National Summit on Cuba

October 4, 2003

A Compendium of Commentary

Sponsored by

World Policy InstitutePuentes Cubanos

Cuban Committee for DemocracyFundación Amistad

The Time is Now CoalitionCambio Cubano

Americans For Humanitarian Trade With Cuba

The National Summit on Cuba Compendium

Cuba Project, World Policy Institute

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Cosponsoring Organizations

2 Supporting, Individuals, Organizations and Staff

3 Overview in the Context of Events of 2003

6 Introductory Remarks: Lissa Weinmann, Project Director, Cuba Project, World Policy Institute

7 Open Letter to the National Summit On Cuba: President Jimmy Carter

8 Points of View from the New Generation of Cuban-Americans Moderator: Silvia Wilhelm, Puentes Cubanos

9 Elizabeth Cerejido, Exhibitions Coordinator, Florida International University Art Museum

11 José Latour, Immigration Attorney, Journalist, Musician, Former U.S. Diplomatic Officer

13 Cynthia Barrera, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Miami School of International Studies Producer of Maria Elvira Confronta

15 Mayda Prego, Attorney, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, Miami

16 Questions and Answers: The New Generation

18 Florida - A Changing Political Equation? Moderator: Alfredo Duran, Cuban Committee for Democracy

18 Pat Collier Frank, Hillsborough County Commissioner

20 Kenneth Lipner, Ph.D., Department of Economics, University of Miami, former Economic Development Coordinator for Miami’s Downtown Development Authority

22 Joe McClash, Manatee County Commissioner

24 Alvaro Fernández, Florida Director, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project

25 Rob Schroth Schroth & Associates, Pollster for Miami Herald

26 Annie Betancourt, former Florida State Representative (ran for national office against current U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz Balart on a pro-change platform toward Cuba)

28 Questions & Answers: A Changing Political Equation

29 Our National Interest, Our National Security Moderator: Lissa Weinmann, Cuba Project, World Policy Institute

29 General John Sheehan, USMC (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief U.S. Atlantic Command, Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic

32 The Hon. William D. Rogers, former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American relations (1974-1977),

34 William Ratliff, Ph.D., Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University

38 Ken Lindeman, Senior Scientist and Cuba Program Director Environmental Defense

40 Mayor Michael C. Dow, Mobile, Alabama

42 Questions and Answers: Our National Security, Our National Interest

46 The Human Dimensions of U.S. Policy Moderator: Luly Duke, President, Fundación Amistad

Vice Chair, Kissinger Associates

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

47 José Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director, Americas Division, Human Rights Watch

50 Holly Ackerman, Amnesty International

51 Robert Bach, Ph.D., Senior Visiting Fellow, Inter-American Dialogue, Former Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Programs, INS

54 Thomas Wenski, Bishop of Orlando, Former Bishop of Miami

56 Donna Hicks, Ph.D., Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University

57 Peter G. Bourne, M.A., M.D., Chairman, Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba

60 James Early, Ph.D., Director of Cultural Heritage Policy, Smithsonian Institution

62 Questions and Answers: The Human Dimensions of U.S. Policy

64 Impetus for and Implications of Open Travel to Cuba Moderator: Antonio Zamora, The Time is Now Coalition, U.S. Cuba Legal Forum, Bay of Pigs Veteran, Former Counsel to the Cuban American National Foundation

64 U.S. Representative William Delahunt (D-MA)

67 U.S. Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

68 Phil Peters, Vice President, Lexington Institute, former U.S. Department of State Official under President Reagan

70 Bradley Belt, Executive Director, Association of Travel Related Industry Professionals

72 Questions and Answers: Open Travel

74 The U.S., Cuba and the International Community: A Multilateral Perspective Moderator: Patricia Gutiérrez Menoyo, Cambio Cubano

75 Joaquín Roy Ph.D., Jean Monnet Professor, Director of the EU Center, University of Miami

78 John Mcauliff, Executive Director, Fund for Reconciliation and Development

82 The Hon. Mark Entwistle, former Canadian Ambassador to Cuba

84 Questions and Answers: The International Community

85 Closing Remarks Dr. William Leogrande, Ph.D., Dean, School of Public Affairs, American University

87 Mikhail Gorbachev Keynote Address Introduction: Michael Putney, ABC Network News Anchor, Miami

87 Mikhail Gorbachev

94 Questions and Answers

97 Excerpts from Mikhail Gorbachev’s Press Conference

100 Cosponsor Information

108 Biographies of Speakers

130 Editorial: The Last Wall by Mikhail Gorbachev and Selected Press Clips

1

COSPONSORS

THE WORLD POLICY INSTITUTEA research and education policy center that seeks innovative solutions to critical problems facing the United States and the world

PUENTES CUBANOSCreating links between the people of the United States, Cuba and the Cuban diaspora

CUBAN COMMITTEE FOR DEMOCRACYFacilitating the necessary environment for a peaceful transition in Cuba

FUNDACIÓN AMISTADPromoting mutual understanding and respect between the peoples of the United States and Cuba

TIME IS NOW COALITIONFlorida Cuban American leaders working together for change

AMERICANS FOR HUMANITARIAN TRADE WITH CUBA (AHTC)A national organization of leaders who advocate lifting restrictions on food and medical trade with Cuba and

the free travel necessary for such trade to occur. Advisory Council members follow:

Carla Anderson HillsFormer U.S. Trade Rep

Dwayne AndreasArcher Daniels Midland Company

Phil BaumAmerican Jewish Congress

Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr.Former Treasury Secretary

Reginald K. Brack, Jr.Former Chairman, Time Inc.

Melinda BushHospitality Resources Worldwide

Dr. Joan Brown CampbellChautauqua Institution

Frank C. CarlucciFormer Reagan NSC Chief

A.W. ClausenFormer President, World Bank

Alberto CollPell Center for Internationaland Public Policy, RI

Francis Ford Coppola

Peter H. CoorsCoors Brewing Company

The Honorable Michael C. DowMayor, Mobile, Alabama

Dr. Robert EdgarNational Council of Churches

Richard E. FeinbergFormer NSC Chief Latin America

Craig L. Fuller [AHTC Co-Chair]Former Chief of Staff, VP Bush

Sam M. Gibbons [AHTC Co-Chair]Former 34-year Florida Congressman

Larry Gold, PhDSomaLogic, Inc., Colorado

Mark O. HatfieldFormer U.S. Senator, Oregon

Grazell HowardCoalition of 100 Black Women

Rev. Clifton KirkpatrickPresbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Bob OdomLouisiana Commissioner of Agriculture

George Sturgis PillsburySargent Management Company

A.J. Pete ReixachPort of Freeport, Texas

Julius B. Richmond, M.DFormer Surgeon General

Dennis Rivera1199 National Health & Human ServiceEmployees Union

David Rockefeller

James Rodney SchlesingerFormer CIA Director, Defense Secretary

Kurt L. SchmokeFormer Mayor of Baltimore

General John J. Sheehan (retired),Former Supreme Allied Commander,Atlantic (NATO)

Mark SanfordGovernor, South Carolina

Oliver Stone

Paul A. VolckerFormer Chair US FederalReserve

Malcolm WallopFormer U.S. Senator, Wyoming

John WhiteheadFormer Deputy Secretary of State

Jim WinklerUnited Methodist Church

National Summit on Cuba

FLORIDA 2003

2

SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Silvia Wilhelm, Puentes Cubanos

Alfredo G. Duran, Cuban Committee for Democracy

María de Lourdes “Luly” Duke, Fundación Amistad

Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo, Cambio Cubano

Patricia Gutiérrez, Cambio Cubano

Antonio Zamora, Time Is Now Coalition

Sam Gibbons, Americans For Humanitarian Trade With Cuba (AHTC)

Kathleen Donahue, The Donahue Group

James L. Abernathy, Abernathy MacGregor, Inc.

