Justice cannot be done to the United States' complicated relationship with our island neighbor, Cuba, in a short article. It can, however, point out some of the difficulties in the relationship that highlight a policy that doesn't work and is inhumane to both Cubans and Americans. This article looks at several strands that are emblematic of the whole failed policy and the rancor with which the United States government (but not the majority of our people) treats Cuba and those U.S. citizens who seek to engage with Cuba.

"Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba"

In late 2003, President Bush initiated an inter-agency governmental commission to reassess our country's policy toward Cuba. The report of this commission, composed of administration officials, was accepted in full by the president and was instituted as policy in June 2004. The goal of this policy is isolation, separation, and denial of resources to the Cuban government, but its provisions also heavily impact the well-being of the Cuban people. This policy, explicitly oriented toward "regime change" on the island, also affects U.S. citizens' freedoms in the following ways:

1. Cuban Americans are prohibited from visiting their family on the island more than once every three years. There is no provision whatsoever for emergencies. For example, if a Cuban American visited an ailing mother in Cuba in 2004, and the mother died in 2006, that Cuban American could not travel to Cuba to attend her/his mother's funeral--no exceptions. In addition, the U.S. government has unilaterally redefined who constitutes family for Cuban Americans. "Family" now excludes aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, and nephews, all of whom are considered close family in Latino culture. The arbitrary and punitive restrictions violate the "family values" that are a key tenet of this administration's social policy. The Cuban-American community is shell-shocked by this anti-family-values policy regulation of their family life.

2. Educational exchange and study abroad in Cuba are all but eliminated. Hundreds of U.S. colleges and universities have had U.S. Department of the Treasury licenses to conduct academic programs in Cuba for their students. The experience benefits all concerned by offering a way for neighboring peoples of two cultures to meet and learn about one another's values, customs, histories, and politics. Now only a very limited number of academic programs that carry out full-semester (more than 10-week) programs are allowed to study in Cuba. All shorter programs, including summer courses, interims, and one-to-two week programs that include travel to Cuba as part of a larger course of study, are prohibited.

Academics and scholars consider this an unacceptable governmental intrusion into academic freedom. The Emergency Coalition to Defend Educational Travel (ECDET)--an association of over 450 professors and other educators including Dr. Wayne Smith of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. John Cotman of Howard University; and Jessica Kamen and Adnan Ahmad, both undergraduate students at Johns Hopkins University--filed a lawsuit on June 13, 2006 in U.S. District Court challenging the June 2004 restrictions on study abroad in Cuba. The suit filed against the U.S. Treasury Department over restrictions on educational travel claims that the restrictions clearly violate academic freedom as defined by the Supreme Court. ECDET argues that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects academic freedom, defined as the right of educators to decide, without any interference from the federal government, what courses will be taught, how they will be taught, who will teach them, and who can take them. The lawsuit and related press release can be found at http://www.ecdet.org/.

3. People-to-people travel and cultural exchanges by museums, alumni associations, musicians and artists, sporting teams, etc., are all eliminated. These measures separate the U.S. and Cuban people, prevent U.S. citizens from seeing with our own eyes the real situation in Cuba and hearing the views of Cubans themselves, and force U.S. citizens to depend on U.S. government proclamations and politicized views for our knowledge and opinions of the island. Cuba's governmental system is different from ours, but so are China's and Vietnam's and we trade with, travel to, and have normal relations with those countries. Cuba is the only country in the world to which Americans cannot freely travel without U.S. government permission, and requests are regularly denied or ignored.

U.S. Government Interference in Religious Freedom

Though the written regulations of religious exchange with Cuba did not change under the first commission report's recommendation, the interpretation did change. Main-line U.S. churches are increasingly frustrated as they try to visit sisters and brothers of faith (of which there are many--Cuban churches are filled to overflowing) in Cuba. Many denominations have had religious travel licenses and for years have conducted trips to Cuba to interact with partners for mutual support, to learn about them and the circumstances in which they live, to bring material aid, and to join Cuban Christians in worship and study. Repeatedly, applications for renewal of these licenses have been denied.

