in a telephone interview with the Express yesterday, from his Washington DC office.

"The policy of the United States on Cuba is that we hope that the Cuban people will someday be able to share the same kind of democracy that the people of Trinidad have," Davidow, who is overseeing preparations for Obama's participation in the summit, said.

His comment came just three days after the communist country's leader, Raul Castro, accepted an invitation from Manning to come to Trinidad and Tobago at a time of his choosing.

"Obviously, Trinidad is free to work on its own relationship with Cuba as all countries are. However, I think it would be very unfortunate if the topic of Cuba were to become the principal issue at this summit and detract attention from the other important things you and I have been talking about -energy, poverty, crime," Davidow said.

Cuba is a member of the Organisation of American States (OAS), which is the group of states behind the summit, but its government has been excluded from participation in the OAS since 1962. Castro is not expected to visit this country during the summit, but even if he did, he would not be able to participate in it because of the existing OAS rules regarding Cuba.

Contacted for comment on the matter earlier this week, US Embassy public affairs officer Michelle Jones said: "Trinidad and Tobago is a sovereign nation, and the prime minister is free to invite any guest to his country. We do not anticipate any confrontations at the summit and look forward to good discussions."

In a radio address last week, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a strong ally of Cuba, called for Cuba's inclusion in the summit and urged Obama to lift his country's 47-year-old trade embargo on that country.

Commenting on this yesterday, Davidow said, "We do not believe that Cuba should be at the summit because the summit is for the community of democratically elected heads of state. I don't think anybody in Trinidad would argue that Raul Castro was democratically elected."

A former US ambassador to Venezuela, Davidow is working in conjunction with the US Department of State to help manage summit-related diplomacy in the region. As such, he was asked about the relationship between the United States and Venezuela, which was contentious under the administration of Obama's predecessor in office, George W Bush, and that of Chavez.

"Certainly, the American president is coming to the summit with the intention of meeting and talking with all of his democratically-elected colleagues in the hemisphere. It is not our intention to have difficulties with any of these countries or with their leaders," Davidow said.

Cash in Advance for Ag Sales

2009-03-30T07:03:00.000-07:00

What is ‘cash in advance’?
Jerry Hagstrom, Agweek
Published: 03/23/2009

WASHINGTON — Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., thought he had found a way to force the Treasury Department to go to back to the more liberal Clinton-era rules on how Cuba pays for its U.S. agricultural imports when he put a provision in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations bill to force Treasury to use the Clinton rules, but Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the Dorgan provision isn’t enough for him to change the regulations.

Now Dorgan and other senators and House members are protesting Geithner’s unwillingness to change the Cuba provisions.

Defining ‘advance’

At issue is whether the term “cash in advance” requires payment before goods are received or shipped.

The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 authorized the sale of agricultural products to Cuba but required that Cuba make payment “cash in advance” through a third-country bank. Under rules developed by the Clinton administration and in effect until 2005, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control allowed Cuba to pay for farm products in advance of arrival. But in 2005, the Bush administration changed the rule to require payment before shipping.

The normal commercial definition of “payment in advance” means that goods often are shipped and payment is made before they arrive in the port of the purchaser. Farm groups have charged that the Bush rule discourages Cuba from buying U.S. agricultural products. There have been several attempts in Congress to change the rule, but either Republicans in Congress or the Bush administration stopped it.

This year, Dorgan and other advocates of trade with Cuba thought they had fixed the problem when they inserted a provision in the omnibus appropriations bill that said Treasury could not spend any money to enforce the Bush rules. But some Cuban Americans still oppose any dealings with the Castro regime in Cuba. In reaction to protests from the Cuban American communities in New Jersey and Florida, Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., threatened not to vote for the omnibus because of the Cuba language. The Obama administration wanted the omnibus bill passed, and Geithner wrote them that he thought the 2000 law that allowed agricultural sales to Cuba required payment in advance of shipping.

Geither stands firm

After the omnibus bill passed March 11, Geithner issued a notice that he would not change the payment rules because the omnibus provision only stopped implementation of the Bush rule for one year and did not amend TSREEA.

Dorgan and other senators and House members did not protest Geithner’s interpretation before the omnibus passed, but have since written Geithner that they do not agree with his interpretation.

On March 11, Dorgan wrote Geithner, “Your interpretation of these provisions appears to undermine the intent of Congress” and demanded a briefing on the issue.

On March 13, House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and a bipartisan group of House members in the Cuba Working Group also wrote Geithner asking for a meeting to discuss his actions on Cuba. DeLauro said they want to discuss how Geithner will implement provisions in the omnibus requiring Treasury to liberalize rules on travel to Cuba.

And on March 16, a bipartisan group of 15 senators led by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., wrote Geithner that they are disturbed by his plans not to take steps to make agricultural sales to Cuba easier.