A.W. Claussen, Former President, World Bank

Paul Volcker, Former Chair, U.S. Federal Reserve Bank

Randy K. Haynie, Haynie & Associates

The Christopher Reynolds Foundation

The General Services Foundation

The Arca Foundation

SUMMIT SPEAKERS RECEPTION HOSTSTessie Aral, ABC Charters

Joe Perez, Cuba Travel Services, Inc.Tom Cooper, Gulfstream Airlines

Xiomara Almaguer and Eddie Levy, Xael Travel

WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE CUBA PROJECT STAFFLissa Weinmann, Summit Coordinator ♦ John Loggia, Assistant Summit and Communications Coordinator

Michele Wojcik, Assistant Summit Coordinator ♦ Emily Myers, Summit Intern ♦ Tucker Hall, Public Relations, Tampa, Florida

SPECIAL THANKS TOPavel Palazhchenko ♦ Steve Schwadron ♦ Rep. Delahunt ♦ Lisandro Perez-Rey ♦ Marlene Arzola, Cuban Committee for Democracy

Matthew Sholler, Fundacion Amistad ♦ Dan Krassner and Christian Leon, Tucker Hall ♦ J.P. Wright ♦ Robert WalkerMavis Anderson, Latin America Working Group ♦ Ali Arostegui ♦ Beatriz Miyar ♦ Naife Fallace ♦ Robyn Weiss

National Summit on Cuba

FLORIDA 2003

3

OVERVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF EVENTS OF 2003

The National Summit on Cuba: Florida was held at the historic Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables,Florida on October 4, 2003. Diverse leaders from across the United States convened withCuban-Americans from South Florida to explore alternative policy approaches to Cuba, infront of an audience of 400 participants. This growing segment of the Cuban-Americancommunity in Florida seeks to end the forty-three year political stalemate between the twogovernments in order to promote national reconciliation and participation in a changing Cubansociety.

Chosen for his leadership role in charting a new course for the Soviet Union and the world atlarge, Mikhail Gorbachev delivered the keynote address at the Summit. Gorbachev shared hispersonal vision of how to heal a community torn apart by a policy that many view as ananachronistic and a painful legacy of the Cold War. Reflecting on his experience, Gorbachevadvocated a new approach of diplomatic and economic engagement with Cuba that wouldadvance U.S. interests and empower Cuban citizens.

NATIONAL SUMMIT ON CUBA: AN ANNUAL EVENT

The Miami National Summit on Cuba was the second in what has become an annual gatheringof American and international leaders from all sectors representing various points of view onU.S. – Cuba relations. The Summits are held in various cities, and organized by the WorldPolicy Institute’s Cuba Project in conjunction with different cosponsors depending on theorientation of the event. The Summits’ guiding mission, whatever the city or roster ofcosponsoring organizations is to examine and illuminate how our policy of unilateral economicand diplomatic embargo on neighboring Cuba affects the U.S. economy, our national security,the well-being and human rights of the Cuban people and U.S. leadership internationally,among other areas.

The first Summit, held at Washington DC’s National Press Club in 2002, was cosponsored bythe World Policy Institute, the USA Engage Coalition of more than 650 U.S. corporations(many household names) and the American Farm Bureau Federation and Americans ForHumanitarian Trade With Cuba. The Summit assembled an impressive ‘grass tops’ array of 44speakers and delegations from 28 states including elected officials, corporate representatives,port and transportation officials, farmers, local trade groups and chambers of commerce as wellas a broad array of human rights and religious leaders. Approximately 400 Cuban Americansparticipated in the second day of the Summit, organizing various Congressional panels onchanges within that important community.

The Florida Summit was meant to inform a policy review the Bush Administration hadannounced was taking place in 2003. The review came in the wake of a Cuban governmentcrackdown on political dissidents which appeared to arrest a trend toward more political andeconomic openness on the island.

NATIONAL SUMMIT ON CUBA: FLORIDA

4

THE CONGRESSIONAL CONTEXT IN 2003

During 2003, tension grew between the Administration and Congress, as well as within theRepublican Party itself.

Despite growing bipartisan momentum to lift the ban on U.S. citizens’ ability to travel to Cuba,the Bush administration in 2003 greatly tightened restrictions on legal travel to Cuba bycutting-off all people-to-people exchanges.

Several votes in early September 2003 reflected the House of Representatives support forbroad relaxation of the Cuba embargo.

Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) sponsored an amendment that would cut the appropriationfor the Department of Treasury to enforce the travel ban. That amendment won by a vote of227-188.

Representative William Delahunt (D-MA) sponsored an amendment that would haveprohibited Treasury from enforcing any cap on remittances to Cuba. That amendment passed222-196.

Representative Jim Davis (D-Tampa) sponsored an amendment that would have restored thepeople-to-people travel that President Bush had cut earlier that year. The House passed thatamendment by a 246 to173 vote.

On October 23, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-SD) introduced the same amendment that passed thehouse which would, again, have eliminated Treasury’s ability to enforce the travel embargo bywithholding the Congressional appropriation to do so. The amendment passed by a 59 to 36vote. The Senate roll call on that vote is included later in this compendium.

The normal procedure when the Senate and House pass exact language is that it is included inthe final bill, and it was fully expected that the Cuba language would therefore be included inthe final Treasury Appropriations bill which would then be sent to the President for signature.

Congressional leaders in 2003 summarily removed the Cuba language. The move was widelyviewed as a shocking and unusual measure that angered Congressional leaders on both sides ofthe aisle. It is generally accepted that the leaders did this to avoid sending the bill to thePresident as he had said he would veto the important spending provision if it containedlanguage that loosened the embargo on Cuba.

The Senate later underscored its support for open travel when the Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee, chaired by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), passed separate language that wouldend all travel restrictions to Cuba. U.S. Senator John Kerry voted yes for that measure andremains a cosponsor of that same legislation to end the travel ban entirely.

5

THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT OF U.S. CUBA POLICY IN 2003

The Summit underscored how the international and human rights community has been caughtin the crossfire of U.S.-Cuba politics. While chagrined at the turn of events in Cuba, theinternational community steadfastly refuses to follow suit with economic isolationism, makingany efforts to form a multilateral policy toward Cuba necessarily predicated on U.S. stepstoward diplomacy and principled engagement with Cuba.

Polish Solidarity leader Lech Walesa and ‘Velvet Revolution’ head Vaclav Havel in 2003 werejoined by other Eastern European leaders in denouncing both the crackdown in Cuba and U.S.policy toward Cuba.

The two main human rights groups (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) spoke atthe Summit. They reiterated the view of political dissidents in Cuba in explaining how currentU.S policy impedes the cause of political freedom and human rights in Cuba. Both groupscalled for steps toward diplomatic engagement between the U.S. and Cuba, encouraging theU.S. to take the first step by recognizing American citizens’ human right to travel freely toCuba.

The Organization of American States refused in early 2003 to entertain a U.S. resolutioncondemning Cuba for the political crackdown, arguing that the measure was illegal since,because the U.S. bars Cuba’s membership in the OAS, Cuba had no standing therefore noability to defend itself within the regional body. The U.S. subsequently lost its important seaton the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.

A 2003 resolution from the European Union condemning Cuba’s human rights abuses alsocondemns U.S. policy toward the island. The United Nations has annually condemned theembargo as an abrogation of international law for 10 years running. The last vote in 2003 was157 to 3.

THE CUBAN-AMERICAN CHANGE AND BUSH ADMINISTRATION REACTION

Numerous polls conducted in 2003 showed that a majority of Americans and Cuban-Americansin South Florida believe the U.S. government should embark on a new policy, which canenhance their ability to participate in an evolving Cuba as well as begin to address the interestsof the Cuban people as they themselves, express them. The community is increasingly andnow openly discussing what can be done to speed the reunification of the Cuban family for thebenefit of current and future generations on both sides of the Florida Straits.

Days after the Florida Summit, despite the obvious change of heart within the Cuban Americancommunity and the urgings of President Gorbachev for President Bush to “Tear down the wallof this embargo,” President Bush reiterated his support of the embargo in a Rose Garden eventon October 10, 2004.

In his speech that day to a group of 100 Cuban American embargo supporters (which excludedrepresentatives of the Cuban American National Foundation which by then had become viewedas too moderate since they had earlier in the year advocated dialogue with Cuban governmentrepresentatives except for the Castros), President Bush announced the formation of aPresidential Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. The President’s comments areincluded later in this compendium.

