Exiles' votes guide Bush's Cuba policy
By Morris Morley and Chris McGillion
WASHINGTON -- One of the casualties of the approaching congressional
elections will be any prospect that Washington's Cuba policy might be removed
from its
Cold War freezer and thawed to serve contemporary U.S. national interests.
The explanation is the electoral clout of a narrow, if declining, majority
of Florida's Cuban-Americans and their insistence that political candidates
accept their hard
line regarding Havana. Tied to this is the perceived political dependence
of both President Bush and his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, on Miami.
The president learned this fateful fact two years ago when Miami's votes
narrowly edged him into office. Jeb Bush scurries to retain the esteem
of Cuban-Americans
for both himself and his brother, having assured leaders of the exile
community in February 2001 that he would press the new administration to
maintain a hard line
on Cuban President Fidel Castro.
He met this pledge by lobbying for the appointment of Cuban exile Otto
Reich -- a notorious anti-Communist ideologue and former Reagan administration
official --
as assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.
According to senior State Department sources, Jeb Bush remains the administration's main channel with the exile community.
The interconnected fate of the Bush brothers has created a powerful
new dynamic for U.S.-Cuba policy so that Washington's policy toward Cuba
really is domestic
politics writ large. Publicly, U.S. officials defend Cuba policy in
terms of Mr. Castro's unacceptable behavior. But some concede privately
that what passes for
policy is "absurd."
When it comes to Cuba, Washington's double standards aren't novel. By
the early 1990s, Mr. Castro had met the key preconditions for normalized
bilateral
relations: the withdrawal of troops from Africa, the termination of
military ties with Moscow and the end of support for revolution in Latin
America.
But to appease the Cuban-American lobby, George Bush Sr. dramatically
shifted the goalposts by demanding reforms inside Cuba. This mischievous
approach
persisted, ensuring that Cuba's modest market liberalization, its courting
of foreign investors and drastic downsizing of its military (from 200,000
in 1994 to about
60,000 today) did not qualify for the "calibrated response" that President
Bill Clinton maintained would greet such reforms.
When State Department officials were queried about Cuba's being excluded
from the détente policies that the United States was pursuing toward
the former Soviet
bloc, their routine response was, "It's a matter of domestic politics."
President Bush's logic is the same. In May 2001, he expanded U.S. preconditions
for removing sanctions, insisting that Mr. Castro must first free political
prisoners
and hold democratic elections. For the past year, Mr. Bush has exploited
America's post-Sept. 11 trauma to blunt calls for improving relations.
The White House has rebuffed Cuban overtures to assist U.S. drug interdiction
efforts, most recently fabricating charges that Cuba was obstructing the
drug war. It
earlier spurned Havana's offer to facilitate the U.S. detention of
al-Qaida prisoners at Guantanamo and sheepishly stood behind invented claims
that Cuba had
exported biological weapons to "axis of evil" nations.
In a key policy speech before a cheering Miami audience, Mr. Bush poured
cold water on private U.S. financing of Cuban agricultural purchases, announced
an
expansion of propaganda broadcasts to the island and reaffirmed his
intentions to find ways to support anti-Castro forces in Cuba.
In July, State Department officials lobbied vigorously -- but unsuccessfully
-- against a House vote to lift the Cuba travel ban. Meanwhile, efforts
by Bush officials to
implicate Cuba in the "terrorist war" have not flagged. One of the
most recent attempts has been to designate the island (again devoid of
evidence) a "comfort station"
for terrorists from around the world.
Since the end of the Cold War, liberal comment on Cuba has allowed optimism
to overwhelm sound analysis, interpreting small changes at the margins
of
U.S.-Cuban relations -- such as easing Cuba's ability to import U.S.
food and medicine -- as harbingers of a major policy shift.
Such analyses represent a fundamental misreading of the domestic imperatives
that drive Cuba policy. There will be no significant change until the disparate
U.S.
voices now calling for a new direction -- business groups, farmers,
religious organizations, humanitarian interest groups -- organize into
a sharpened constituency
capable of challenging Miami's fading domination of the debate.
Morris Morley and Chris McGillion are senior research fellows with the
Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington and co-authors of Unfinished
Business:
America and Cuba Since the End of the Cold War, 1989-2001 (Cambridge
University Press, 2002).
Copyright © 2002,