By DAVE SIMANOFF

TAMPA - Business leaders, economists and politicians from the United States and Europe convened in Tampa on Friday for a lengthy and sometimes heated discussion about U.S. relations with Cuba.
Most of the speakers at the National Summit on Cuba criticized the United States' ongoing trade embargo and recently tightened trade restrictions against the Caribbean island nation, describing the policies as failures and saying free trade and travel would promote progress and change.

Others voiced support for the sanctions, saying the policies have done a good job of keeping U.S. dollars out of leader Fidel Castro's coffers while eroding popular support for the government.

Between sessions, local business leaders were quick to point out the significance of the summit being held in Tampa, considering this region's economic and cultural ties to Cuba.

Arthur R. Savage, president of the Tampa-based shipping services company A.R. Savage & Son Inc., said trade with Cuba represented the largest share of his company's business before the U.S. embargo began in 1961. Savage's company coordinates shipments between suppliers and buyers worldwide, including shipments of food and other material allowed under the embargo law from the United States to Cuba.

He said Cuba has the potential to again become a major trading partner for the United States and Florida and bring a massive burst of diversified shipping business to Port of Tampa.

``We know the impact that it had on this port once,'' he said.

Tampa-based lawyer Joseph R. Bryant said free trade between the United States and Cuba would have an enormous benefit for Tampa, especially if this region's ports and airports could capitalize on the 2 million people traveling to and from Cuba each year.

``The climate there is already open for commerce,'' he said.

The consensus among most presenters at Friday's event was that the United States' embargo of Cuba no longer is appropriate. Friday's program, running from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., featured about 25 speakers and panelists.

In the 1960s, when Castro was backed by the former Soviet Union and he threatened to export revolution to other Latin American nations, the embargo was ``an eminently sensible'' decision, said Wayne Smith, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington and the former chief of the U.S Interests Section in Havana.

As conditions changed in Cuba and the world, ``that policy made less and less sense,'' Smith said. President Bush's decision to tighten restrictions on family visitations to Cuba is the most ``counterproductive and illogical [of] restrictions to date,'' Smith said.

Not everyone agrees. Frank Calzon, executive director of Center for a Free Cuba, argued against free trade and easing travel restrictions. He said Americans would subsidize Castro's regime if sanctions were lifted or loosened, and that U.S. taxpayers would end up with the bill if U.S. banks extend credit to Cuba and Castro reneges on the debt payments.

``If Castro gets credit, you better watch your wallet,'' he warned.

Calzon's comments sparked an open debate among some audience members about conditions for people living and working in Cuba and the requirements Cuba would place on U.S. companies wishing to do work there.

The audience wasn't the only group willing to give an opinion. A handful of people protested the summit Friday morning, calling for the United States to maintain strict sanctions against Cuba and Castro. They waved signs and held banners on Kennedy Boulevard near the University of Tampa, where the summit was held.

``I'm delighted to see that not only Cubans get hot under the collar,'' Calzon said, acknowledging that Cuba is an emotional subject for many people.

About 250 people attended the National Summit on Cuba, organizers said. The program was hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Cuba Policy Foundation, Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba, the Florida-Cuba Business Council and the World Policy Institute. The summit was at the University of Tampa's landmark Plant Hall, but the university was not a sponsor.