6

The Commission would be composed of the heads of various U.S. government agencies andinclude no private sector participation. In 2004, the Bush Administration would adopt many ofthe Commission recommendations to cut family travel to Cuba, limit remittances andappropriate some $56 million in U.S. government funds to help speed a rapid and peacefulpolitical transition in Cuba.

THE IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL SUMMITS ON CUBA

For Americans at large, the National Summit on Cuba provided a valuable and historicopportunity to examine Cuba in relation to our national security needs in a changing world. Italso allowed an overview of the new commercial opportunities being explored by U.S.companies, farmers and communities as a result of limited but renewed sales of U.S. foodproducts to Cuba under the 2000 Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act. Mostimportantly, the 2003 Summit allowed us to reconsider our approach toward an importantneighbor and share opinions on what an effective, proactive U.S. policy could be and what weas a nation can realistically expect such a policy to do.

DOCUMENTATION

A full set of DVDs from this and previous Summits, including the historic Gorbachev address,have been distributed to various government repository libraries throughout the United Statesand are available for purchase from the World Policy Institute. Copies of this Compendium arealso available. Please call the World Policy Institute’s Cuba Project at 212 229 5953 for moreinformation or email cubaed@newschool.edu

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

LISSA WEINMANNPROJECT DIRECTOR, CUBA PROJECT, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE

Greetings, welcome, I am glad to see everyone gathered here today, at our 2nd National Summiton Cuba. In Washington last year we brought together representatives from across the countyto give voice to the broad National Support for a more constructive U.S. policy on Cuba. Thisyear we have chosen to focus on the support in the Cuban American community in Florida fora new policy.

Our keynote speaker, Mikhail Gorbachev, has been invited at the behest of the CubanAmerican groups co-sponsoring this event to provide his insights into the key developmentsthat led to the transformation of Russia and how the lessons he learned could be applied to thecurrent standoff between the United States and Cuba.

I would like to introduce Shelly McConnell. Shelly works with president Carter at the CarterCenter in Atlanta, Georgia. She accompanied President Carter on his Historic trip to Cuba lastyear and has continued to travel back to Cuba as President Carter’s representative in ongoingdiscussions with the Cuban Authorities and with the Cuban people. I’d like now to introduceShelly to come up and read a word of greeting from president Carter welcoming you all to ourconference today. Thank you

7

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE NATIONAL SUMMIT ON CUBAPRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER

READ BY SHELLEY MCCONNELL PH.D.ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, AMERICAS PROGRAM, THE CARTER CENTER

McConnell: Good morning. It is my privilege to be with you here today to read an open letterfrom former U.S. president Jimmy Carter:

Greetings to those who have gathered in Miami for the second National Summit on Cuba.

My visit to Cuba in May of 2002 was the first by a U.S. president since the 1959 Revolution. Iwent at the invitation of Fidel Castro to discuss our common interests in improving worldhealth and inter-American relations. Rather than interfere in Cuba's internal affairs, I went toextend a hand of friendship directly to the Cuban people and to urge mutual respect betweenour societies. Regrettably, neither the United States nor Cuba has been willing or able to definethis positive relationship.

The events of the past year have been disturbing, leading some to call for an even deeperisolation of Cuba by the United States. The Cuban government has imposed extraordinarilyharsh prison sentences on Cuban citizens peaceably seeking to change their country'slegislation and promote freedoms of expression and assembly and also has executed hijackersin Cuba after summary trials, while the U.S. government has further restricted the rights ofAmerican citizens to travel where they please.

While distressing, the actions by both governments simply reinforce the points I made morethan a year ago during my speech in Havana. I called on the United States to end the tradeembargo, not because U.S. policy is responsible for the economic hardships that Cubansendure, but because as the more powerful nation, we should take the first step. I also supportedthe right of all U.S. citizens to trade and travel freely, and I called for an unrestricted studentexchange between our universities, believing, as I have for a quarter of a century, that culturalinterchange between neighbors holds no threat for free societies. Deepening the divide thatseparates our countries is not the answer.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts citizens' rights to choose their own leaders,speak freely, organize political parties and civil society organizations, and have fair and opentrials. This aspiration must be fulfilled by the people of Cuba. I consider the Varela Project tobe an effort by Cubans to work with one another to change laws peacefully. In Havana, I notedthe concerns expressed by many Latin American countries that after four decades Cuba has yetto meet universally accepted standards of civil liberties despite tremendous progress on healthcare and education.

These have been my views since I was president, and they have not changed.

U.S.-Cuban relations have been frozen for four decades - but the world has changed. The ColdWar has ended, as Mikhail Gorbachev so eloquently points out. The Cuban family has alsochanged. Citizens are asking for their basic rights of free speech and assembly, whileupholding their right to decide their future for themselves as a sovereign country. In the UnitedStates, Cuban-Americans now include recent migrants and a new generation born in the U.S.

8

Views are diversifying, with polls showing that the majority now favors increased ties - traveland remittances, not more punitive measures that hurt their family members in Cuba. In thisrespect, the Cuban government's announcement that it will end the visa requirement for manyCuban-Americans is most welcome.

Cuban-Americans are seeking creative alternatives, and I applaud this search. This Summit is achance for an open dialogue among those who care deeply about the island. It takes courage tomake change, to be receptive to new ideas. Though I could not be with you today, I urge youall to be courageous in listening to and debating every idea presented and to seek new ways toimprove the lives of all Cubans no matter where they live.

I look forward to seeing the results of your deliberation.

POINTS OF VIEW FROM THE NEW GENERATION OF CUBAN-AMERICANS

MODERATOR: SILVIA WILHELMPUENTES CUBANOS

Silvia Wilhelm : I have been asked to moderate the panel of the younger generation of Cuban-Americans that represents the future—a panel, if I may add, with a very bright future, on bothsides of the Florida straits. I am convinced that the future is now. They are part of the present.The group that you will hear today has had the courage to come out in the open and takecharge.

My name is Silvia Wilhelm and I am the Executive Director of Puentes Cubanos. I am Cuban-American. I came to the United States in 1961 as one of the 14,000 children that fled theisland with Operación Pedro Pan. My parents didn’t want me to be raised in a communistcountry. I applaud their decision. My decision to return to the island in 1994 is one that theyhave also applauded. I am delighted to have made that decision—it is one that has trulychanged my life.

Puentes Cubanos is a not-for-profit organization incorporated in the state of Florida in June1999. The main objective of Puentes Cubanos is to develop the institutional frameworks thatwill facilitate humanitarian and reconciliation projects between Cuba and the United States.The board of directors of Puentes Cubanos consists primarily of Cuban-Americans and oneAmerican-Cuban intent on working on the reconciliation of the Cuban family. They believethat through the initiations of mutual projects, Cubans on both sides of the Florida straits candevelop fluid communication that will lead to much needed trust and respect—essentialingredients on the path of such reconciliation. Examples of projects initiated by PuentesCubanos reside in the area of cultural exchanges, professional exchanges with primaryemphasis on medical delegations and medical projects in Cuba, and a very specific project thatfosters dialogue between members of that generation—la generación N and their counterpartsin Cuba. That particular project has been going on for the last four years and it is veryunfortunate that when we sent our renewal for our license to continue the project, it was deniedby the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Quite unfortunate, but we will continue the fight. Ifthere is a project that needs to be licensed, I would say it is that project.

9

ELIZABETH CEREJIDOEXHIBITIONS COORDINATOR, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY ART MUSEUM

“There is not one Cuban-American in this room that does not have a story - that has not beenmarked significantly or otherwise by this idea of there vs. here, of family members that left andthe ones that stayed behind.”

When I think of a word that might conjure up an image about the Cuba story I think of theword schism - like a great divide that has left a crude and profound gap on the earth – the issueof separation has left deep marks in the lives of all Cubans. This is not unique. There arecountless stories of exile and immigration to a number of groups of people around the world.And yet each is infinitely personal. There is not one Cuban-American in this room that doesnot have a story - that has not been marked significantly or otherwise by this idea of there vs.here, of family members that left and the ones that stayed behind.