“I’m dismayed that the spirit and intent of the law has been disregarded by Treasury, but I fully expect that Secretary Geithner will revisit this issue to get U.S.-Cuba relations back on track and get our Cuba policy right for America’s farmers and ranchers,” Baucus said. “In these difficult economic times we have an opportunity in Cuba as a growing and loyal trading partner with the U.S. I’ve worked to build ties and open Cuba to U.S. products, including world-class Montana wheat and peas, and I will continue to press Treasury on this until the issue gets resolved.”

Senators joining Baucus on his letter included Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa; Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.; Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D.; and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.

And on March 18, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Rangel has introduced three bills to liberalize U.S. relations with Cuba. One Rangel bill would end the U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba, a second would liberalize travel to Cuba, and a third would expedite trade, including making the provision in the omnibus into permanent law. Rangel’s bill presumably would amend TSREEA, but the Rangel spokesman noted that Rangel also introduced these bills last year and that Rangel did not introduce them in response to the conflict between members of the appropriations committees and Geithner.

Administration and Congress Moving on Travel

2009-03-30T06:31:00.000-07:00

Momentum Grows for Relaxing Cuba Policy
Senate Measure Would Eliminate Travel Ban

By Shailagh Murray and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, March 30, 2009; Page A01

Roughly a year after Fidel Castro stepped aside and handed much of the responsibility for leading Cuba to his brother RaÃºl, there is new momentum in Washington for eliminating the ban on most U.S. travel to the island nation and for reexamining the severe limitations on U.S.-Cuban economic exchanges.

At a Capitol Hill news conference scheduled for tomorrow, a wide array of senators and interest groups -- including Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.); Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.); Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Human Rights Watch -- will rally around a potentially historic bill to lift the travel ban.

President Obama called repeatedly during the campaign last year for a "new strategy" toward Cuba, and this month he lifted severe Bush-era restrictions on travel and remittances to the island by Cuban Americans with relatives there, after the 2009 spending measure banned using taxpayer money to enforce them. The Treasury Department also said it would ease licensing requirements for trade-related travel by U.S. citizens.

Although the decision is not yet final, Obama is expected to further loosen remaining travel restrictions for all Americans by the time he goes to the April 17-19 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, senior administration officials said. Such restrictions were first imposed in 1961 and have been progressively tightened since then. Removing all sanctions requires congressional action, but one senior official said that Treasury has wide leeway to ease the licensing requirements that limit travel.

A bipartisan majority in Congress, including farm-state Republicans looking for new agricultural markets, has long advocated lifting the sanctions to some degree. Provisions to ease the restrictions on travel and agricultural sales were repeatedly attached to legislation passed during the Bush administration, only to be abandoned in closed-door reconciliation conferences as the threat of a presidential veto loomed.

The new bill was first proposed two years ago, dying in committee, but this time it has gained 18 co-sponsors, including eight Democratic committee chairmen. Meanwhile, new legislation was offered in the House last week to further loosen trade restrictions for agricultural products.

The handful of Cuban Americans in Congress, most of them Republicans, have long been in the vanguard that advocated stricter restrictions and opposed a new outreach toward Cuba. But none has been more stalwart than Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

The son of Cuban immigrants, Menendez has risked the goodwill of the White House and his standing within the party to press the continuation of sanctions and travel restrictions against Havana's totalitarian regime. He riled many of his colleagues this month by blocking two of Obama's science nominees and by holding up the 2009 spending measure to protest the Cuba provisions it included.

The bill to be unveiled tomorrow in the Senate goes well beyond the measure Menendez just protested by removing legal barriers to all travel to Cuba, as opposed to just family-related visits.

Lugar released a report in late February that calls for a dramatic overhaul of U.S.-Cuba policy. "Economic sanctions are a legitimate tool of U.S. foreign policy and they have sometimes achieved their aims, as in the case of apartheid in South Africa," he wrote in a letter accompanying the report. "After 47 years, however, the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of 'bringing democracy to the Cuban people,' while it may have been used as a foil by the regime to demand further sacrifices from Cuba's impoverished population."

In a lengthy speech from the Senate floor this month, Menendez shot back at Lugar: "Over the years, millions of Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, South and Central Americans, among others, have visited Cuba, invested in Cuba, spent billions of dollars, signed trade agreements and engaged politically. And what has been the result of all of that money and all of that engagement? The regime has not opened up; on the contrary, it has used resources to become more oppressive."

Fellow Democrats were surprised by the force of his defiant, public opposition to a provision that enjoys broad support in the party. Menendez also serves as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a coveted leadership post that demands a degree of party loyalty.

Some liberal donors protested doing business with a man they thought was taking an outdated stance, and some of Menendez's fellow senators questioned whether they had picked the wrong person for the DSCC job. Dodd, for instance, is a top GOP target in 2010. He has called U.S.-Cuba policy "an abject failure." Some Democrats have wondered privately how hard Menendez would work to defend his colleague.

"Anyone who knows me knows my views are both heartfelt and principled," Menendez responded. "It should be of no surprise to anyone that I have used political capital in my many years in the House and the Senate on this issue."

