Alan Gross statement released

Café Fuerte has published the declaration in court of USAID contractor Alan Gross, in his own handwriting.  He explains his intentions and his respect for Cuban sovereignty and his view that he would never set out to subvert a political system.  Most intriguing, he says he was “used” and “duped.”  By whom he does not say – by the U.S. government, the company that contracted him, or Cuban officials.

Café Fuerte also has an interview with Mrs. Gross.

Meanwhile, Governor Richardson is leaving Cuba, having withdrawn after a few days his melodramatic ultimatum not to leave without visiting Mr. Gross in jail.  I have good wishes for anyone who tries to help, but there is a lot that I don’t understand about Richardson’s effort.  Such as why he would set up a conflict over a goal – a prison visit – that lower-profile visitors have achieved without fanfare.  Or why he would provide a running public commentary on his views and his efforts.  In the end, my guess is that neither government objected to his visit, but neither sought his mediation, much less the hoopla.  It looks like improvisation to me, and Mr. Gross deserves better.

Gov. Richardson, plantadito

Doing fine, thanks, just took a break.  Lots of catching up and digging out to do, including many Wikileaks cables now that the whole trove is out.  To get started, the latest in the case of jailed USAID contractor Alan Gross. 

Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is in Cuba to seek Mr. Gross’ release.  He has traveled there before to work on U.S.-Cuban relations, but this time Richardson was invited by the Cuban government, Gross’ lawyer told AP.  The State Department made a statement of support.

Richardson apparently spent a day talking to Cuban officials and was not granted permission to visit Mr. Gross, whom he now labels a “hostage.”  Lodged at the less-than-austere Hotel Nacional, Richardson has begun a war of wills with the Revolution  by declaring that he will not leave Cuba until such a visit is granted. 

Separately, and earlier, Mr. Gross’ lawyer released of some of his testimony at trial to AP.  He said he had been a “trusting fool” and “I was used.”  “Used” how and by whom is not clear.

Speaking of Wikileaks, here’s the December 28, 2009 account of U.S. diplomats’ first visit to Mr. Gross in jail.  He told the U.S. diplomat that Cuban “officials ‘knew everything’ before he was taken into custody and had asked for details of all his

activities, i.e., the projects and companies he had worked for in the 54 countries he had travelled to during his 30-year career.”  He also reported that his personal effects included a “CitiBank password decoder,” whatever that is.

Finally, a CNN report quotes a USAID official describing the Obama Administration’s thinking about Cuba democracy programs. 

The programs are “not about regime change,” the official says.  Fair enough; no one would claim that Alan Gross’ activities would topple the Cuban government.  But the program is funded by a U.S. law that aims explicitly to change the political order in Cuba.  If we write such things in U.S. law – even if for political purposes, even if we don’t take them seriously – we can hardly expect that the target government will treat it lightly.  If we don’t take it seriously and if we want to remove Cuba’s pretext, we can always repeal the law.

The programs are neither clandestine nor covert, the official says, because USAID doesn’t “do intelligence.”  You can say that again!  I have described them as semi-covert, because they are overt here and attempt to be covert there (or “discreet” in USAID’s term).  Operationally, that is an absurd proposition. 

“We don’t use Cuban law as a guide to these kinds of efforts,” the official says.  That’s a good thing in a sense, but the issue is not the validity of Cuban law.  The reason why the State Department advises Americans to comply with foreign laws is not because they have been judged to be valid, or been judged at all.  It’s because if you get thrown in jail, you are subject to the foreign law and the foreign judicial system and its standards.  That’s the practical problem you face regardless of whether the foreign law is just like ours, or incomprehensible to us.

That, of course, is why USAID explicitly warns grantees who participate in its Cuba program.

What I wonder is how the Cuba program affects USAID globally.  USAID works cooperatively, reaching agreements with foreign governments and carrying them out in the open.  The message here is that our principles and interests matter more than their sovereignty, even as regards our activities in their territory.  That is of course a near-universal (and rarely stated) view among governments, even Cuba’s; it’s why governments create foreign intelligence services.  But economic assistance agencies?

(AP photo.)

State sponsor of obfuscation

The State Department’s annual terrorism report, a long, informative report, was issued yesterday.

Ours is the only government that issues report cards on the rest of the world: on human rights practices, on efforts to stop human trafficking, on anti-terrorism efforts. Many people and governments around the world find this U.S. practice somewhere between tedious and arrogant. Congress mandates the reports, the Administration complies.