In my case, that schism marked my parent’s history – tore right through a romance thatthroughout 12 years of separation dissolved into much pain and disillusionment. I was born inCuba in 1969 and my mother brought me to this country when I was merely 6 months old. Myparents had only lived together for a year as a married couple but nine years went by before Imet my father for the first time and before my parents saw each other again. Only that meetingwould take place in a Cuban jail – since my father was later put in jail as a political prisoner.In 1980, via the Mariel boatlift, we were reunited again. My father passed away in January of2001 and this event prompted, among many other things, the beginning of an insatiable questinto the meaning of my identity both on a cultural and personal level.

I am representative of a generation that grew up within the context of a very particular place. Thatcontext I refer to is Miami and the obsessive nature of a place in which every corner, every otherstreet sign evokes something Cuban in an attempt to recover the country that was left behind.Ironically, these overtures have done little to actually connect us to the very place that it wants torecreate. How can we connect to Cuba when we deny the place that exist so close to us? Becauseof the intolerance that has permeated the political climate for so long, I feel that our generationhas been robbed of the opportunity to form our own informed opinions and experiences bymaking the very place we want to connect with a forbidden one. The long- standing embargo, ahistory of politicians banning cultural and artistic exchanges with Cuba and the recent travel ban,etc. have only served to polarize either side and create a situation where things are formulated inbinary terms: good vs. bad, black vs. white. This is no way to try to affect change.

It was during the Elian episode that I became passionate about my political involvement in theCuba issue. It was impossible to ignore this scenario or feel apathetic about which side to take.I found myself having no place, no room to debate a point of view that differed greatly fromthe majority of the Cuban-American community. The Elian saga became a mirror that clearlyreflected how intolerant we had become. It was then that I found myself writing letters to ourlocal papers out of anger and frustration, out of a desperate need to let the rest of the worldknow that other Cubans felt differently and expressed themselves in a manner that allowed anopen debate to take place. It was painful to see how our own community became polarized andhow we in turn alienated other groups due to our unwillingness to listen to other points ofviews. It was during this time, as well, that I sought out people in the community like MaxCastro and Silvia Wilhelm to guide me as to where and how I could express my views and

10

become involved. These meetings led to many events such as lobbying in Washington againstthe travel ban, launching a group called Yo Si Voy and most importantly a trip to Cuba inOctober of last year through an exchange program sponsored by Puentes Cubanos with theUniversity of Havana. This particular experience became a turning point in my life.

It was during this trip that I became acutely aware through conversations with Cubans of mygeneration that an exchange of ideas is crucial if any type of healing and future reconciliation isgoing to take place. I became aware of the following: that they too long to connect with usand also feel the loss of those that leave the country; that they are much more critical of theirgovernment than I had been led to believe but that interestingly enough they feel committed toplaying an active role in the future of Cuba and that they have a much more complexunderstanding of their reality. These revelations also marked me and though they inspired meto believe that we can work toward a common goal, I also realized how little we knew abouteach other. I was able to share with them one evening, for example, that as a group we visitedLa Cabana (where my father was imprisoned) to witness a historically enacted ceremony, thatthis beautiful and peaceful place once was a prison and where countless executions took place.To my amazement, some had no idea it had been used for those purposes.

I had first hand experience with artists, economists and other young Cuban professionals whogenuinely expressed their unique perspectives, who showed a genuine interest in sharing theirideas of how they would like the quality of their lives to improve. To this day, we continue tocorrespond via e-mail and the dialogue that was initiated a year ago is alive and continues totransform, develop and mature. These exchanges convinced me that our generation will be animportant or crucial part of the bridge toward reconciliation with our counterparts in Cuba.

My recent trips to Cuba have also strengthened my conviction that travel to Cuba is crucial forthis bridge to form and be effective. I feel strongly that this can only take place for us inparticular, by traveling and having a lived experience there. Thus I have lobbied in favor oflifting the travel ban because at the core of the Cuban issue lie such deeply personal wounds,healing must be the first step toward reconciliation and future change. This can only take placeby beginning to understand one another and that in turn can only take place if we change ourlaws thus allowing for free travel and allowing for the flow and exchange of ideas to takeplace. Changing our policies is the beginning of that change.

I feel my father was a victim of an intolerant regime and conversely I feel that to some degreewe have all been victims of laws that stem from intolerance. Our generation sees Cuba as anintegral part of what forms our identity. We are all eager to learn where we come from, whereour parents come from, to see for ourselves the very places we grew up hearing about. If wedo not create an environment whose politics allows us to express our concerns, voice ouropinions and not be intimidated by questioning, than we run the risk of remaining apathetic orsimply voicing what our parents have voiced for the past 40 years. And we now know thatroute has been ineffective.

How can our generation take a step toward unraveling the intolerance? If our identity does notdevelop through our own experiences it will only be something inherited and we will not takeresponsibility for our actions. How do we transcend memory if we are not allowed to makecontact with the place where those memories are borne?

11

JOSÉ LATOUR,IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY, JOURNALIST, MUSICIAN,FORMER U.S. DIPLOMATIC OFFICER

“We are willing to speak to everyone, with Socialists, Communists, right-wingers...but onething is for sure: the future of Cuba is only assured by discussions amongst everyone.”

These are not the words of a disillusioned Castro revolutionary, not of an island dissident, notthe words of a long-time exile exasperated with decades of a failed policy, calling for change.No. These were the words of the leader of the most respected conservative, pro-embargoorganization in the U.S., the voice of the home of the Cuban exile community. These were thewords of Jorge Mas Santos to the Miami Herald on January 30, 2003.

After leaving Havana at the age of 4 in 1966 I was privileged to return for the first time inMarch of this year, wide-eyed and full of wonder. My first days were filled with tearfuloutrage—outrage at an embargo that had made the short flight to my island birthplace prettymuch impossible for decades—Outraged at the bald-faced lies about the reality of life in Cubathat my mother had listened to for decades on Miami’s a.m. stations. I was outraged at the visitto the house from which we were ejected due to my father’s refusal to endorse the Castroregime, at the foreigners-only pharmacy, at the one-year jail sentence that accompanies theconviction of a Cuban national’s consumption of a lobster or beef steak.

But, a few days into it, I was overwhelmed. I was shocked at my ignorance, for one thing. Ihad blamed the embargo for Cuba’s financial mess, apparently buying into Castro’s wholespin. Not until I witnessed the colossal chaos and fundamental failure of a socialist/communistnon-economy first hand, did I understand that the embargo has little to do with Cuba’sfinancial mess. I was amazed at the joy and resilience of the Cuban people, the good cheer andgenerosity I found everywhere I went. And the music: Oh, man, the music. I have never heardsuch music in my life.

And then I was outraged again that I couldn’t visit anytime I wanted to visit, that I couldn’tspend my hard earned dollars as I pleased. I could hop on a plane to see clients anywhere inthe world, but not the island where I was born, because, by golly, the prescription made when Iwas a toddler was still what the doctor ordered, logic be damned.

The ironies overwhelm me when I consider the dozens of nations with which the U.S.maintains close, intimate political and economic relationships. Political repression is the orderof the day. Nations harbor international war criminals deemed as such by the United Nationsor the World Court; nations operate barbaric “judicial” systems which defy international lawcall for routine beheadings, stonings, and other cruel and unusual forms of punishment; andthese atrocities are committed by those to whom we donate billions of dollars. And theseatrocities are repeatedly spelled out and condemned by Amnesty International and otherrespected international groups.

Consider the People’s Republic of China. Dan Fisk, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Statepreviously told this forum that the argument for treating Cuba like China was “superficial”. Injustifying this astonishing statement, Mr. Fisk cited China’s “economic reform model”,decentralization, independent entrepreneurs, etcetera. I did business in Hong Kong for thethree years preceding its return to the PRC and while all that sounds quite logical, I suspect thatMr. Fisk has never conducted private sector business in the People’s Republic of China. If so,

12

he would have found a nation full of institutionalized corruption, contradictory to fundamentalU.S. values, persisting, such as: mass infanticide of female babies due to barbaric state birthcontrol policies; forced child labor, particularly in provinces less visited by Westerners; atrillion dollar a year Triad-run economic “gray zone” circumventing regional taxes; andsystematic alien smuggling operations that make our rafter issues in South Florida pale incomparison, to the current market tune of $75,000 a head.