Menendez said he would continue to use every available tool to preserve U.S. sanctions until political conditions change in Cuba, although he attributed much of his earlier ire to the fact that the provision had been inserted with no notice into an unrelated bill.

"If you want to change Cuba policy, fine, let's duke it out," Menendez said. "Let's duke it out on the floor and let's have our debate and let's have our amendments. Let's know who's for democracy and human rights and who wants to sell their stuff no matter how many people are in prison. That's fine. At least it will be an honest discussion."

Menendez and other proponents of the current restrictions warn that free-flowing trade and tourism would only enrich the Castro regime and defuse tensions within the Cuban population -- friction that is key, they argue, to fostering political change.

Dorgan, who is the lead author of the unrestricted travel measure, said Menendez and a small, bipartisan group of House hard-liners are fighting a losing battle. "It's sort of all over but the shouting, whether our country should maintain this embargo," Dorgan said.

Menendez "has a right to take a position and assert it very strongly," Dorgan said. But, he added, "it's pretty clear to everybody that this is a failed strategy and has been a failed strategy for a long time."

Although Obama last year proposed a new direction with Cuba, he has yet to indicate he favors lifting all economic sanctions. In remarks before the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami last May, he asserted, "It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. That's why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island."

But on a separate CANF questionnaire, Obama wrote that, while U.S.-Cuba policy "has failed," he would "maintain the embargo as an inducement for democratic change on the Island."

At a warm-up summit to this week's meeting of the Group of 20 major industrialized nations, Vice President Biden said in Chile this weekend that the United States had no plans to scrap the Cuban trade embargo. He said that the Obama administration thinks "Cuban people should determine their own fate and they should be able to live in freedom." But he added that a "transition" was needed in U.S.-Cuba relations.

Menendez said he was open to a debate on Cuba, provided his colleagues refrain from sneaking language into unrelated bills. "A full and open discussion of the real situation in Cuba is timely," he said on the Senate floor this month. "We should gather evidence, bring a wide range of voices to the table and make careful and thoughtful considerations of their implications."

Fifteen Senators Push Back on Ag Trade Interpretation

2009-03-18T13:30:00.000-07:00

March 16, 2009

Secretary Timothy F. Geithner
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Geithner,

We are concerned by a March 11 Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) notice outlining its planned implementation of provisions passed in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. The intent of those provisions was to facilitate already legal agricultural trade with Cuba.

The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) of 2000 authorized agricultural exports to Cuba by payment of cash in advance or third-country bank letters of credit. For several years, until early 2005, such cash-based sales were taking place and working well. After goods shipped from U.S. ports, the Cuban buyers initiated payments, routing them through third-country banks, as required by the law. There were no reported instances in which a Cuban buyer took possession of U.S. goods prior to completing payment to the U.S. seller, a fact acknowledged by the Treasury Department during the confirmation hearing of Deputy Secretary Kimmitt in July 2005.

Despite this fact, OFAC issued a rule in February 2005 that defined “payment of cash in advance” as payment prior to shipment of goods. The change in definition has brought all cash-based sales to a halt, rendering the cash in advance provision useless and undermining Congress’s intent to facilitate agriculture sales to Cuba. Your March 5, 2009 letter stated that OFAC will continue to use this definition. This is contrary to the intention of the provisions included in the Omnibus legislation to halt this use.

We are troubled to see OFAC continue this practice. Its March 11 notice mistakenly suggests that the “ordinary commercial meaning” of “cash in advance” requires payment prior to shipment of goods. Such an interpretation is legally inaccurate. The American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service has studied this issue in depth and concluded that, “[I]t would appear difficult to find legal support for OFAC’s interpretation that ‘payment of cash in advance’ requires payment be received prior to shipment. As a review of four traditional methods of payment indicates, it appears customary within the international trade and finance community to place the emphasis on the legal transfer of control, rather than on the date of shipment…OFAC’s interpretation appears to limit the available payment options to those that are considered risky, undesirable, and underutilized….”

In your Questions for the Record during consideration of your nomination earlier this year, you committed to “… taking great care to follow congressional intent and working closely with members of Congress to ensure that OFAC’s activities with regard to Cuba are achieving its important objectives without unnecessary hurdles or unreasonable administrative delays.” We urge you to stand by that pledge.

We look forward to working closely with you on this matter.

Sincerely,

Senator Max Baucus
Senator Richard Lugar
Senator Jeff Bingaman
Senator Mike Enzi
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Pat Roberts
Senator Blanche Lincoln
Senator Mike Crapo
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Kit Bond
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Mark Pryor
Senator Mary Landrieu
Senator Maria Cantwell
Senator Tim Johnson

Cuban Americans Welcome Change

2009-03-14T07:52:00.000-07:00

New U.S. travel rules queried
New rules easing travel to Cuba have prompted a wave of telephone calls and visits -- and lots of questions -- to those agencies authorized to issue travel licenses to the communist country.
BY JOSE PAGLIERY
jpagliery@MiamiHerald.com

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/949331.html

The telephones rang nonstop Friday at Va Cuba, one of several licensed travel agencies in Miami where Cuban-Americans can arrange trips to their homeland.

