Trinidad

The courtyard of a home in Trinidad that rents rooms to tourists.

Odds and ends

• From Politico.com, a subcommittee chairman comes out on the losing end of a squabble over legislation to end the Cuba travel ban.

• The UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in Cuba issues her report, notes arrests in 2003 and since, is concerned about prison conditions, notes Cuban performance in health and education. Cuban officials granted her no access as she prepared her report. The Cuban representative at the human rights council fingers the CIA.

• The State Department issued its report on human trafficking worldwide, with judgments on each country’s performance. Cuba is placed in the bottom tier.

USAID funding trouble (corrected)

I have not yet seen legislative language, but the word from Capitol Hill is that the House Appropriations Committee approved $5 million for USAID Cuba programs next year. The Administration had requested $40 million. Here’s the program’s website, which is two years out of date. [Correction: $47 million was requested and $9 million was provided.]

The program provides resources to Cuban dissidents, aid for families of political prisoners, and funds for information projects, conferences and organizations in Europe, and third-country solidarity activities. It was the subject of a 2006 GAO report that found a series of management problems: lack of competitive bidding, lack of communication and coordination with other government agencies, and expenditures on items such as Nintendos, cashmere sweaters, and canned crabmeat that were shipped to dissidents in Cuba.

Note:

Odds and ends

• At the Export Law Blog, a note on recent fines imposed by Treasury on embargo violators – a company that shipped furniture from China to Cuba, purchasers of Cuban cigars over the Internet. Plus a few other posts on Cuba sanctions issues.

• While we’re on the subject of the President and the Pope, here’s a January op-ed by the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, in which he associates the Administration’s policy with that of the Vatican, without mentioning that the Vatican and the Cuban Catholic bishops have long opposed the core of the U.S. approach to Cuba, which is to block contacts between Americans and Cubans.

• A Reuters report on a draft EU policy statement that would ditch the EU’s 2003 diplomatic sanctions. Some Europarliamentarians have a different view.

Tintin in Cuba?

Now this is important: “Tintin was in Cuba,” an article by an independent journalist in Cuba, Aleaga Pesant, claiming that the boy adventurer and his trusty dog Snowy had a Cuban experience.

Sort of.

In Tintin and the Picaros (1976), it seems that the bearded guerrilla leader in San Theodoros may have been inspired by Fidel Castro. The supreme authority places this tale in the center of South America, but this is not a contradiction; recall Tintin's romps with Professor Calculus through the fictitious communist countries of Syldavia and Borduria.

The Castro inspiration and the anti-communist orientation of the series, Pesant argues, are two reasons the Tintin adventures were never made known to large numbers of Cuban children.

But it’s never too late.

Read Palabra Nueva

If you read Spanish, it’s well worth checking out a magazine that I have picked up for years in Havana: Palabra Nueva, the magazine of the Havana Archdiocese. It covers politics, culture, history, faith, and more. The current issue includes a piece on the construction of a Russian orthodox church on the Avenida del Puerto. It also includes an interesting essay on the social and economic problems that everyone agrees need to be fixed – and on the need to find a Cuban way to address them. The author, Orlando Marquez, reacts to those who drop in occasionally, instructing Cubans what they need to know and how they need to act, before they return to their hotels, their homes, and their Barcaloungers:

“In numerous meetings with people of various latitudes…not a few refer to the case of the Church in Poland, an example from which, they say, 'we should learn.' While I well understand their ignorance about the history of Cuba and its Church, I can only ask myself which electrode is loose in their head, blocking them from reasoning that Cuban is not Poland, and Cubans are not Poles.”

Alongside, I have added links to the magazine and to the website of the Cuban Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

The suffering artiste

Before the Cannes film festival last month, Michael Moore shot back at the U.S Treasury and released Treasury’s letter demanding information about the trip he made to Cuba in connection with his new documentary, Sicko.

Now, in advance of the film’s June 29 release, Moore and his lawyer claim that the feds are investigating him because of his political views.

The big guy should stop whining as he basks in his government-generated, box-office-generating publicity.

Treasury has investigated and/or fined a grandmother who toured Cuba on bicycle, a son who spread his deceased father’s ashes at the church his Dad had built in Cuba, student groups, and many more.