Mr. Fisk’s response is, frankly, an insult to Cuba and to Cuban-Americans and reflective of theattitude I found on the topic of Cuba while serving the Department of State: “It’s differentbecause it’s Cuba.”

Baloney. The bottom line is that if we can put up with all that from China and give them MFNstatus, Cuba should be getting even more. How our bureaucrats turn the logic inside out andtell us that we need to give Cuba a harder time because it is a closer neighbor when it is a poor,unarmed, hungry island while the PRC crushes Tibet, enslaves children and has a military forcewhich can crush the planet is ludicrous. No, the distinction, Mr. Fisk, is not there, it is afiction, it is an artifice. The truth is simply that Cuba does not produce cheap clock radios.

Need proof? Go to any of the discount online camera shops and price twin lens reflex cameras.Now go and find the Chinese made Seagull. Do you think that the Chinese manufacturingsystem is so superior that they can make a similar camera for about one tenth to one twentieththe cost? Or could it be that perhaps, just maybe, international child labor agreements justdon’t seem to hold up as well in the interior of China?

The truth is that Fidel Castro remains in power not despite the embargo but, I submitrespectfully to you today, because of the embargo. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has served as agalvanizing force behind Castro’s perpetual cry of “foul” and unwillingness to take personalresponsibility for the havoc his leadership decisions have caused upon the people of Cuba.When Soviet subsidization ended and Cuban re-exportation of Soviet goods – the island’sprimary source of hard currency after the continuing fiascos with sugar production – the“special period” began. Castro trashed his ex-benefactors for their decision to pull the welfareplug and the cash flow cranked up in Little Havana, making the glaring hypocrisy even moreobvious: those who back the embargo preventing U.S. growers in desperate need of exportmarkets are precisely the ones funding the island’s appetite for imported European food. Is itjust me or wouldn’t it be better if those Florida dollars were coming back to Americancompanies exporting to Cuba?

Yet, according to Fidel, the special period was not the fault of his government andmismanagement of finances, but due to the Soviets cutting him off. And now, of course, thereason my Cuban taxi driver had to ask us to buy a medicine for his daughter in a dollars-only/no-Cubans-allowed pharmacy was the fault of the U.S. embargo as well. Never mind thefact that communist economies negate the human spirit by removing the very human elementof drive and ambition from the equation of production. And never mind that the Cuban cultureis one, inherently, of dreamers and hungry hearts. The whole damn thing was doomed fromthe get go, Fidel.

So what do we do now? The Cubans are ready to deal and we need to cut our best deal, can theembargo and get in there. Those who disagree simply do not understand the power, beauty, andstrength of American democracy and its capitalism and the nature of Cuban culture. What willhappen when this artificial trade barrier between Cuba and her most logical, massive trade partneris lifted? Will Fidel pay off the devil in full and gain eternal immortality, build a Death Star, and

13

spread communism throughout the Americas? Nah....here’s what will happen: The Cuban blackmarket, already controlling the economy (find me a person in Havana who owns a car who isNOT a taxi driver...) will embolden dramatically and the blatant tolerance exhibited now by thegovernment will grow to “licensing”, fearful as they will be of losing “control” (as if they have itnow....). That’s right, “licensing”. Watch. Do you know what that means? It means theacknowledgment of private enterprise by the government without the Bearded One ever having tosay so, under the guise of preserving control.

The whole “Cuba as Brothel” scenario which has tragically unfolded as a result of the fact thatthe vast majority of non-Cuban-Americans willing to risk unauthorized travel to the island willbe replaced with a Cuba as American travel paradise, with European infrastructure in place.

Castro will either accept the changes and turn into the benign doddering figurehead he wouldhave been by now but for the embargo or he will remain in the “Gritodromo” , ranting andraving about the evils of materialism, with no one listening because they’ll all be down thestreet at the Starbucks having a soy latté.

Bottom line: Cubans in Cuba love and embrace U.S. culture and it is our absence that is thebiggest threat to the island, not our presence or our dollars. The prolonging of the embargo isthe result of hardheadedness and the unspoken political and financial agendas of “those whowould be king” when the dictator finally bites the bullet.

One thing was echoed again and again when I was in Cuba, in that fleeting week, explainingreal freedom, fighting tooth and nail with my indoctrinated colleagues from the University ofHavana school of law, shooting the breeze with cab drivers and dodging “genuine” Cohibavendors: despite his best efforts, Fidel has failed miserably in convincing the people of theisland that Raul will be in a position to lead them after his death. By denying the Cuban peoplea steady stream of our best ambassadors – schoolteachers from Iowa, steelworkers fromPennsylvania, retired physicians from Texas, groups of curious school kids from North Florida– we’ve let the people of Cuba come to believe that “freedom” is what the Europeans say it is.

Double Baloney. It’s been a little more than two centuries since we bailed from Europe tocarve out the roots of our version of democracy. Frankly, I like ours better. It’s time to let thepeople of Cuba personally feel the magic that is America, and that, my friends, will whet theirappetite for real freedom and real democracy on the island where I come from.

CYNTHIA BARRERA PH.D.CANDIDATE AT UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIESPRODUCER OF MARIA ELVIRA CONFRONTA, A POPULAR LATIN-AMERICAN SHOW

“We have the opportunity to end the fears and misconceptions about the United States and theCuban exile community.”

I am a daughter of the Cuban Revolution. I was born and raised in the decade that followed theRevolution of 1959. I once believed in the so-called Projecto Sociale –socialism as it wastaught in school. I lived practically my entire life under the system. It was actually only threeyears ago when I began living here in Miami. I decided to leave Cuba and experience what lifewas like outside of the island. I am here today to share with you the perception that I, andmany other people had, in Cuba while growing up. These are perceptions, or rathermisperceptions, we had about the United States and Cuban-Americans in Miami. Althoughthey may seem unbelievable to you, these myths are widely held and are very real in the mindsof many people living in Cuba today. These perceptions are the product of the current U.S.policy of isolating the island, leaving the Cuban government as the only source of information

14

about the outside world. It is important to understand that very few Cubans are able to travelabroad, have access to internet or can afford newspaper or television. Within this context, it isnot surprising that the Cuban government has been able to cultivate a type of besiegedmentality in which the people rally against a foreign enemy that is every-looming. As manyother children in Cuba, I grew up thinking that at any moment, the American navy or 82nd

division will attack the island. Drills were practiced with regularity to prepare for the daywhen American bombers would blanket the country with bombs. I grew up in a house thatbefore the Revolution belonged to a family that fled to Miami. We were told that if theRevolution were to collapse that the Miami family would return, forcing my family to moveout. I spent sleepless nights thinking about where my family would live if this were to happen.I hoped that the Revolution would never collapse. I hoped that the Miami family would neverreturn. Not only would Cuban exiles return to claim their homes, they would also demand thatsupporters of the Revolution be punished. According to another popular myth that we grew upwith, I was completely convinced that people from Miami didn’t have good will for mycountry. We were led to believe that many of them were concerned with only their personalgreed, and not for the common good or the people of Cuba nor the creation of a better societyfor the island.

I suffer from asthma and I had nightmares that the economy would worsen and affect mysupply of medicine. I imagined an asthma attack without an inhaler. We were raised tobelieve that the end of socialism would bring privatization of healthcare and the impossibleexpense of medical care. Could my family pay for a stay in an emergency room at thehospital? According to the government, we would not. Through the radio, television andnewspapers, we learned that Cuba was a classless society. That is was better than othercountries in the developing world. We were made to feel lucky to be a part of such an excitingsocial experiment. We learned that the United States was to blame for all of the worse problemand that there was a Cuban mafia in Miami. Like me, young people don’t have the ability totravel or have access to alternative sources of information with which to do a comparison withother societies. That is why the policy of maintaining the embargo as well as the effort tocreate stronger laws against any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba has done little but laycredibility to the nationalist rhetoric of the government. It made the myth of the ill-will ofCuban exiles seem real. It made the United States seem like the imperialist enemy againstwhich the people should stand united.