The question posed most often by callers: Can I book a flight to Cuba under the Obama administration's new licensing rules?

The answer is yes. Under the new rules , Cuban-Americans can visit the island once a year and stay as long they wish.

Since 2004, Cubans were only permitted to travel once every three years and were only allowed to visit immediate relatives. The definition of family has been broadened.

The new policy has federally licensed companies, such as Va Cuba and Marazul Charters, scrambling to prepare for a sharp increase in demand.

Since the Treasury Department's announcement Wednesday, Va Cuba, Marazul Charters and other local agencies have received thousands of phone inquiries about President Barack Obama's policy along with a slow but steady stream of customers visiting offices to arrange travel.

''This is a step forward . . . towards the reunification of Cuban families in a legal way, instead of breaking the law to fulfill family needs,'' said Armando Garcia, president of Marazul Charters.

Garcia said the Bush administration's policy too narrowly defined family as immediate members and lacked exceptions.

''If you went to visit your mother a year before your father got sick, you could not travel. If your mother died, you couldn't go to the funeral,'' he said.

Licet Soler, 34, of Miami, said Friday that the restrictions will no longer force people to leap frog their way to the island by using the Bahamas, Grand Cayman or Mexico to avoid illegally taking direct flights.

She plans to visit her boyfriend, whom she had not seen since leaving the island in 2006. ''It's wonderful'' she whispered as she sat in Va Cuba's waiting area.

Diamara Martín, whose entire family lives in Guanajay in Cuba, was accompanied by her husband when she went to an agency Friday afternoon.

CRITICISM EXPECTED

Martín expected some would criticize Obama and argue that his policy would help support Fidel Castro's government.

''For those who don't have family there, they don't understand,'' she said. ``Mother, father, sisters, uncles -- here, I have no one but my husband.''

She said her parents were ecstatic when they heard that the Obama administration had ordered the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control to lift the restrictions.

MORE NORMAL TIES

Martín, Garcia and Soler hope the administration's action is the first in a series of steps leading to more normal relations between the United States and Cuba.

''This is not enough,'' Garcia said. ``President Obama promised he'd lift all travel restrictions, so I'm expecting him to lift other restrictions as well.''

Maritza Tamayo offered her thoughts as she left one agency and rushed in excitement to her car.

''If other people in the U.S. have the right to see family in other countries, why can't Cubans?'' she asked. ``God says we're all equal.''

Obama's Promises on Cuban American Travel vs. Sen. Nelson's Version

2009-03-11T06:24:00.000-07:00

It is important we understand that when we have that full and fair and open debate in the sunshine, we remember what Candidate Obama said during the campaign. He said what he wanted to do was go back to the status quo ante on travel to Cuba by family members every year instead of once every 3 years and to have more remittances every quarter than was cut back a few years ago by the previous administration. That seems to be common sense and family value oriented. That is what the candidate who became our next President articulated.

--Sen. Bill Nelson (D, FL) during debate of Omnibus Appropriations Bill 3/10/09

Only that's not what candidate Barack Obama said. He promised many times in debates and speeches and in writing during the campaign, and the Democratic platform pledged, "unlimited travel and remittances" for Cuban Americans. Twice he used the less definitive term "loosening",twice specified a time frame of "immediate" and twice used "unrestricted" but never just a roll back to Clinton's formula of "annual".

**********************

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas at program organized by Cuban American National Foundation Miami, FL | May 23, 2008

It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. That's why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island. It's time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.

*********************

Democratic Platform, page 37

We must turn the page on the arrogance in Washington and the anti-Americanism across the region that stands in the way of progress. We must work with close partners like Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia on issues like ending the drug trade, fighting poverty and inequality, and immigration. We must work with the Caribbean community to help restore stability and the rule of law to Haiti, to improve the lives of its people, and to strengthen its democracy. And we must build ties to the people of Cuba and help advance their liberty by allowing unlimited family visits and remittances to the island, while presenting the Cuban regime with a clear choice: if it takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the unconditional release of all political prisoners, we will be prepared to take steps to begin normalizing relations.

************************

From Obama web site

Promote Democracy in Cuba and Throughout the Hemisphere: Barack Obama will support democracy that is strong and sustainable in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas. In the case of Cuba, he will empower our best ambassadors of freedom by allowing unlimited Cuban-American family travel and remittances to the island.

******************************

McCain, Obama trade fire over Cuba
Posted on Sat, Feb. 23, 2008 Kansas City Star

Obama didn't retreat Friday, saying in an e-mail that he'd call for an "immediate change in policy to allow for unlimited family travel and remittances to the island."

