Showdown over U.S. Cuba policy nears
Pete Kasperowicz
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A decades-old fight over the direction of Washington's
Cuba policy is expected to enter a new phase this week as a bipartisan
coalition of House members is
scheduled to announce an organized effort to ease trade and travel
restrictions against the Communist-ruled the island.
But as the congressional Cuba working group
announces its intentions, the Bush administration is said to be on the
verge of completing a broad review of Cuba
policy that will bring in a new initiative to tighten sanctions against
Cuba.
Pro- and anti-embargo factions are always
fighting for position, but the stakes are particularly high this year following
the Cuban government's recent purchases of
more than $70 million worth of U.S. farm products the first U.S.
sales to the Castro regime in more than 40 years.
These sales have spurred momentum to
ease trade restrictions even further, but have also spurred backers of
the embargo to fight this momentum.
"I think it's an important time," said Rep.
George Nethercutt, Washington Republican, one of the core members of the
Cuba working group who successfully
pushed a slight easing of the embargo in 2000 that allows American
companies to sell food and medicine to Cuban government entities on a cash
basis.
"We want to have a good debate. The policy
needs to be decided by the nation, not just a region," he added, referring
to the hold Cuban-American interests have
had over Cuba policy for decades. Among other things, Mr. Nethercutt
and others want to allow U.S. banks to provide financing for American farm
exports.
Standing in the way, however, is the Bush
administration, which has indicated in recent weeks that it would use all
available means to tighten U.S. restrictions and
portray Cuba as a terrorist country. In meetings this month, officials
including White House senior adviser Karl Rove; Otto Reich, assistant secretary
of state for
Western Hemisphere affairs; and others said the administration is fully
behind efforts to maintain and even strengthen the embargo.
This pledge came after Cuban Americans criticized
the administration for not doing enough to deter increased contacts with
Cuba through trade and travel. Cuban
Americans were also disappointed by President Bush's decision to continue
his predecessor's policy of refusing to allow those with claims to confiscated
property in
Cuba to sue companies using that property under the so-called Helms-Burton
law.
"There were great expectations with Bush's
election, especially given [the close vote in] Florida," Cuban American
National Foundation (CANF) Executive Vice
President Dennis Hays said after meeting with officials this month.
"There was an understanding that things would take time after September
11, but then there was a
feeling that Cuba, with its ties to terrorism, wasn't being taken seriously
enough."
Mr. Hays said this feeling among supporters
of the embargo has faded in recent weeks, based on a pledge that the administration
is finally willing to tighten
restrictions. This expectation was backed up last week by Mr. Reich,
who said in his first public remarks since taking office this year that
the administration sees
sanctions as a legitimate foreign policy tool against Fidel Castro's
"failed, corrupt, dictatorial, murderous regime."
"We are not going to help Fidel Castro stay
in power by opening up our markets to Cuba," Mr. Reich said in a March
12 speech in Washington. The first public
blow in the battle over U.S.-Cuban policy is due this week, when the
Cuba working group outlines its goals at a press conference Thursday.
The group's core members Reps. Nethercutt,
Marion Berry and Vic Snyder, both Arkansas Democrats; Bill Delahunt, Massachusetts
Democrat; Jo Ann
Emerson, Missouri Republican; and Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican
are hoping to have 20 members on board, and will outline policy goals that
include export
financing for sales to Cuba and reduced restrictions on travel to the
island.
Members of the group have already taken the
lead in fighting for these changes. For example, Mr. Flake, in coordination
with Democratic Sen. Byron L. Dorgan
of North Dakota, has played a significant role in trying to ease U.S.
restrictions on travel to Cuba, even though House leaders scuttled these
efforts last year.
Mr. Flake and other members believe that by
coordinating their efforts by forming the Cuba working group, they can
be successful where previous individual
efforts have failed.
"Travel is tough, but we had a big margin
last year in favor," Mr. Flake said last week. "I don't think travel is
impossible to win now."
By joining forces, the group also expects
to be able to expand its role beyond trade and travel, areas that have
been of most interest to the agricultural
constituencies of the core members of the Cuba working group.
For example, the group is expected to announce
its support for a controversial trademark law known as Section 211, to
prevent companies from registering
intellectual property in the United States if it was used in connection
with confiscated property in Cuba. The law, successfully challenged by
the European Union in
the World Trade Organization, was pushed by Bacardi of Bermuda in order
to deny a French-Cuban joint-venture company the right to register the
"Havana Club"
trademark in the United States.
While the law is seen primarily as a weapon
that benefits Bacardi in its fight to obtain the trademark, agricultural
exporters have noted that Cuba has previously
threatened U.S. trademarks as a way to retaliate against the law, which
could threaten future U.S. exports of branded food products to the island.
To counter these efforts, the White House
is expected to send a clear message that it opposes all efforts to engage
Cuba, which proponents of the embargo hope
will be enough to discourage congressional efforts to lift the sanctions.