As I was growing up, I became active in student politics, becoming the President of theNational Federation of Students for Cien Fuegos province. I was even one of the lucky girlsselected to meet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and present him with a bouquet of flowers duringone of his visits in Cuba.

Years later I arrived in Havana to attend university. It was then that my life changed totally,radically, and forever. Suddenly I was in a big city—a more international city, filled withforeigners and new experiences. I became involved with the reformist Centro de Estudios delas Americas. I had access to new treasures like Milan Kundera, an author who gave me analternative perspective on life. I met new friends from around the world: travelers, academics,international students, among them Anglos and Cuban-Americans. The more I interacted withthem, the more they seemed to contradict the stereotypes I had about them.

I began to develop a more objective and critical perspective about my own country and theworld. It was through the Cuban-Americans who had traveled to Cuba that I first began tounderstand the pain of exile. I began to understand why in Miami many people have a strong

15

passion attached to their homeland. But I never understood why many Cuban exiles were infavor of the embargo. How could it be possible thousands of Cubans would want to starvetheir fellow countrymen on the island in order to obtain their preliminary goal of eliminatingFidel Castro? It was hard for me to understand having experienced first-hand the effects of theembargo. But for many Cuban-American exiles, the need to punish Fidel Castro himselfseemed more important than logic.

The thinking of some Cuban exiles is that if the embargo is lifted, Castro has won a victory.Luckily, I found that not all Cubans in Miami were in favor of economically strangling andisolating my homeland in order to somehow create political change. I soon began to discoverthat there were many Cuban-Americans in Miami that thought differently, who thought like Idid—that political change in Cuba could only be achieved by engaging the people andgovernment of Cuba, not by turning our backs on them.

This is why I am here today. The embargo and the travel restrictions have been a barrier ofcultural understanding between the people of Cuba and those in the United States. It has beenuseful for the Cuban government to maintain the status quo and its nationalist language. Mygeneration did not create the Revolution. We never took up arms and attack the PresidentialPalace. We never fought in the Sierra Maestra, nor did we make the decision to align ournation with the Soviet Union decades ago. We inherited the system, its isolation and its anti-American discourse. Members of my generation are living with the consequences of what ourparents and grandparents did or did not do. We do have a role and deep responsibility for thefuture.

Now that I live on this side of the Florida straits I understand that those of us here have to senda more optimistic and tolerant message to the new generation living on the other side. We havethe opportunity to end the fears and misconceptions about the United States and the Cubanexile community. We can create a new role, a new image of exiles within Cuba. We cancreate a bridge between two countries and two Cuban communities. The Cuban governmentwill not be able hide the reality of the outside world and the resistance movement in Cuba if wecontinue to share and communicate face-to-face with the Cuban people. If we really want toexperience change there, we have to preach by example with tolerance and communication.We are the democratic side of the equation and thus, the one with the advantage. It is for us toreach out and make the first gesture of good faith—erasing the myth and helping to shape thefuture of Cuba.

MAYDA PREGOATTORNEY, HUGHES, HUBBARD & REED, MIAMI

“The embargo is the crutch that keeps the Castro government alive.”

Seven years ago I moved to Miami. I was born and raised in New York City and my father isCuban. I had obviously never been to the island. As I grew older into my thirties, I developeda desire, then a need, to find out who I was as a Cuban. Growing up in New York, I did nothave the same kind of atmosphere or background that someone growing up in Miami had. Forother personal and professional needs, along with the quest to find out who I was as a Cuban, Imoved to Miami. I found out when I got here, that the Miami Cubans were definitely not theCubans that I thought I was a part of. I was definitely an outsider in this community, althoughI definitely considered myself Cuban. I decided, although it was not an easy decisionconsidering my family history and my father’s conservative views, to go to Cuba. And I thankSilvia Wilhelm for opening that opportunity for me.

16

I went with a group of young Cuban-Americans, with Puentes Cubanos, and we sat in a roomat the University of Havana with counterparts of our age discussing what it is to be a Cubanhere and there. Surprisingly, despite our differences, there are many, many similarities andcommon ground. Based on those similarities and common ground, we were able to reachmany consensuses that I never thought that I could have with a communist, because I amcertainly not one and have always been politically conservative. That whole week in Cubachanged my life and many of views of how I perceived Cubans in Cuba to be. I believe,because of my personal experience, the value of people-to-people exchange is enormous.Anyone who has the opportunity to go to Cuba should go and find out what Cuba is all about.When I stepped foot in Cuba (I made a joke about it in one of the workshops) I expected themto show up in fatigues and rifles and ready to attack us at every moment. It was veryinteresting to find out that they have the same concerns and issues that we have. They questionwhy they can’t travel freely outside of Cuba. They don’t buy the party line. They are told,“Well, we’re trying to prevent brain drain…or you have to serve your time after we’ve givenyou education for so many years and then you can leave”. But then they can’t.

The solution for many Cubans is not to jump on a raft and leave. They want to affect changethere and they question their policies. That’s what we’re seeing with the dissident movementand with less vocal people of my generation with all the questions they have challenging theirgovernment. Most of their voices are silenced if it’s not for us going over there and letting therest of the world know that yes, they have these concerns, they are not just lemmings followingalong and accepting the Castro regime. It is a shame that our government has tightened travelto Cuba and cut off the opportunity for Puentes Cubanos and organizations like it to continuewith people-to-people exchanges. If nothing about the embargo changes, that needs to change.We should be able to travel to Cuba to meet and talk with people there because that is what isgoing to make change happen in Cuba.

The recent crackdown on the dissidents in Cuba disgusted me. I thought about it, and realizedthat Castro is probably very smart. He saw the wave of change coming through Cuba preciselybecause of these exchanges. They Cubans are now seeing what they are missing out on—freeand democratic government because of the interaction they have with people who come overfrom the United States. The crackdown happened because he wants to silence those voices andhe doesn’t want the embargo to end. The embargo is the crutch that keeps the Castrogovernment alive. He can blame it on us and the government tried to shut down any effortfrom this side—tried to make us look ridiculous—those of us who support the lifting of thetravel ban and the lifting of the embargo. I leave you with those remarks. I encourage anyoneand everyone to go to Cuba, if they have the opportunity to do so.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Question: What progress are we making with dialogue?

Jose Latour: I would say with dialogue it depends. From a State Department and an officiallevel, none. According to our policy, and the way that the policy is being dictated officially(and I know about this because I left the State Department in 1990, but I still have a ton offriends in it, and I still keep in touch with the official stuff that doesn’t necessarily make thenews) nothing is going on because everything is stymied. Congress does its stuff and you guyskeep in touch the efforts to deal with the embargo. President Carter is probably the mostimportant policy effort existing, but on a people to people level, progress is dynamic. These

17

guys in Cuba know what’s going on—Internet access is happening over there—they’re readingthe New York Times. I got back from Prague the other day, and post-Soviet vibe versus whatis going to happen in Cuba after the embargo is gone—it’s going to disappear.

Castro is like an ornery junkyard dog looking for a way out right now and he’s not going toadmit it. It’s isn’t being debated and it needs to be. Five years ago, it was impossible to talk.Those of us in here, we need to challenge the Diaz Balarts—maybe that’s the next step—publicdebate.

Elizabeth Cerejido: I think it’s important to create a forum locally precisely where we candiscuss these issues they way we’re doing it now and express ourselves. That is why I talkabout the intolerance that has permeated Miami for so long because I don’t feel that ourgeneration has had a place to deposit these questions. It has never been encouraged. The morethat we speak of our experiences there, and how exchange programs like Puentes Cubanoshave granted us these experiences, the more we’re able to import that information to ourgeneration. I feel that the more people will be involved, the more that apathy of thinking likeyour parents or fear of hurting your parents, will eventually dissipate—when a majority of usgain more strength and become more vocal. I suspect that more of our generation feels the waywe do, it is just that there hasn’t been that platform to be able to express ourselves.

Question: Please comment on the recent announcement from the Cuban government that theywill remove the visa requirements for Cubans living abroad.