************************

Austin Debate

One other thing that I’ve said, as a show of good faith that we’re interested in pursuing potentially a new relationship, what I’ve called for is a loosening of the restrictions on remittances from family members to the people of Cuba, as well as travel restrictions for family members who want to visit their family members in Cuba.

*****************************

Answers to CANF questionnaire:

I believe U.S. policy has failed. That’s why I have called for a new policy that would permit unlimited family travel and cash remittances, but maintain the embargo as an inducement for democratic change on the Island...

As President, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.

************************

Brown and Black Forum, Des Moines, Iowa 12/01/07

there are two things we can do right now to prepare for that. And that is loosen travel restrictions for family members, Cuban Americans who want to visit and open up remittances

**************************

Op Ed in Miami Herald Posted on Tue, Aug. 21, 2007

Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Accordingly, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.

*************************

This is the only reference I have found to Obama on the other categories of non-tourist travel. He was one of seventeen Senators signing March 8, 2006 letter to Secretary of Treasury Snow

We are disturbed that OFAC appears to be defining what is and is not a religious organization -- in itself a precarious role for a U.S. Government agency -- and that its operating definition appears to be prejudiced against recognized, mainstream national religious institutions....

We understand the complicated political reality that exists between the United States and Cuban governments. However, we believe it is inappropriate and unacceptable for politics and government to serve as a hurdle and now as a barrier to faith-based connections between individuals.

Brookings Report Stresses Obama's role

2009-02-28T20:36:00.000-08:00

Think tank urges Obama to act now on reversing U.S. Cuba policy

The Brookings Institution said the White House should not wait for Congress to lift portions of the U.S. trade embargo with Cuba.

By FRANCES ROBLES
frobles@MiamiHerald.com

President Barack Obama should not wait for Congress to begin making key changes in Cuba policy, and should start by using his presidential authority to make adjustments to the U.S. trade embargo, a new report issued Thursday recommended.

The Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, D.C., assembled a group of 19 academics, diplomats and ''thinkers'' to chart out a road map for Obama to take action on Cuba. The panel -- led by a former top U.S. diplomat in Havana -- argues that Washington's hostile rhetoric should stop, having failed to bring about changes in Cuba.

''Let's forget the hostile regime-change strategy and begin a policy of critical engagement,'' said Vicki Huddleston, the former head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana who co-chaired the report. ``This means no shouting across the street at each other.''

The report, announced in Miami, comes on the heels of a series of moves that signal what some Cuba experts consider serious momentum to change Cuba policy. On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget bill that defunded enforcement on the Cuban family travel ban and, among other things, offered more licenses to travel to Cuba. The Senate Foreign Relations committee released a report Monday making many of the same recommendations as the Brookings panel.

Among the Brookings' U.S. Policy Toward A Cuba in Transition group's suggestions:

• Allow more ''purposeful travel'' to Cuba for American academics, artists and such.

• Review Cuba's inclusion on the U.S. terrorist nation list.

• Allow U.S. businesses to sell radios and TVs to Cuba.

• Once the Cuban government begins responding with serious human rights improvements, license more imports from Cuba and goods to be sold to the island.

''The president can do this himself,'' Huddleston said. ``It would be a big win in terms of his image, and a big win in terms of getting away from failures of the past.''

Many Cuban exile leaders -- and South Florida's Cuban-American delegation in Congress -- oppose such measures, because they believe Cuba should release political prisoners and make other human rights improvements before Washington makes any concessions. Obama, many conservatives believe, would lose bargaining power and leverage over Cuba if he starts offering Cuba perks before it makes any changes.

The report urges the president not to set ''tit for tat'' conditions for any changes he makes.

Huddleston, who has long urged normalization of relations, said many of the group's members were more conservative in their Cuba policies, but they agreed on all the recommendations. They did not agree, she said, on whether to lift the travel ban altogether.

They did agree that that authority should be put back in the president's hands.

''Engagement does not mean approval of the Cuban government's policies, nor should it indicate a wish to micromanage internal developments in Cuba,'' the report said. ``Legitimate changes in Cuba will only be made by Cubans.''

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/924015.html

Use 'smart power' to help Cubans

2009-02-28T20:22:00.000-08:00

BY VICKI HUDDLESTON and CARLOS PASCUAL
Miami Herald Op Ed 2/24/09

www.brookings.edu

Contrary to popular myth and public misunderstanding, if President Barack Obama wishes to change the U.S. policy toward Cuba, he has ample authority to do so. If he takes charge of Cuba policy, he can turn the embargo into an effective instrument of ''smart power'' to achieve the United States' policy objectives in Cuba.

Obama's leadership is needed to change the dynamic between the United States and Cuba. The status quo is no longer an option. Not only has it failed to achieve its goals; it has tarnished our image in the hemisphere and throughout the world. Waiting for Congress to act will only further delay change. Fortunately, even in the case of Cuba, Congress has not materially impaired this country's venerable constitutional arrangement under which the president has the ultimate authority to conduct our foreign affairs.