In addition, the White House is expected to release in the coming weeks
a broad review of
current U.S. restrictions against Cuba, which are likely to be followed
up by recommendations on how to more tightly enforce existing sanctions.
The review being conducted by the National
Security Council and Mr. Reich at the State Department is expected to
be issued in April, and there are
tentative plans to have Mr. Bush announce its findings in a speech
on Latin America in general or Cuba in particular.
Based on briefings this month, Mr. Hays and
other informed sources say it is already clear the initiative will result
in tougher enforcement of travel restrictions and
other rules by the administration. In a move that could chill efforts
to trade with Cuba, the review is also expected to include a close examination
of recent sales of
U.S. farm commodities to Cuba to make sure these exports are not subsidized.
In addition to this effort, the administration
is expected to describe Cuba's suspected ties to terrorist entities in
the State Department's annual terrorism report,
which is expected at the end of April.
In the last few weeks, the administration
appears to have listened closely to all groups favoring tighter sanctions
as it prepares its policy review. But divisions
within the pro-sanctions lobby and recent criticism of the administration's
efforts on Cuba are two problems that have complicated the lobbying efforts
of those who
support sanctions.
This year, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida
Republican, was one of a handful of members who sharply criticized the
administration for allowing Cuban officials
to visit the United States and for establishing contact with Cuban
military officials at Guantanamo Bay.
Fears that Washington was softening
its position on Cuba have subsided recently, but were rekindled last week
when Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill said he
would prefer easing travel sanctions against Cuba.
While Mr. O'Neill later retracted his words,
the comment clearly shook pro-sanctions members as another sign that the
Cabinet may not support Mr. Bush's
plans for Cuba. His comments prompted Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen and Rep. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart, also a Florida Republican, to issue a March 15 statement calling
on Mr.
Bush to "fire O'Neill."
Despite this perceived misstep by Mr. O'Neill,
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen and others said they are confident that Mr. Bush himself
still favors taking steps to enforce the
embargo and isolate Cuba economically.
"We're very blessed to have George W. Bush
in the White House when it comes to U.S.-Cuba relations," Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen
said. "I'm very optimistic that
George Bush is a man of his word."
Efforts to lobby for tighter sanctions have
also been complicated by the partial breakup of CANF last summer, when
a number of influential members grew
dissatisfied with the direction the group was taking. After leaving,
they formed the Cuban Liberty Council, a group with strong White House
connections that is now
vying with CANF to represent Cuban-American interests.
While these two groups pursue many common
goals, some believe the CLC will soon surpass CANF as the primary lobby
group for Cuban Americas, and that
CANF is suffering from serious financial problems after losing some
of its key members last year.
Most observers agree that an early test for
both sides will be the fight over whether private U.S. banks should be
permitted to finance exports to Cuba. Language
allowing this was passed as part of the Senate farm bill, but is not
included in the House version, meaning that a House-Senate conference committee
will have to
decide whether to accept or reject the language, a decision that could
come late this month.
Members of the Cuba working group urged conferees
from both sides of the aisle to support the language, and in a "dear colleague"
letter last week said private
financing could mean more than $130 million worth of new U.S. exports
to Cuba and more than 3,600 new jobs in the districts of the conferees.
On the other side, pro-sanctions members have
enlisted the support of the White House and House leaders to make sure
the language is stripped.
White House officials have told House Majority
Whip Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert,
Illinois Republican, that they
oppose the financing provision, which in turn has prompted House leaders
to demand that House Republican conferees vote against the provision in
conference.
In addition to this pressure, the CLC last
week urged House and Senate conferees to consult with the FBI and the National
Security Council about Cuba's links
to terrorism before supporting the financing language.
Ignacio Sanchez, one of eight members of the
CLC's board of directors, said the group hopes conferees will inform themselves
about Cuba first, after which they
will find it hard to support the financing provision.
In the end, both sides are hoping that in
the fight over export financing as well as the broader battle over other
elements of the embargo the White House
will perceive a greater political advantage in siding with their views.
Sally Grooms Cowal, who heads the pro-engagement
Cuba Policy Foundation, says that for the first time in a long time, those
seeking to lift trade, travel and
other restrictions against Cuba have coalesced into a formidable group,
thanks largely to the recent wave of U.S. exports.
"The administration has put some high-profile,
hard-line players in key positions," she said. "They would have been less
concerned if they didn't see other forces
gathering that weren't there before."
In contrast, the other side is hopeful that
efforts by the administration to demonstrate why Cuba remains on the list
of countries that support terrorism will dissuade
Congress from moving to ease the embargo.
"The day will come when all these people working
for the interests of the [Castro] dictatorship are going to be very embarrassed,"
said Mr. Diaz-Balart. He
added that the full story of Cuba's poor human rights record and other
problems will only be known when Mr. Castro is no longer in charge, and
that for this reason,
Mr. Bush will do all he can to "never ... let a relationship with Castro
develop."
The writer is a Washington-based reporter
who publishes the newsletter Cuba Trader.
Copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.