Center for International Policy

Our Cuba Policy Will Get U.S. Nada

February 2, 2005
By: Wayne S. Smith
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Share |

The outcome of the election in Iraq is encouraging, to be sure. Elections for a national assembly, however, are only a beginning. And if the United States is to point Iraq and various other societies toward democracy, it must go back to the adage that "one leads best by setting an example."

We have not been doing that. Not with the images coming out Abu Ghraib and other U.S. military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. And now we have reports that the interim Iraqi government appointed by the United States had also been torturing prisoners while U.S. officials looked the other way. Following our example? This is not the way to build a democracy.

And how ironic it is that Cuba, described by Condoleezza Rice in her confirmation hearings for secretary of state as "an outpost of tyranny," on Jan. 19 presented a formal protest to the U.S. government over the torture of prisoners at the Guantanamo Naval Base, which is in Cuba. And the reports of torture on which the Cubans base their protest come not from the so-called liberal press, but from FBI agents who were on the base, and from the International Red Cross.

Cuba is a case in point in other ways as well. The Bush administration urges it to release political prisoners, provide fair trials and to respect other civil liberties. Fine. But then we see that the Bush administration itself has decided to construct a special facility at Guantanamo in which some 200 so-called "illegal enemy combatants" will be held indefinitely, with no resort whatever to anything resembling due process. The government simply considers them dangerous, on the basis of evidence it never intends to reveal. A tale right out of Franz Kafka. What kind of example are we setting?

Most Americans want to see political prisoners released in Cuba and to see Cuba move toward a more open society. But that will not be brought about by U.S. threats and efforts to isolate. And now the Bush administration says its objective is to bring down the Cuban government.

Inevitably, the Cuban government has reacted to that by tightening its defenses and demanding even greater internal discipline. That is hardly surprising. It is what one would have expected. But it is the exact opposite of what we should want to see. In other words, the Bush administration's approach is counterproductive.

It is also doomed to failure. Restricting Cuban-Americans and other U.S. citizens from traveling reduces Cuban revenues somewhat, but there are still plenty of European tourists — and revenues. Moreover, there is a distinct downside to travel controls. It has always been an article of faith in the United States that the travel of American citizens abroad is the best way to spread the message of American democracy. Or as Elizardo Sanchez, Cuba's leading human rights activist, has often put it: "The more American citizens in the streets of Cuban cities, the better for the cause of a more open society. So why do you maintain travel controls?"

An excellent question.

Another measure is to be increased U.S. support for the internal opposition, or "the dissidents." But here again, the result is likely to be minimal. The dissidents have a legitimate role to play in trying to expand the parameters for freedom of expression, assembly and other civil rights. They do not have anything like the strength or capability to pose any kind of threat to the government. Nor, as most of them see it, is that their role. Indeed, for the Bush administration to suggest that they are its instruments in trying to bring an end to their own government opens them to charges of being "foreign agents." It is irresponsible on the part of the administration to put them in that position.

In her confirmation hearings, Rice said the administration supports Oswaldo Paya, one of Cuba's leading dissidents. Well, perhaps. But I was in Cuba for several days just before the inauguration and had a long conversation with Paya, whom I have known for years. The administration's policy toward Cuba, he said, was not really helpful. He and his colleagues most of all want to bring about an internal dialogue and the liberation of their colleagues jailed in 2003, a few of whom have already been released. U.S. policy impedes rather than advances both causes.

Neither Paya nor his colleagues will accept material support from the United States and they have no thought of bringing down the government; rather, they want to bring about change through peaceful and legal means. U.S. policy, he said, simply makes that more difficult.

Paya is right. U.S. policy discourages rather than encourages peaceful change. At the same time, the Castro regime, thanks to a new oil field, a new economic relationship with China and sizable payments coming in from Venezuela for the services of the thousands of Cuban doctors there, is doing much better economically. It is in no danger whatever of collapse. The Bush approach, in short, leads nowhere.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0205/02cuba.html