Executive authority

Again and again we hear that the embargo can't be changed because the Helms-Burton law codified it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether you agree or disagree with the current commercial embargo, the president can effectively dismantle it by using his executive authority. Helms-Burton codified the embargo regulation, but those regulations provide that ``all transactions are prohibited except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, and licenses.''

This means that the president's power remains unfettered. He can instruct the secretary to extend, revise or modify embargo regulations. The proof of this statement is that President Bill Clinton issued new regulations for expanded travel and remittances in order to help individuals and grow civil society.

Obama will have to modify Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations to fulfill his campaign promise to increase Cuban-American travel and remittances. If he wants to reproduce the more open conditions in Cuba that led to the ''Cuban Spring'' of 2002 and Oswaldo Payá's Varela Project, he could reinstate people-to-people and educational travel. By a simple rule change, he could also speed the entry of life-saving medicines from Cuba, rather than subjecting them to delays from cumbersome OFAC licensing procedures.

Since 1992, U.S. law -- the Cuban Democracy Act -- has sought to expand access to ideas, knowledge and information by licensing telecommunications goods and services. Yet, in practice, regulations are so strictly interpreted that the United States in effect is imposing a communications embargo on Cuba. To lift it, the president can authorize a general license for the donation and sale of radios, televisions and computers. In addition, rather than helping Cuban state security keep Yoani Sánchez and others off the Internet, the Obama administration could make Internet technology readily available so that any barriers to communications would be clearly the fault of the Cuban government, and not ours.

Environmental concerns rate high with the Obama administration. So it might open bilateral discussions, exchange information and license the provision of scientific equipment to improve the health of the ocean and success of commercial fisheries.

The United States Geological Survey estimates that the North Cuba Basin holds 5.5 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. If the president wishes, he can instruct the secretary of the treasury to license U.S. companies to explore, exploit and transport these resources that we and the region so badly need.

Failed policy

After a half-century of failed policy, there is enormous support in the Cuban-American community for initiatives that will improve the well being and independence of the Cuban people. What they didn't know -- but know now -- is that there is no reason they can't reach out to the Cuban people and still retain the embargo as symbol of their concern about the Cuban government's failure to live up to international norms of human rights, democracy and transparency.

Vicki Huddleston is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and former chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. Carlos Pascual is vice president of the Brookings Institution. They are co-directors of the Brookings project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition.

Herald Editorial on Family Travel and Obama

2009-02-27T08:47:00.000-08:00

Miami Herald Editorial
Posted on Fri, Feb. 27, 2009
Lift restrictions on travel to Cuba

Lawmakers in Washington are showing once again how difficult it is to change U.S. policy toward Cuba in meaningful ways. The latest legislative proposal moving through Congress would kill enforcement of regulations that restrict travel to Cuba by Cuban Americans. This is an objective we have long championed, but Congress has picked the worst way to go about it -- making it impossible to enforce existing regulations without tackling the regulations themselves.

Backroom deal

The proposal, which also eases other travel and economic restrictions in smaller ways, is included in a huge budget bill passed by the House and headed to the Senate. Unfortunately, the provisions affecting Cuba policy are the result of a backroom deal that circumvented a full debate on the issue. On their own, as Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, noted, the travel measures wouldn't win majority approval. This legislative gimmick ensures that Cuba policy will remain the target of efforts to tinker around the edges, at the expense of thoughtful change.

Instead, we recommend as a first step that President Barack Obama fulfill the promise he made in an Other Views column published in The Miami Herald on Aug. 21, 2007: ``I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.''

The existing restrictions do little to advance the cause of freedom for Cuba, but they place an unfair burden on Cuban Americans who want to see their friends and families and ease their hardship. From both a humanitarian and strategic viewpoint, they have little justification.

Mr. Obama has other things on his mind, of course, but we suggest he act soon, before he attends the summit of Western Hemisphere heads of government in Trinidad in April. Differences with our neighbors in Latin America over U.S. policy toward Cuba have long been an irritant, and Mr. Obama can send a signal that he is moving to meet some of the objections by carrying out his promise to ease travel and remittance limitations.

Negotiated concessions

Undoubtedly, that won't be enough for critics, who believe the trade embargo that has been in place for nearly half a century should be eliminated. We don't agree. The embargo, by itself, may not oblige the Cuban government to move toward political change, but it should not be surrendered without meaningful, negotiated concessions.

Mr. Obama himself seemed to refer to that in 2007 when he pledged to ''hold on to important inducements'' even as he conducted ''aggressive and principled diplomacy'' with Cuba. It sounded good in 2007 and sounds good today, but it's time to move from words to action.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/923994.html

********************

Letter to the editor

The Herald is right. The use of Presidential authority to enable Cuban American travel is urgent and essential for the most fundamental humanitarian reasons--and because candidate Obama and the Democratic platform promised to do it upon taking office!

However, that action does little for the President at the Summit of the Americas and with most people in this country who may feel discriminated against.