The denial letters state, 'Your application is hereby denied because the Office of Foreign Assets Control determined that [whichever] Church does not qualify under 515.566(a) as a religious organization in accordance with the criteria as described in our Comprehensive Guidelines for License Applications to Engage in Travel-Related Transactions Involving Cuba'." Churches are told that they may re-apply under a new, much more restrictive regulation. Some are doing that, but the alternative license is totally inadequate for the denominations' needs for contact with their partners in Cuba.

Churches are sharing information and strategies on how to confront this governmental intrusion into religious freedom and separation of church and state. Meetings have been held between high-level church officials and supportive members of Congress with the director of Treasury's OFAC and the director of the State Department's Office of Cuban Affairs. Letters of protest have been sent to the White House, the Department of State, and the Department of the Treasury. For up-to-date information on efforts to rescind the government's illegal restrictions on religious freedom under its new Cuba policies, see LAWG's website: http://www.lawg.org/countries/cuba/congress_watch.htm.

New Report from the Commission

In December 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reconvened the cabinet-level Commission for Assistance for a Free Cuba with the stated intention of presenting President Bush with a new report by May 2006, "with both updated recommendations to hasten democracy and an inter-agency strategic plan to assist a Cuban-led transition ... and Cuba's reintegration into the inter-American system." The Cubans expect what they think will be an overt "annexation plan."

The State Department has said that the United States "will not accept a succession scenario" and that "there will not be a succession" from one socialist government to another. According to Article 94 of the Cuban Consititution of 1992, as First Vice President of the Council of State, Raul Castro (Fidel's brother) would immediately assume power upon Fidel's death or disability. The constitution then gives the responsibility to the National Assembly to choose the President of the Council of State (who is at the same time the head of state and the head of government). The U.S. government has expressed its rejection of this plan.

Just as this article was going to print, the Department of State (DOS) made public on July 10 its second report to the President from Bush's Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. In fact, a bootlegged copy had been circulating for about a week before the announcement, so its content was no secret. Having just read the approximately 85-page advance document, presented under the names of Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, as chair, and Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, as co-chair, it is appropriate to add a few words in summary and response.

The report contains seven chapters, including “Hastening the End of the Castro Dictatorship: Transition not Succession,” “Helping Cubans Create Market-based Economic Opportunities,” and “The Vital Role of Cubans Abroad.” The document as officially released may be viewed on the Department of State's website at www.cafc.gov, and a “fact sheet” may be viewed on the White House website at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/print/20060710-1.html.

W hat is highly disturbing is that the document indicates that there is a “classified” portion of the report, saying that, “For reasons of national security and effective implementation, some recommendations are contained in a separate classified annex.” It had been assumed that there was a classified section to the first report, also; but this report makes no secret of that fact. One cannot help but conclude that the classified part of the report contains specific plans for overthrowing the Cuban government.

The report, at least in its advance form, is poorly written and repetitive. It attempts to respond to criticisms of the first report by repeatedly claiming, “If asked, the United States will ... ,” or “Should the Cuban Transition Government request United States assistance, the U.S. Government can ...”   The authors attempt the make it sound like the United States is a bystander, waiting to be invited in by an acceptable “transition” Cuban government to totally reorganize their country. Astute readers will not be fooled by this tactic. The report is full of determinations and recommendations that indicate a made-in-the-USA plan—from reorganizing Cuba's economy to revamping the Cuban educational system to holding multiparty elections within 18 months.  

Assistance is “offered” to a Cuban Transition Government. The U.S. President must determine that the government to which aid is offered is indeed not a successor government, but how this “government” comes into being is left unclear—possibly where the classified section comes into play.

Venezuela also takes a hit in this report, being criticized for funding Cuba's efforts to “acquire international support and legitimacy,” assisting Cuba to “reactivate its networks in the hemisphere to subvert democratic governments,” and supporting “international meddling.” This report itself is a prototype for international meddling. The report also indicates U.S. “interest in a more democratic Venezuela.”  

Three U.S. goals are repeatedly referenced: political freedom, economic opportunity, and free and fair elections. To reach these goals, $80 million over two years is recommended by the Commission report in support of Cuban civil society, to increase international awareness, and to “break the regime's information blockade,” plus a recommended ongoing annual $20 million in funding “until the dictatorship ceases to exist.”

