The
Boston
Globe’s Bryan Bender reports that the State Department is considering
removing Cuba from the list of “state sponsors of terrorism.”
If true, it’s a sign of fresh
thinking and common sense at the State Department.
Secretary Clinton, like President
Clinton, seemed to treat Cuba issues in large measure according to the
political calculation that won President Clinton the White House. To wit, to erode the Republican advantage on
national security issues by taking positions wherever possible that would leave
no enemies on the right.
That meant, in the case of Cuba, letting
stand the “terrorist” designation that has been specious for years and that has
devalued the U.S. voice on terrorism issues by showing the world that we were
happy to make a nonsensical annual statement about Cuba for domestic electoral
purposes.
The Calle Ocho line is that removing
Cuba from the list would be a unilateral concession to Havana – an argument
that adds another layer of absurdity. If
you did something stupid like batting one-handed for, say, a few decades, would
you refuse to bat two-handed because to do so would be a concession to the
other team?
Also, consider this: If the U.S.
government and Calle Ocho really thought Cuba were a terrorism sponsor, would
we be admitting every Cuban who arrives on a U.S. shore or border crossing,
processing them within days, giving them quick access to public assistance and
a path to a green card in one year? Would we not worry that some might be sent to
harm us?
Ending the designation would make
the U.S. voice on terrorism more serious, and it might make others take our
Cuba policy more seriously because it would be more based on legitimate
criticisms.
It will also reduce financial
sanctions that are tied to the “state sponsor” designation; those sanctions harm
Cuba’s economy by raising country risk, the cost of doing business, and the
cost of credit. So be it. If there’s a national security case to be
made about Cuba, or a need for additional political criticisms or economic
sanctions, let it be made based on evidence rather than repeating an accusation
that has not been valid for years.