Cynthia Barrera: I think it’s the moment for the young generation here to go there. We don’thave an excuse to say that Cuba won't allow contact with people from outside. We have themoment to do that. This is a challenge to the Cuban community here in Miami and we willhave to respond to this challenge.

Question: Do you believe that changes should come from our side of the Florida straits first ifwe are to see change on the other side?

Mayda Prego: Changes in Cuba are already happening. Because we don’t have immediatecontact with the Cuban people, we don’t see those changes happening. But having been there,they are definitely on the path to change. Do we move first or do we not more first? I thinkwe’re both moving in the same direction. That moment needs to continue to take force.Unfortunately, what happened with the dissidents and the executions, it seems that people wereparalyzed in their tracks, but this event today shows that people are committed to havingchange happen there and happen here.

Question: How does one possibly believe that dialogue and discussion can take place whenthe rhetoric is truly disgusting on both sides of the straits?

Elizabeth Cerejido: That’s why I believe that personal contact, the people-to-peopleexchange is so important, because you begin to realize that the rhetoric falls apart. When youstart to connect with someone and put a face to that stereotype, the stereotype is no longer anabstract idea. You actually begin to connect to a thinking person who has views and thusrhetoric becomes more real and you begin to get to the heart of the matter. That is why I thinkthat people-to-people is so valuable. It is a shame that Puentes Cubanos doesn’t have a licenseto continue to make that happen now.

18

FLORIDA - A CHANGING POLITICAL EQUATION?

MODERATOR: ALFREDO DURANCUBAN COMMITTEE FOR DEMOCRACY

Alfredo Duran: The Cuban Committee for Democracy is an organization that was startedabout ten years ago, composed mostly of academics, professionals, and businessmen whobelieve in moderation. We say that we are a voice of reason within the community. Theorganization had at times a tremendous amount of confrontation. Engagement was a bad wordand dialogue was a bad word. Miami was the only place in the world where dialogue was abad word. We have evolved from that point and now the Cuban Committee for Democracy hasbecome mainstream because the Cuban community in Miami has changed, and because theCuban community in Florida has changed. All the polls show that there is an increasing trendtoward moderation. That increasing trend toward moderation and other aspects of changingFlorida politics is what we are going to discuss in this panel.

PAT COLLIER FRANKHILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMMISSIONER

" As Cuba moves more to capitalism, which it is gradually achieving, democracy will not be farbehind. We can help that transition by opening the window of trade."

On November 25, 1891, a young man arrived by train from New York City to a waiting crowdof 50 at Ybor City. It was the first of over 20 trips which Jose Marti would make to Tampa andHillsborough County. Ybor City, an enclave of Cubans, Spaniards, Italians, and Afro-Cubans,was a haven for Marti and his cause. Jose Marti was seeking an audience of supporters forCuban independence from Spain and for financial support for his revolution.

It was in Tampa - in Ybor City - that Marti delivered two of his most famous speeches. Hiswords were repeated by the lectores, hired by cigar workers to read for them in the cigarfactories of Tampa as they rolled and tapped the tobacco leaves into some of the most soughtafter cigars of the world. It was these cigar workers who, inspired by Marti, cheered Marti'scause of Cuban independence on by loudly slapping their wooden work tables with theirchavctas. It was in the cigar factories of West Tampa and Ybor City that war chests furnishedthe financial fuel for the launch of his march for freedom for the Cuban people. When themoment came that Marti knew that the financial resources were secure to initiate overtaggression against the Spanish control of Cuba, a message from Marti was wrapped in a cigarmade in a West Tampa cigar factory, together with an identification dot on the last layer oftobacco, which would signal to his trusted ally in Cuba that Marti had sent the message tobegin the revolution.

Jose Marti is revered in our country, in Tampa and in Ybor City. A statue in his memory standstoday, in Ybor City, yet rests on Cuban soil on dirt acquired from Cuba's six provinces. Theland, on which the Marti statue is placed, was donated to Cuba by Tampa in the 1950's and thecounty property records list the owner as the "state of Cuba." Tampa and Cuba, united.

During the same time that Jose Marti staged independence for Cubans; Teddy Roosevelt led hisRough Riders into the war and launched his campaign from Tampa's own Tampa Bay Hotel,now the home of the University of Tampa.

19

At the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, Cuba was free and trade flourished betweenTampa and Cuba. Tampa's Lykes family, which pioneered cattle trade with Cuba as early as1850, was shipping as many as 100,000 head of cattle to the island. John McKay, a shippingmagnate, was sending goods and passengers to Cuba on a regular basis. The bond betweenTampa and Cuba is a deep and lasting one.

Hillsborough County is located on the Central-West Coast of Florida. It covers over 1,000square miles, and has a population of one million people, making it the 35th largest county inthe country, according to the 2000 census. The Hispanic population of the entire Tampa Bayarea has shown tremendous growth, outpacing all estimates. Approximately 1/3 of thepopulation growth of our seven-county region is traced to an increase in Hispanic population.Of the seven counties, Hillsborough is the most ethnically diverse, Hispanics total 18% of ourpopulation, accounting for 180,000 people. It is a ripe community for developing trade withother Hispanic nations.

Tampa is the heart of Hillsborough County. It is an urban city, which has attracted majorindustries from other regions, including J.P. Morgan, Chase and Citigroup's financial servicesunit. The concentration of the trade developers in our City has been to target call and financialservices centers. That attention is now spreading out to the development of thebio/medical/biotech industry. This is looked at as a potential because of the location of theUniversity of South Florida, with its Medical School and the H. Lee Moffit Cancer-Center,together with the Level 1 trauma center and transplant center at Tampa General Hospital.

Tampa, i.e., Hillsborough County, has a world premier international airport and a large,diverse, and vibrant Port. In addition, the large landmass of 1,000 square miles accommodatesa vast agricultural industry. 37% of Hillsborough County's acreage is devoted to agriculture.Local land development plans specify that urban and suburban growth will not occur in thedesignated agricultural areas. This insures the continuation of agriculture in our County. Werecognize the significant impact which agribusiness has upon our economy - which isestimated to be $2 billion dollars a year.

Located in downtown Tampa, the Port of Tampa occupies 2500 acres and traces the coastlineof southeast Hillsborough community. It is the largest port in the state of Florida and handlesalmost 50% of all waterborne trade in the state. It also is modeled after Hillsborough County'sdiversity. It has a growing cruise ship industry, which next year is estimated to handle 800,000cruise passengers; it has the infrastructure which handles bulk shipments of dry and liquid bulk(including fertilizer, cement, petroleum products and orange juice concentrate). To add toHillsborough's diversity, we have phosphate mines and fertilizer plants in our county andsurrounding counties which snip their raw materials and goods through the Port of Tampa. ThePort is further diversifying by contracting with one of the world's largest container terminaloperators, SSA, and one of the world's most significant global container carriers, ZIM.

The Port of Tampa is in a prime position to expand its trade. Now, can this trade include Cuba,and if so, what will it mean to our County and the region?

The Port recently sent two shipments of phosphate-based animal feed to Cuba. There is, in myopinion, no reason that we could not expand our trade. Our agricultural industry is capable ofproducing many of the same products which Cuba imports from states and countries located

20

further away. Eggs, poultry, fruits and vegetables could be readily available from Hillsboroughand the cost and delivery tine to Cuba would be less. That could be accomplished today, withinour embargo limits.

In the future, with restrictions lifted, the potential is great. Located in our county are heavymachinery companies which could supply Cuba with the needed tools to rebuild itsinfrastructure. Fertilizer could be shipped to enhance the agricultural development of Cuba.Cruise ships could carry passengers to and from Tampa to Cuba, a natural trip for Hispanicsand non-Hispanics. The possibilities are endless.

The obstacles to such trade are not limited to political rhetoric. Farmers in the United Stateshave been sensitized to the effects which NAFTA has had upon their industry. In HillsboroughCounty, the previous tomato capital of the country, acres of land have become fallow asMexican tomatoes compete. The fear is that Cuba, a country of like seasonal agriculturaldevelopment, would one day become a fierce competitor.