All the reports are informative, and I have always thought the human rights report to be pretty objective.

I haven’t read the entire terrorism report this year, and I don’t doubt that its information is solid.

I did pay attention to the part that is diplomatically most important, the “state sponsors of terrorism” section, since it amounts to an accusation by our government that other governments are promoting the killing of civilians, to be blunt about it. This section is simply bizarre.

Four countries get the “state sponsor” designation.

The reports on Syria and Iran allege that these governments provide direct political and material support, including providing weapons, to terrorist groups.

The Sudan report indicates that the government works to fight terrorism and cooperates with others in doing so, despite limited capabilities and information.

The Cuba report chides Havana for not severing ties to Colombia’s FARC, but maintains that the contact is “limited” and “there was no evidence of direct financial or ongoing material support.” It cites “media reports” that ETA members are present in Cuba; no mention of any activity. “Cuba did not sponsor counterterrorism initiatives or participate in regional or global operations against terrorists in 2010,” the report says. It does not mention Cuba’s longstanding offer to engage in talks on anti-terrorism matters, nor does it say whether Washington views this offer as serious. Cuba is not mentioned in the review of terrorism in our hemisphere, except for this: “In July, Venezuelan officials arrested and extradited the Salvadoran Francisco Chavez Abarca in connection with the bombings of Cuban hotels in 1997.”

In other words, two of the “state sponsors” are actually sponsoring terrorism, two are not.

North Korea was taken off the list for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism, so it is beyond me why Sudan would remain on the list, given the good efforts the report describes. In Cuba’s case, it seems clear that the evidence is not there, but the Administration doesn’t feel like taking the political heat it would face if it tried to remove Cuba from the list. It is also bizarre to see Cuba and Sudan on the list, and Venezuela not, given what the report says about Venezuela.

The report explains that countries remain on the list until they meet the statutory requirement for removal. Fair enough. But it’s also fair for readers overseas to see the inconsistencies and judge the U.S. approach to be political, and less than serious. That hardly helps the cause of fighting terrorism.

For a contrary view, here’s Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Rep. Rivera's do-over

Rep. David Rivera apparently thought twice about his bill and plans to change it and re-introduce it, the Herald reports.

The new bill will only affect Cuban Americans who travel to Cuba. It’s hard to get into detail because the Herald story is imprecise and Rivera has issued no explanation of his bill, nor is the new legislative language available.

The Herald says that the new bill will require the government “to rescind the adjusted state of Cubans who return to the island before they obtain their U.S. citizenship.” If “rescind the adjusted state” means revoking Fulano’s legal permanent resident status if he travels to Cuba before becoming a citizen (about five or six years), then Fulano would would presumably return to the status of a parolee. If Rivera’s intent is that Fulano could not then apply for a green card again, then Fulano would be unable to travel again, and unable ever to become a citizen and vote.

The message seems to be this: If you come, you have to wait at least five years before returning to Cuba. If you wait, and become a citizen, then you can vote and travel back to Cuba. If you travel to Cuba before becoming a citizen, you will never travel again to any country, you will never become a citizen, and you will never vote.

Otherwise, welcome to America!

[Note: An earlier version of this post erroneously stated that Ninoska Perez, an important figure in the Cuban American community, opposes the bill. Not so.]

Don’t travel, don’t vote, and if you never come that’s fine too

It’s hard to find a starker sign of the divide in the Cuban American community than a bill introduced recently by Rep. David Rivera. It’s el exilio vs. the immigrants, and it’s getting ugly.

It goes beyond recent efforts by him and Rep. Diaz-Balart to limit Cuban American travel to once every three years.

Rep. Rivera wants to delay the process whereby Cuban migrants become legal permanent residents. Under his bill (H.R. 2771) they would be eligible to apply for “green card” status five years after arriving in the United States, as opposed to the one-year wait that is in effect today.

The impact would be to keep Cuban immigrants in “parolee” status for an extra four years, during which they would not travel to Cuba.

A second, harsher impact would be a four-year delay in eligibility for voting. When all works well, citizenship comes five years after the green card. Rep. Rivera would add four years to the wait for green card eligibility, which means an extra four-year wait for citizenship and voting eligibility.

All in all, it’s an effective if indirect scheme to block travel by recent immigrants, which most of us regard as none of anyone’s business, much less the government’s, and to delay their attaining citizenship and participating in elections, which most of us regard as something beautiful, the culmination of an immigrant’s decision to come here and become part of our country.

Only in Miami.