It’s not about you, Michael. It’s about a general policy that restricts travel of all Americans.

Moore can afford to pay a fine for his unlicensed trip, if it comes to that. If he wants to shine a spotlight more constructively on the policy that affects him and everyone else, he can demand a hearing before one of Treasury’s administrative law judges, and publicize that.

Alamar

Generations

In Spanish, a sensitive essay in El Nuevo Herald on the different experiences and outlooks of different generations of the Cuban diaspora, from the exilio historico to the most recent generation of emigrants who don’t even consider themselves exiles.

“We, the first exiles, a shouting and firm minority, are a species in extinction. It is time that we open our eyes to the reality of some 11 million who did not know that other Cuba and who lived and still live another reality. Who were educated in another system and make up the society of today and the society of the future…The next Cuba is in the hands of those 11 million there.”

And the author, Gloria Leal, a first-generation exile, concludes by calling on her generation to step aside in favor of those 11 million.

It seems Fidel Castro is not the only one doing some reflecting.

Powell: Close Guantanamo prison, try detainees in U.S. territory

The U.S. prison in Guantanamo should be closed, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says – “not tomorrow, but this afternoon.”

From the AP article:

“I would also do it because every morning, I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds,” Powell said. “And so essentially, we have shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission.”

“We don't need it, and it's causing us far more damage than any good we get for it,” he said.

The naval base prison is convenient to the Administration because its location is under U.S. control, but not in U.S. territory and in a legal no-man’s land. And because it is on the only military base we have overseas where we don’t care one whit what the host government thinks.

Bush, the Pope, and Cuba

Here, from The Sunday Telegraph, is the only account of the meeting between President Bush and Pope Benedict that details their discussion of Cuba. But it cites no sources, and the headline is in conflict with the article itself. The headline discusses papal mediation “with Cuba” – between Cuba and the United States, one supposes – but the article implies that the Cuban church would mediate among Cubans by taking a leadership role in the event of a post-Castro crisis in Cuba. And it mentions a “leaked memorandum” from the State Department on possible crisis scenarios in Cuba, without giving any detail about the memo itself.

Other than that, the article is perfectly clear. If a reader fares any better than me in finding anything on that memo, I’ll be happy to link to it.

Havana, Plaza Vieja

EU normalization?

At EU Business.com, a report that at the instigation of Spain and others, the EU may drop its diplomatic sanctions against Cuba, adopted in 2003 and suspended since 2005.

The sanctions included limits on high-level visits and a policy of inviting dissidents to European embassies’ national day receptions. The impact was that European embassies saw reduced contact with Cuban officials while maintaining contact with dissidents. Small-scale local aid projects and law enforcement cooperation carried on.

What is not at issue in this EU debate is economic sanctions. No European country is proposing limits on trade, travel, or investment.

Given the divergent European points of view about how to conduct relations with Cuba – and specifically about the utility of contact with senior officials at this moment in Cuba’s history – it’s surprising these sanctions were not scrapped long ago, allowing EU members each to go their own way.

One assumes that the U.S. government continues to weigh in. U.S.-Spain differences have not been settled, but U.S officials say that Madrid’s goals are the same as Washington’s, and the disagreement is over tactics. That – and the problems inherent in Washington’s own tactics – may take some edge off Washington’s argument.

Meanwhile, from Havana, the Damas de Blanco addressed the issue in a letter to Euro-parliamentarians. They chide those who deal with Cuba with “naivete” and “unlimited preference for economic and commercial interests,” and criticize Spain’s human rights discussions with Cuba.

"Efficiency"

Communications minister and Comandante de la Revolucion Ramiro Valdes spoke about the economy recently; here’s La Jornada’s coverage from Havana correspondent Gerardo Arreola.

The first thing that comes to mind about Mr. Valdes, who is also a former interior minister, is this fishing story (translation at end):

¿DONDE ESTÁN LOS PECES GRANDES?
Fidel va a pescar con Ramiro Valdés, el Jefe de Seguridad de Estado. Tira el anzuelo y después de un rato saca un pecesito chiquito.
Muy molesto le dice a Ramiro:
-Encárgate de esto, Ramiro.