Obama will gain credibility with both hemispheric and domestic audiences if he uses his authority to provide general licenses for all twelve categories of non-tourist people-to-people travel. They include family, educational, religious, humanitarian, cultural, sports, and support for the Cuban people.

John McAuliff
Executive Director
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Dobbs Ferry, NY

France Sends High Ranking Envoy

2009-02-26T19:42:00.000-08:00

Raúl welcomes special French envoy

Looking très chic in a dark, tieless shirt, Raúl Castro on Wednesday met for more than two hours with a similarly tieless and tanned La2 Jack Mathieu Émile Lang, émissaire spécial of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Lang, a Socialist deputy and former culture and education minister, heads the French National Assembly's foreign affairs commission.

Speaking to reporters later, Lang said that Paris wishes to be "the engine" of a dialogue between Cuba and Europe and contribute to a greater insertion of the island in the international community, the Mexican agency Notimex reported. Lang also said Paris would like to help improve relations between Havana and Washington. Those relations should be "direct, simple and based on the economy, politics and culture," always on the basis of mutual respect.

Even if President Obama cannot lift the trade embargo, he "could take some measures of change toward Cuba," Lang said. "How are we to understand that [the U.S.] still maintains Cuba on the list of terrorist countries?" Sarkozy's envoy said that his impression is that Raúl Castro "is interested in a dialogue with France, in an orderly manner and within the bounds of the existing relationships." France, he added, "is among the countries in the European Union that desire an unconditional dialogue with Cuba." Asked about Washington's recent criticism of the human rights situation in Cuba, Lang answered: "It is not up to one country to become the world's tribunal." Lang, who delivered to Castro a letter from Sarkozy, expects to remain in Cuba until Monday.

---Renato Pérez Pizarro.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/cuban_colada/2009/02/ra%C3%BAl-welcomes-special-french-envoy.html

Cuba language in Omnibus Appropriations Bill

2009-02-24T14:26:00.000-08:00

From the bill

SEC. 620. Section 910(a) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7209(a)) is amended to read as follows:
"(a) AUTHORIZATION OF TRAVEL RELATING TO COMMERCIAL SALES OF AGRICULTURAL AND MEDICAL GooDs.-The Secretary of the Treasury shall promulgate regulations under which the travel-related transactions listed in paragraph (c) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, are authorized by general license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the marketing and' sale of agricultural and medical goods pursuant to the provisions of this title.".
110
SEC. 621. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to administer, implement, or enforce the amendments made to section 515.560 and section 515.561 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, related to travel~ to visit relatives in Cuba, that were published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2004.

SEC. 622. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to administer, implement, or enforce the amendment made to section 515.533 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, that was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2005.

From Statement

The Committees on Appropriations are greatly concerned by the resource allocation.
decisions being made by OFAC, as noted in a November 2007 report from .B@ €5vennneftt
Ass"nlJt:il~ilit),OffiQe (GAOr OFAC's resource allocation decisions should be made on the
basis of the most pressing national security threats facing the United States. OFAC is
responsible for administering and enforcing more than 20 economic and trade sanctions
3
programs, based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals, against targeted foreign
countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, and proliferators of weapons of mass
destruction. Yet, as the GAO report points out, Cuba embargo-related cases comprised 61 .
percent of OFAC's investigatory caseload from 2000 through2006. In contrast, Cuba embargo related
cases comprise a minor part of the investigation caseloads of the Commerce
Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)/Office of Export Enforcement and the
Department of Homeland Security's Bureau ofImmigration and Customs Enforcement (3
percent and 0.2 percent, respectively).
In addition, OFAC penalties for Cuba embargo violations represented more than 70 .
percent ofOFAC's total penalties between 2000 and 2005. The report notes that most of these
penalties were for infractions such as purchasing Cuban cigars. By contrast, Cuba embargo
penalties comprised just 0.16 percent of the total penalties of BIS during the period of 20022006.
The Commerce Department, the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Justice Department reported undertaking
relatively few investigations, penalties, and prosecutions of Cuba embargo violations.
The Committees on Appropriations strongly concur with GAO's recommendation that
the Secretary of the Treasury direct OFAC to assess its allocation of resources for investigating
and penalizing violations ofthe Cuba embargo with respect to the numerous other sanctions
programs OFAC administers. The Department is directed to report to the House and Senate .
. Appropriations Committees, within 90 days of enactment ofthis Act, as to the steps it is taking
to assess OFAC's allocation ofresources, along with any plans to reallocate OFAC resources.
As part of such report, the Department is additionally directed to provide the following
information:
(1) for each fiscal year from 2001 to 2008, the following information related to OFAC's
Cuba-related licensing:
• the number of family travel licenses issued, as well as the number denied;
• the number of religious travel licenses issued?;s well as the number denied;
• the num.ber of academic travel licenses issued(a'"s well as the number denied; .
• the number of licenses issued for the various categories of permissible travel;
• the number of licenses denied for the various categories of permissible travel;
• the number of fines issued;
• the average amount of fines;
• the total amount (in dollars) of fines issued per violation category;
• the number of Cuba travel service providers receiving licenses;
• the names of Cuba travel service providers receiving licenses;
• •the number of Full-time Equivalents (FTE) used for issuing Cuba lic~nses; and
• the number of FTE used for issuing licenses for Cuba travel service providers;
(2) for each fiscal year from 2001 to 2008, the following information related to OFAC
. enforcement of the Cuba embargo:
4
• the number of FTE used for Cuba embargo enforcement;
• the number of fines issued;
• the average amount of fines;
• the total amount (in dollars) of fines issued, per violation category;
• the number of cases heard by OFAC Administrative Law Judges, along with information
on whether these judges were OFAC's own, or whether they were borrowed from other•
Government agencies;
• the average fine in these cases; and
• the total amount (in dollars) of fines issued by these judges; .
(3) for each fiscal year from 1990 to 2008, the following information related to OFAC
enforcement of the Cuba embargo:
• the total amount offines collected in each year; ... .. .
• the number oftravelers engaged in illegal travel to Cuba and apprehended, as reported to
OFAC, along with statistics as to the points-of-entry where travelers were apprehended;
• the number of cases against travelers that were/are disputed by the traveler;
• the number of these cases that are settled;
• the average settlement amount; and
• the average time from the first notice sent to the traveler until final settlement was
reached;

