Sounds like the two delegations in
These talks represent the resumption of twice-yearly consultations provided for in the accords themselves, and suspended by the Bush Administration. Which is a good thing, but amazingly they got the market’s attention and in part drove a surge in cruise ship stock prices. Go figure.
The invitation to Havana is an interesting move by Cuba. I wonder when the last time a high State Dept official landed in Havana? The offer to cooperate on illegal human smuggling should be a no-brainer, as it was part of the Clinton migration accords.
ReplyDeleteI challenge anyone to disagree with the obvious Cuban statement that the (supposed US goal of) "legal, safe and orderly migration from Cuba would not be achieved under the US 'wet foot/dry foot' policies." Am I correct in saying WFDF could just be ended by Obama? But is the real culprit the Cuban Adjustment Act, which needs Congressional action?
The US' demands are not quite as straight forward. They want their Diplomats and Embassy staff (often spies) to be able to have the free roam of the island again. Of course, the last time this was allowed US diplomats pushed the envelope of domestic interference with their close work with the dissidents. The US claims this is related to migration because they need to check on those returned to Cuba to make sure they are not harassed. Nevermind that the State Dept. admits this doesn't happen in Havana (where they do check up supposedly).
The US is also essentially asking for a new place to jeep Cuban returnees (with a deepwater port). They are asking for a Cuban refugee camp essentially - on Cuban soil, but administered by the US presumably. I don't understand how Gitmo Bay is too shallow for Coast Guard ships? What? Aren't these usually small vessels? And don't much larger US naval ships use the Bay at Gitmo without a problem? Someone will have to explain this one to me.
someone has to explain Cuba to the likes of you
ReplyDeleteIs it still illegal and punishable by fines or jailing to leave Cuba without a government permit or was that part of Cuba's criminal code being repealed?
ReplyDeleteVecino de NF
the CAA should be repealed and no special immigration priveleges to the US. Let the regime face the consequences.
ReplyDeleteTalking is good. good news to me.
ReplyDeleteLefside says: The US' demands are not quite as straight forward. They want their Diplomats and Embassy staff (often spies) to be able to have the free roam of the island again. Of course, the last time this was allowed US diplomats pushed the envelope of domestic interference with their close work with the dissidents.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what the Cuban Interests Section and the Cuban UN delegation do in Washington, New York and Miami. Maybe they are just requesting reciprocity.
Lefside says: The US' demands are not quite as straight forward. They want their Diplomats and Embassy staff (often spies) to be able to have the free roam of the island again. Of course, the last time this was allowed US diplomats pushed the envelope of domestic interference with their close work with the dissidents.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what the Cuban Interests Section and the Cuban UN delegation do in Washington, New York and Miami. Maybe they are just requesting reciprocity.
Not Left, Not Right
NLNR, please tell us when and where exactly the Cuban Insterests Section was involved with organizing, funding, providing resources to and directing the dissident activities of US citizens.
ReplyDeleteIs it still illegal and punishable by fines or jailing to leave Cuba without a government permit or was that part of Cuba's criminal code being repealed?
ReplyDeleteYes it is Vecino. An exit permit is needed. The procedures for getting one are clearly spelled out and reachable by anyone. the vast majority don't have a problem. BUT, I happen to agree that they ought to be repealed. There was intense speculation the requirement was going to eb dropped a year or two ago. I think they maintained it in order to have some leverage with the US getting rid of the Wet Foot Dry Foot and the Adjustment Act. The exit permits are essentially a defense against those policies. And I agree, there needs to be a deal worked out there.
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteIs illegal exit (getting on an inner tube and floating North) from Cuba still punishable by 3 years in prison according to Cuba's criminal code?
Part of the current migration agreement between US and Cuba was Cuba's agreement to waive any criminal penalties against the rafters that were returned to Cuba but it is not clear if the pertinent criminal sanctions were repealed. The Cuban Adjustment Act was initially adopted because of this provision in Cuban law. Rather than having Cubans prove they would be prosecuted if they returned to Cuba, it was codified that they would be automatically considered refugees and given an immigration parole.
The 3 year sanction has been extended to family members of those who did not return to Cuba from official trips abroad in the form of prohibition to travel abroad. There have been many cases of people who were denied exit permits as a way of sanctioning them for the alleged "defections" of close family members. This affected many who obtained US visas through the lottery and regular immigration procedures. The Cuban government retains this and other regulatory measures out of desire to physically control the Cuban population. It has nothing to do with US-Cuba relations. Cuba is the only country in the hemisphere that sanctions its citizens for leaving the country without a government permit.
Vecino de NF
Is illegal exit (getting on an inner tube and floating North) from Cuba still punishable by 3 years in prison according to Cuba's criminal code?
ReplyDeleteNo, no one is punished for trying to leave on a raft. This is part of what the US supposedly verifies. I have not heard of an instance of this in quite some time. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, show us.
The Cuban government retains this and other regulatory measures out of desire to physically control the Cuban population. It has nothing to do with US-Cuba relations.