Y se ve a Ramiro cuando coge el pececito y le entra a puñetazos, lo tira al suelo le pisa la cabeza y se le oye interrogándole:
-Díme, díme tú, afeminado ¿Dónde están los peces grandes?

Sorry, back to economics.

The Valdes speech is a window on the economic policy discussion in Cuba today. In it, he alludes to the 2005 Fidel Castro speech that identified economic problems that could possibly destroy the revolution from within. Valdes said:

“To strengthen the economy internally, in science and technology, in addressing social problems and the quality of life of our people, are ideas that we have to take on with greater efficiency, if we want the revolution and Cuban socialism to be truly irreversible, as Fidel and Raul wish.”

He goes on to say that the “struggle for order and discipline” is “perhaps the highest priority.”

There are two courses Cuba can take to attempt to solve the chronic problems identified in the 2005 Castro speech, and discussed with equal or greater bluntness by Raul Castro.

One is to squeeze more out of the current system: energy conservation, new state investment projects, new aid or credits from friends overseas, use of new technology, exhortations to harder and more disciplined work. That’s what “order,” “efficiency,” and “discipline” are all about.

The other involves changing the system through decentralization and the use of market mechanisms, as in the 1990’s.

So far, as the Valdes speech confirms, the official discussion follows the first course, as have recent policy measures such as the new labor regulations and the changes to customs regulations that allow personal, non-commercial imports of appliances and car parts.

The diagnosis of Cuba’s economic problems has been clear, even harsh, and the objectives the government has set forth are ambitious. (See this earlier post on a forthcoming salary policy.) The big question in economic policy today – a question that will get a lot more interesting when Fidel finally leaves – is whether Cuba can meet its goals through “efficiency” alone.

Now, back to the fishing story:

Fidel goes fishing with state security chief Ramiro Valdes. He casts his line, and after a while he pulls in a tiny little fish.

Very upset, he says to Ramiro: “Take charge of this, Ramiro.”

And he sees Ramiro taking the little fish, beating it, throwing it to the ground, stepping on its head, and interrogating it: “Tell me, tell me, you little fairy, where are the big fish?”

Odds and ends

• A restatement of EU policy toward Cuba – calling for “self-determination through [advances in] democracy, rule of law and fundamental freedoms,” expanded EU-Cuba exchanges in many fields, and “more active dialogue” with Washington about Cuba – is going nowhere, EU Observer reports. And some Euro-parliamentarians are pushing for a return to the 2003 diplomatic sanctions.

• Thirteen American religious leaders call on Congress to end the Cuba travel ban.

• The Miami dispute over the Vamos a Cuba elementary school library book is in federal appeals court.

OAS punts

Now that’s the OAS we know and love – at its general assembly in Panama, it passes a lowest-common-denominator, consensus resolution on media freedom that mentions neither Venezuela nor the action against RCTV. The failure to send an investigative mission may be understandable, because the OAS is not constituted to send missions to member states against their will. But the RCTV omission is bad news. Nonintervention is one thing; closing one’s eyes is another.

Ciego de Avila, 2005

New words, same policy

The friendly, anonymous, and slightly right-of-center folks at Western Hemisphere Policy Watch noticed something that caught my eye too: a change in the language that U.S. officials are using to discuss Cuba’s political future.

When the Administration’s Cuba commission issued a report in 2004, and for a good time thereafter, officials called for “transition” and defined it as a complete change in Cuba’s political order, a conversion from socialism to democracy and free markets. This word is rooted in the 1996 Helms-Burton law, which defines a “transition government.” The naming of a Transition Coordinator in the State Department, a step mandated by Helms-Burton, went together with the idea that “transition” implied sufficient change in Cuba that the United States would start sending aid.

Then, “transition” was counterposed with “succession,” a continuation of the current system under post-Fidel Castro leadership. The State Department even announced in 2004 that the United States “will not accept a succession scenario,” and that “there will not be a succession.” “Succession,” even if accompanied by a limited political or economic opening, would bring no change in the U.S. posture – that’s the Administration’s policy, and it’s mandated by Helms-Burton.