New absurd measures are even called for against the religious community in Cuba. The report calls for the prohibition of humanitarian aid to the Cuban people that is delivered through entities that are “regime administered or controlled organizations, such as the Cuban Council of Churches.” The U.S.-based National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC) and its sister humanitarian agency, Church World Service, are energetically protesting that U.S. licenses be refused for shipments of humanitarian aid that are handled by the Cuban Council of Churches, their long-time ecumenical partners. Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos, Associate General Secretary for International Affairs and Peace at the NCC, indicated that the churches see this attempt to dictate “who our church ecumenical partners can be and how our humanitarian agencies can deliver aid to people who need it” as an “intrusion into free exercise of religion.”

For their part, the Cubans have indicated that they see this new report as an illegal and aggressive “plan for the annexation of Cuba” according to Ricardo Alarcon, president of the Cuban National Assembly.

In a Reuters news story on July 4, a European diplomat said, “The closer we come to the end of the Castros' leadership, the more it appears the United States and Cuba are on a collision course.” This new report is certainly a giant step in that direction.

Responding to the Bush Commission's goal to bring about a U.S.-favored transition in Cuba and its naming of a Cuba Transition Coordinator within the State Department, the head of the Organization of American States, Jose Miguel Insulza, stated flatly: "There is no transition and it's not your country."

Cutting off of contact between people in Cuba and people in the United States distances the United States from those in Cuba who will play a role in determining its future and sows deep resentment among the population. If U.S. citizens--and diplomats--have little or no contact with Cubans on the island, it is difficult to see how we can play a positive or constructive role in a post-Castro Cuba.

What's Happening in Congress

Since 2000 Congress has decisively and in a bipartisan manner voted in favor of ending the ban on travel to Cuba. Because Republican leadership is aware that Congress supports ending the travel ban, they are not willing to bring a free-standing bill to end the ban on travel to Cuba to the floor of the House or Senate. Supporters of engagement with and travel to Cuba are, therefore, left only with offering amendments to appropriations bills to lift the restrictions. The travel provisions are offered to the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations bill, where the enforcement of the travel ban is housed. For several years, these amendments regularly passed and became a part of the bill. Differences in the House and Senate bills are reconciled in a conference committee prior to going to the President for his signature. However, under threat of a presidential veto of the entire bill, and through the backroom maneuverings of Republican leadership, Cuba provisions have always been undemocratically removed from the final bill before or during the conference committee--against the will of the Congress. Moves to continually toughen the embargo also go against the will of the American people--polls show that 70% of those polled support an end to the travel ban and other provisions of the embargo.

In June 2006, an amendment to permit educational exchange with Cuba was defeated in the House of Representatives, as was an amendment to end the full embargo. This is a trend reversal that began in 2005. Many member of Congress have begun to vote against their previous on-the-record positions of opening travel. What happened? As constituents, we would like to believe that our representatives in Washington speak for our opinions rather than for out-of-state campaign contributors. However, the House has demonstrated how money can influence congressional decision-making.

As documented by www.opensecrets.org, the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC (Political Action Committee), an organization defined as "anti-Castro" that opposes any relaxation of restrictions, donated between $1,000 and $5,000 to 111 members of Congress or candidates in 2004. Of these members, 33 had consistently voted to lift restrictions on travel to Cuba in previous years. After accepting an out-of-state campaign donation, however, these 33 members reversed their support for measures easing the travel ban in 2005. It appears that campaign contributions "bought" the support of representatives who had formerly favored restoring at least some important relationships with Cubans.

As of March 31, 2006, the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC has already donated $350,000 to pro-embargo House and Senate candidates, or candidates that they are attempting to influence. This includes contributions of $10,000 each to Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), a Cuban-American and newly-appointed senator who supports the embargo and who must now defend his new Senate seat; Senator Joe Liebermann (D-CT), a strongly pro-embargo candidate who is engaged in a very competitive race to hold his Senate seat; Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), a pro-embargo senator and aspiring presidential candidate. The PAC has also strategically donated more than $276,000 to House members and candidates, both Republicans and Democrats. Citizens have every right to wonder where influence lies with their members of Congress: with their own constituents, or with out-of-state, hard-line special interests.

On the issue of Cuba, U.S. citizens' interests would be better served by recognizing their rights to travel and trade. Well-established international norms would be served by recognizing Cuba's sovereignty and the right of its own citizens to choose their country's future path.

For media inquiries, email americas@ciponline.org or call (202) 536-2649.