If you don't see the clear relationship between US policies (EFDF/CAA) that explicitly encourage dangerous migration attempts and Cuban policies designed to stop those attempts I don't know what do say to you Vecino. Or did I misunderstand?
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteThe question is does the Cuban Criminal Code still stipulate that the penalty for illegal exit from Cuba is prison? My copies of the Criminal Code stated it clearly with a 3 year prison term as the standard punishment. Do you have information to the contrary? If you do, do you know when those provisions were repealed.
The CAA postdates Cuba's restrictive migratory policy not the other way around, and it was the result of a large and growing Cuban population in the USA that could not go home. During the 60s and early 70s leaving Cuba was either for official purposes or as a permanent exit (passports were stamped Salida Definitiva for the latter), and it was very hard to return to Cuba once someone left definitely. This was relaxed during the late 1970s with the Comunidad visits, etc. The CAA was equivalent to the renewable immigration amnesties that were later issued to Salvadorans, Hondurans, and Nicaraguans.
Once Cuba stops penalizing and regulating emigration (a Soviet vestige if there ever was one), there would be no reason whatsoever for CAA. Until then people can argue that the Cuban immigrant should be granted automatic refugee status upon arriving on US shores.
BTW your proposal to send Cuban rafters back into Cuba through Guantanamo although workable is not the best. Once they get to GITMO there is a lot of political pressure to allow them in the US. Also most rafters are intercepted in the Straits of Florida which is a good distance from GITMO. The most convenient deep port is Matanzas. If the USA is asking for a deep harbor is because they are expecting massive repatriations of rafters not just the handful that are currently send back through Mariel?, Bahia Honda?
Vecino de NF
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteYou said "NLNR, please tell us when and where exactly the Cuban Insterests Section was involved with organizing, funding, providing resources to and directing the dissident activities of US citizens."
Without taking away NLNR (just right, I guess!) right to reply, it should be pointed out that Cuban diplomats at the UN ran both Ana Belen Montes, and allegedly the Myers' as Cuban intelligence agents. You are right that Cuban diplomats have never provided resources or directed the dissident activities of US citizens. There is no such thing as a dissident in the US. Freedom of association, lobbying, and speech are birthrights of every US citizens. There is no need to be a dissident to disagree with the US government or its policies. (Sorry Leftside if you wanted to think of yourself as a US disident.)
In the other hand Cuban diplomats have encouraged and supported many who like to overthrow the current US political system either by violent or other means by offering training, political cover, and rest areas. For that matter Mr. Myer was allegedly first approached by Cuban intelligence thorugh a Cuban diplomat who was invited to the State Department.
Vecino de NF
1. Leftside says, "NLNR, please tell us when and where exactly the Cuban Interests Section was involved with organizing, funding, providing resources to and directing the dissident activities of US citizens." Vecino de NF has enlightened you (I hope) corrected your statement, although Vecino falls a bit short when he opines that "[Leftside is] right that Cuban diplomats have never provided resources or directed the dissident activities of US citizens." Vecino, not true. Cuban diplomats in the US have provided assistance to Francisco Aruca, Brigada Antonio Maceo and many others for quite some time.
ReplyDelete2. Vecino states that “There is no such thing as a dissident in the US. Freedom of association, lobbying, and speech are birthrights of every US citizens. There is no need to be a dissident to disagree with the US government or its policies.” Well, I don’t necessarily agree with that. I think Chomsky and others like him (perhaps even Leftside) are dissidents in that they dissent with the form of government, way of life and values that a majority of citizens and residents in the U.S. subscribe to. The believe that the form of social compact between man and government is erroneous.
3. As to the above debate on the CAA and the wet foot dry foot policy, I don’t believe in the CAA any more; most Cubans that come from Cuba today are economic immigrants, and not refugees and I think the CAA should be repealed. However, it is a safety valve that is in both Cuba’s and the US’ national security interest and, therefore, it is not likely to be repealed anytime soon (also in part because of the furor that would erupt in Miami). Let’s not forget that the US’ chief national interest in Cuba is stability and the CAA advances that interest by allowing Cubans to resettle in the US with no immigration hurdles.
Not Left, Not Right
and the united states is the only country in the hemisphere that punishes its citizens for visiting cuba without a government visa.
ReplyDeletethe cuban law is on the books still, but rarely if ever practiced anymore against those directly who have tried to leave and were returned. the three year wait is still applied to family members of defectors. totally disagree with that, and hopefully the travel laws will change in cuba.
hope the ridiculous travel laws will also change in america, which is not under constant threat from cuba.
dissidents in america -- ever heard of the puerto rico nationalists? go try and organize an al queada supported event in usa. there are hundreds of 'dissidents' in american jails without trial, the americans just call them suspected terrorists.
when the united states was at war, or under perceived threats of national security, particularly in WWI and WWII, freedom of speech and opposition was extremely curtailed. abundant examples are easily available. hell, a whole ethnic group was considered dissident in WWII with no proof.. And what do you consider the Eugene Debs case was?
cuba considers itself at war with the USA due to the unrelenting hostility from the AMERICAN side --
and the govt reacts accordingly.
please provide proof of cuban diplomats who have supported violence in the united states with the purpose of overthrowing the american system. when and where were the training sessions held. your accusations are rather explicit in tone but lack any proof.
id be wary of inviting state dept officials to cuba; one of the last time american govt officials came to talk to cuba was to discuss terrorism, the cubans gave evidence, the americans arrested the cuban five.