Now, the Administration is using the word “transition” differently.

As Western Hemisphere points out, the State Department spokesman said this week:

“There is clearly some form of transition that is under way from Fidel Castro to his brother…”

The Secretary of State has made similar statements; what used to be called “succession” is now being called “transition.”

Are these semantics important?

First, it’s important to point out that the change in language is not accompanied by any change in U.S. policy.

But I don’t think the change is accidental.

A new Administration Cuba team is in place since 2004, Fidel Castro fell ill and left public view ten months ago, and there has been no political turbulence in Cuba. The Administration’s new formulation – that Cuba may or may not experience systemic change when Fidel Castro definitively leaves the scene – is more realistic than the old one.

A second move toward realism is in the Secretary of State’s description of Cuba’s dissidents, delivered en route to Europe; she calls them a “very nascent and fragile democratic opposition that is beginning to arise.”

Neither of these changes makes the Administration’s international pitch – that the way to influence Cuba’s government is to have less contact with it – any easier to sell. And its pretense that only Washington cares about the dissidents, when our allies all have relationships with them – and unlike U.S. diplomats, they travel outside Havana and see them in the provinces – only digs the hole deeper.

Odds and ends

• Don’t know what to make of this one – possible intermediaries approach the U.S. government, possibly on behalf of Cuba, Cuba says according to a U.S. official that they probably were not speaking on Cuba’s behalf. There has never been a shortage of parties interested in mediating between Washington and Havana, and to my knowledge there has never been an interest on either side in using them, considering that the two governments have perfectly good channels of direct communication. Of course, there has been a shortage of issues that the two sides are interested in negotiating.

• Sherritt, buoyed by soaring nickel prices, announces new investment in Cuba to the tune of $1.25 billion in the next two years.

• Fidel’s sister retires, cashes in for $2.2 million.

• More dumping on Spain: In El Nuevo Herald, Soren Triff argues that Cuba’s dissidents put Spain in its place and strengthened themselves – converted themselves into “real agents of change” – by refusing to meet with the Spanish foreign minister’s aide. But the argument is a little tortured, hanging its hat in the end on People’s Weekly World. And the dissidents were pushing hard for a meeting with the foreign minister himself.

• Evo is on his way to Havana.

Hillary et al. on Cuba

Two sites worth watching, both attempting to track presidential candidates’ positions on Cuba policy: one by the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, one by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Neither, unfortunately, has the most flamante of the candidates’ statements so far: Mitt Romney’s “Patria o muerte, venceremos!”

The Fund’s site includes a transcript of an interview with Senator Clinton that is very reminiscent of President Clinton’s statements on Cuba – she carves out a stand-pat, make-no-waves position and supports it by saying that we have to watch changes in Cuba. It’s important to note that it’s early, and her position may be filled out in the campaign or in Senate votes. (She voted to end travel restrictions in 2003.) But for now, to her, greater engagement is not something that is good for American interests given current conditions in Cuba, it’s not a way to promote a flow of information and ideas, it’s not a humanitarian issue. The most she would say about the narrow issue of family travel is that there should be “some discretion.”

June 6

The American military cemetery, Colleville-sur-Mer, Normandy.

A Helms-Burton primer

Whether or not you like the point of view in this paper (pdf, 19 pages), it provides lots of good background on the 1996 Helms-Burton law – its provisions, how they have been applied and against whom, the European reaction, EU bargaining with the United States, and unsuccessful efforts to have sanctions applied against Spain’s Sol Melia hotel chain on behalf of the Sanchez family.

It provides some context that I missed in some earlier discussions here, explaining how Spain led the EU to its “common position” as part of a bargain that kept the United States from allowing the law’s Title III sanctions to take effect. Title III would allow Cuban Americans to sue in U.S. courts those foreign investors whose investments touch their former properties in Cuba. Title III has never gone into effect.

The paper doesn’t include my favorite quote on Helms-Burton, so I’ll provide it:

“In a few short years, there will be freedom, democracy, and human rights in Cuba, and we’ll all go down there and have a good time.”

-- Congressman Dan Burton, March 13, 1996