Section 620 directs the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations allowing, by
general license, travel to, from, or within Cuba related to the marketing and sale of agricultural
and medical goods.
Section 621 prohibits funds from being used to administer, implement, or enforce the
amendments made to the Code of Federal Regulations, published in the Federal Register on June
16,2004, relating to travel to visit relatives in Cuba.
Section 622 prohibits funds from being used to enforce the regulations, published in the
Federal Register on February 25, 2005, regarding the sales of food and medicine to Cuba.

Lugar Calls for Substantial Change

2009-02-24T13:07:00.000-08:00

US embargo on Cuba "has failed": top Republican senator

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US economic embargo on Cuba "has failed," top Republican lawmaker Richard Lugar has said in a report likely to fuel momentum for a shift in US' decades-old policy toward the island.

"After 47 years ... the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of 'bringing democracy to the Cuban people,' said the senator from Indiana -- a senior member or the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "it may have been used as a foil by the regime to demand further sacrifices from Cuba's impoverished population."

The report, entitled "Changing Cuba Policy - In the United States National Interest," is due for release on Monday.

It is likely to frame the debate on overhauling US policy after almost five decades of policy seeking to isolate Americas' only communist country.

The report also comes one year after former leader Fidel Castro stepped aside after decades as the island's president, although he remains from all appearances an important behind-the-scenes player in the island's politics.

US President Barack Obama has pledged dialogue with all foreign leaders including the US' traditional foes, in sharp contrast to successive US administrations which have sought to isolate Havana.

But so far he has offered few details on how far he might be willing to go in reaching out to Cuba.

According to Lugar, while "current US policy has many passionate defenders, and their criticism of the Castro regime is justified ... nonetheless, we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances US interests."

The United States and Cuba do not have full diplomatic relations and Washington has had a full economic embargo on Havana since 1962.

But that embargo was tweaked slightly by former US president George W. Bush, who allowed Cuba to purchase US food, as long as it was purchased in cash.

Since then US food sales to Cuba have surged, but US farm producers would sell vastly more if Cuba could get credit for its purchases.

The US Senate report due out Monday stops short of recommending an end to the US embargo.

But Lugar supports lifting Bush administration restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, reinstituting formal bilateral cooperation on drug interdiction and migration, and allowing Cuba to buy US agricultural products on credit.

Separately the Senate foreign relations report, an advance copy of which was obtained by AFP, urged that US migration policy toward Cubans should be reviewed by the White House.

Under current "wet foot, dry foot" policy, Cubans picked up by US Coast Guard vessels at sea are returned to their country while any Cuban who makes it to US soil, even illegally, gets to stay, work and obtain residency.

It is a policy the United States does not have for nationals of any other country; Cuba complains that it fuels dangerous illegal emigration by sea.

"The review (of wet foot, dry foot) should assess whether this policy has led to the inefficient use of US Coast Guard resources and assets, as well as the potential to redirect these resources to drug interdiction efforts," the report says.

During his campaign for the presidency, Obama said the Cuba embargo had not helped bring democracy to the island, led by Fidel's younger brother, 77-year old President Raul Castro.

But so far Obama has said only that he would end some sanctions on Cuban-Americans traveling to the island, and eliminate limits on their remittances to relatives in Cuba.

Lawmakers in the US House of Representatives earlier this month introduced a bill to permit US citizens unrestricted travel to Cuba.

The separate "Freedom To Travel to Cuba Act," which would overturn the 46-year-old US policy strictly limiting travel to the Caribbean island, will be subject to debate after being referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Full report here