ReplyDeleteamerican right or wrong, mostly wrong though.
id be wary of inviting state dept officials to cuba; one of the last time american govt officials came to talk to cuba was to discuss terrorism, the cubans gave evidence, the americans arrested the cuban five.
ReplyDeleteamerican right or wrong, mostly wrong though.
Anonymous 6:38PM,
ReplyDeleteYou must be Ricardo Alarcon in disguise. He likes to refer to long ago history as a way to legitimize his political views. Eugene Debs?? Heck, his ideological heir became POTUS last January 20th! And also please read carefully before requesting proof in an insolent manner! Anyone that needs proof of a Cuban diplomat encouraging and/or supporting someone who likes to overthrow the current US political system either by violent or other means by offering training, political cover, and rest areas should just go to the Cuban government websites and read its foreign policy statements! (You can read right? Even though it appears your comprehension level is not too high!)
Not Left Not Right,
I stand corrected. The word dissident refers to anyone "who disagrees with a government or a powerful organization" and therefore there are indeed US dissidents but aside from frustrated Al-Qaeda supporter, Anonymous 6:38PM, it appears that there are no dissidents in the US that are being punished for their views. Aruca, Chomsky, and others you name appear not only to be able to hold their views openly but also profit from them. Aruca is a successful businessman. Chomsky is a professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the land and the dean of linguistics academics. To paraphrase a former VP candidate: "I know dissidents, and they are not dissidents". They just happen to hold and express views that are not government policy at this time. If they are dissidents, we are having lots of dissidents in the US Congress whenever there is no unanimous vote, or in the US Supreme Court every time there is no unanimous decision (I guess no dissidents with the Cincos' decision, though!)
Also your handle appears contradictory. No left no right therefore you are just right? Sorry couldn't resist!
Vecino de NF
You might just be a US dissident if ...
ReplyDeleteyou support Creationism, or
you propagandize that no one ever made it to the Moon, or
you clearly state that Elvis is still alive although he may have left the building, or
you are Phil Peters, or
you are Vecino de NF, ...
Need I say more?
Say good night, Gracie! Good night, Gracie!
Vecino de NF
PS I am no dissident as long as the government does not call me a dissident, and I am not a crook until proven in court! Pardon me, please!
as to Cuba's assistance to "dissidents" in the US, please review the following: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/espionage/cuba-weathermen.htm
ReplyDeleteNot Left Not Right
Not Left Not Right,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link! It's interesting to see the reference to Bill Ayers who is currently a respected member of Academia residing in a very nice part of Chicago, and a publisher author of a fictionalized autobiography.
Vecino de NF
NLNR, very interesting, but what happened during the Cold War, 40 years ago is not what I was looking for.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's this conclusion: "On the whole, however, the report appeared to be more significant for the paucity of support by Communist bloc nations than for the extent of it."
In 1969, the CIA was doing a lot more than just making contacts with dissidents. "During 1969 and 1970, the CIA deployed futuristic weather modification technology to ravage Cuba's sugar crop and undermine the economy.
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteWhat "futuristic weather modification technology"? If there is such a thing, I would love to see it! Maybe it's in Area 51. Wait let's call Mulder and Scully! I am sure they have an X-file on it!
The Cuban sugar crop did not need any outside help to ruin it. Angel Castro did it all by himself with Ulises del Toro finishing the job. And all the time with Fidel Castro intefering into technical decisions!
Reminds me of a joke about a KGB man and CIA man that were drinking together in the early 1990s. As the night advanced and the empty bottles accumulated, the CIA man asked the KGB man to confirm that the KGB blew up the Challenger shuttle. The KGB man replied by asking if the CIA caused the Chernobyl meltdown. The CIA man looked into his drink, and denied that the CIA had anything to do with Chernobyl but he admited that the CIA came up with and implemented GOSPLAN (Central Economic Planning)!
I guess it's Friday and silliness is taking over but come on Leftside it's time to admit Cuba's glorious role in pursuing World Revolution. It only makes it more urgent to come to a realistic agreement between the US and Cuba.
And as far as citing ancient history is concerned, I'll propose that anything done by the US or Cuban government prior to January 20th, 2009 should not be part of any further discussion in this blog. Deal or no deal?
Vecino de NF
This is the most interesting, amusing, informative and overall-fun string of comments I've read in a long time -- anywhere. Love it!
ReplyDelete/s/ Renato
Vecino says: "And as far as citing ancient history is concerned, I'll propose that anything done by the US or Cuban government prior to January 20th, 2009 should not be part of any further discussion in this blog. Deal or no deal?"
ReplyDeletewhile not directed at me, i'd susbscribe to that deal.
Not Left, Not Right