Until yesterday it
appeared that Edward Snowden, the rat on the run for divulging U.S. government
secrets, might depart Russia for a life of political asylum in Ecuador, making
a brief stop on our favorite island. But
the Moscow-Havana Aeroflot flight took off without him, and his plans and
whereabouts are as unclear as ever.
Today, Russian officials are
denying that he is even there.
(Update: President Putin confirms that he’s in Russia and won’t be extradicted.)
(Update: President Putin confirms that he’s in Russia and won’t be extradicted.)
Cuba has not been
mentioned as an asylum option. Is that
because Cuba has been asked and said no?
Anya Landau French dug up the State Department’s
terrorism report for
2005
where the section that justifies Cuba’s designation as a “state sponsor of
terrorism” includes this statement: “Cuba has stated that it will no
longer provide safe haven to new U.S. fugitives who may enter Cuba.” That’s a pretty clear statement of Cuban policy,
not something that Bush Administration officials would have included casually. If it applies now, and if it bars layovers as
well as long-term stays, then Snowden needs a Plan B, big time.
There
has been no Cuban government statement on the matter. This article in yesterday’s
Granma simply rounds up the news about Snowden without mentioning speculation
that he might transit Cuba on his way to Quito.
The reason Snowden is
having to hop-scotch around the world is that the United States has agreements
with many countries that would require them to turn Snowden over. And in the absence of agreements, we have
relationships with many countries that are sufficiently strong that they would
be open to a request from Washington.
Add up the two categories of countries, and Snowden’s options narrow.
The United States and
Cuba do have an extradition agreement in force, dating from 1904. But it is a dead letter because neither side
has honored its terms for years. From
the first weeks of Cuba’s revolution, the United States refused to hand over
persons sought by Cuba, and Cuba has fugitives from U.S. justice that it has
refused to hand over.
Since extradition
agreements are based on reciprocal obligations, and since the United States
thinks little of Cuba’s justice system, it is unlikely that the United States
would seek to revive an extradition agreement with Cuba. Even in cases where we have agreements, some
do not apply to all crimes. As we saw in
the Ana Montes case, Montes’ alleged accomplice Marta Rita Velazquez is safely out
of reach of U.S. law in Sweden because our extradition
agreement with that country excludes political crimes, a category that
includes espionage.
But what if we did
negotiate with Cuba? Each side would
carve out exceptions from the obligation to extradict, and the agreement might
exclude past cases such as Luis Posada Carriles and JoAnn Chesimard. Even if it’s an agreement full of holes, it
would be worth it if it complicates the life and travels of the next Edward
Snowden.
No comments:
Post a Comment