Fear can only be overcome with logic. Cuba is a market for agricultural products today. Tampais the logical shipping point for delivery. A new market cannot do anything except put moneyin the pockets of our own farmers today and build potential markets for tomorrow.

We are a country proud of our capitalistic nature. Democracy and capitalism are the tools thathave made us superior to our adversaries. Democracy and capitalism repeatedly have allowedus to overcome communism. As Cuba moves more to capitalism, which it is graduallyachieving, democracy will not be far behind. We can help that transition by opening thewindow of trade.

The first step should be to remove the barrier to travel. With open travel, cruise ships andairlines would carry hundreds of thousands of people from Tampa to Cuba, spending touristdollars and infusing the economy of Cuba. This would, in turn, result in purchasing power forCubans to invest in machinery to build their infrastructure, goods to purchase for their homesand businesses; food products for their stores and homes; telecommunication systems todevelop, and financial institutions to accommodate trade.

The avenues to bilateral trade are immense and all will be the beneficiaries, the people of Cubaand the people of Hillsborough County - if we lead the way!

KENNETH LIPNER PH.D.DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, FORMER ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR FOR MIAMI’S DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

"The potential opportunity costs of nearly $1 billion annually to Miami’s economy is quite ahigh cost for all of us to pay (for the Cuba embargo)…ending it could create an average of30,000 jobs."

As this is a humanitarian conference, I was very impressed with one of the young people in theprevious session who mentioned that the embargo punishes Cuba. The point I want to make isthat the embargo also punishes the Miami economy.

21

We have a 7% unemployment rate; over 100,000 people are actively looking for a job. Inaddition to punishing the South Florida economy, it punishes the Alabama economy, the Texaseconomy and even the Tampa economy. As I begin to discuss the nature of the embargo andhow it affects our economy, as mentioned in the introduction, I want to point out that I havebeen studying this economy, both as a member of public agencies and the universitycommunity for over thirty years. I have published several reports.

The first was in 1982 which was the South Florida International Trade Study. Perhaps one ofthe more interesting ones was the study I did in 1999 and updated in 2001 and updated againthis year, which estimated the cost of the Cuban embargo on Miami’s economy. We lose $750million annually. It could even be suggested that if we include capital construction connectedwith increased trade, it would be virtually $1 billion. Two other studies followed this one. Onewas conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission, which estimated $650 million inlost opportunities. Another study done by Texas A&M University estimated the losses to be$800 million.

Since the time that I did the original study, unfortunately here in South Florida and across thenation, economic conditions have worsened. We now have a local unemployment rate of 7%,compared to a 6% unemployment rate nationally. We have the unfortunate distinction withinthe city of Miami, with its very high concentration of recent arrivals of people from othernations, of having the highest poverty rate in the nation—30%. Greater Miami itself has apoverty rate of 18%, which translates to 360,000 having incomes at or below the poverty level.

As an economist, if I can look at the human costs of this embargo and say, they are huge. Theyare huge for all of us. Some of us may have a luxury—we may not be poor, fortunately wemay have jobs, homes, and businesses. For us, the embargo may be a luxury. For the poor andunemployed, it is a humanitarian disaster.

Consistent with American economic business principles, it is my suggestion that U.S.businesses have a right to do business, to increase their market share, to hire more employees,and even to grant stock dividends. That is the nature of U.S. business. The port of Tampa herein Miami is primarily a transshipment port, we ship things that are made in other places.Hence, the embargo affects farm equipment. The nuts and bolts of trade in South Florida areliterally nuts and bolts. Trade includes tractor parts that may be made in Illinois or Ohio. Itincludes domestic products from Proctor and Gamble in Cincinnati, automobile parts fromautomakers in Michigan, Ohio, Georgia and California. This embargo affects the wholecountry. It is a cost which there is no reason to pay when indeed, there is a willing customer.One of the areas of U.S. supremacy, although we may not think about it, is an air conditioningand refrigeration carrier in Syracuse, New York and one in Arkansas. The list goes on and onand on.

We in South Florida have a tremendous interest in international trade, as you know. Iunderstand all of the positions on the free trade of America: The importance of having aposition consistent with the idea of having your headquarters here should be enhancing andencouraging to all trade. This embargo disproportionally affects Miami more than any otherplace in the United States because international trade is disproportionally so important to ushere in South Florida. It is estimated that 20% of all jobs are related to trade—people whowork in banks, accountants, and the physical work of loading and unloading materials. Allthese jobs would be enhanced, and as I mentioned earlier, they are important groups of peoplewho need this kind of economic stimulus.

22

Latin American and Caribbean trade has always been at the heart of this economy. If I canbriefly mention the nature of the study and how I did it: the proximity of a trading partner isvery important to us. Therefore, not surprisingly, the Bahamas has the highest percentage oftrade with South Florida. I have often heard people suggest that Cuba has a weak economy andcannot afford trading. I then looked at our friends, and no disrespect intended, in the poornation of Haiti. I then combined these figures and made the projection that an island nation ofCuba with 10-12 million people compared with the smaller other economies. I came up thefigure of lost incomes by using an average wage of $25,000 per job for jobs lost, whichdepends upon the nature of trade. This is very hard to project because in South Florida it isvery volatile. At one time or another, the leading trading partners have been Brazil, Venezuela,and Colombia. It goes up and down due to all kinds of different factors that we in SouthFlorida have no control over. But we indeed are the beneficiaries of this trade. Using thosefigures, I came out to an average of 30,000 jobs that could be created. Using that $25,000figure is how I got this $250 million. Two other studies corroborate this.

In conclusion, for the Miami economy, Cuba is disproportionally important for the mostobvious reasons for everyone here. For the most economically disadvantaged among us, theopportunity costs of forsaking Cuba trade is a very high price to pay. It is a luxury that thepoorest among us cannot afford. Free trade in the market system can help solve their incomeproblems. The potential opportunity costs of nearly $1 billion annually to Miami’s economy isquite a high cost for all of us to pay.

JOE McCLASHMANATEE COUNTY COMMISSIONER

"As an elected official from Florida, I choose to be a voice of reason, a voice for change,because change is in the best interest of not only Florida, but of the United States of America."

Florida is a perfect setting for this Cuba Summit. Unfortunately, Florida's voice of reason isabsent from the table when changes are being discussed for a new U.S. Policy for Cuba, andfrom the constant voice of the rest of our country to change the current U.S. Policy.

Change is coming… does Florida really want to be left out of these needed discussions?

Is Florida’s silence a sign that the facts today justify the current U.S. Policy? The current U.S.Policy of "Let us deprive the people in Cuba of resources from the United States and they willwant regime change?” How can we justify this when the rest of the world is trading, investingwith Cuba, and traveling freely to Cuba?

The U.S. policy that says, "Let us only allow Cubans who touch our shores to enter America,but send back any other people from other countries who risk their lives to get to America." Itsaddens me that this policy has created untold deaths for those who never made it to our shores.Even worse, for those within sight of America, the "beacon of freedom," to be sent back toCuba. This current policy hurts Cubans in Cuba as well as those in the United States.

Florida's voice should be the "Voice of Reason."

23

Cuba has had positive changes over the years. Our military commanders state that Cuba is nolonger a military threat. Cuba has offered help in stopping illegal drug trafficking. They haveeven offered to help in the fight against terrorism, yet we refuse to enter into discussions thatwould lead to a safer Florida.

Some Florida leaders are starting to voice an opinion for a change to the current Cuba policy.They are hearing from many of you in this room today and it has made a difference.

There are many opportunities for Florida, as a leader, in shaping a new Cuba policy, a policythat is based on the future, versus a past plagued with dissatisfaction on both sides.Opportunities for Florida are many; however for Florida to be silent or to support this outdated40-year-old policy of more isolation will mean other states will drive a new policy without theneeded input from Florida.

There is no doubt Florida will be affected by the changes of a new policy toward Cuba.

Currently, the House of Representatives has established a Cuba Working Group to change theexisting Cuba Policy. This group is made up of 50 Republicans and Democrats yet not onemember is from Florida.

Florida will benefit from increased economic activities that a policy change with Cuba willcreate. New businesses will emerge. Florida ports will see increased shipments and increasedrevenues. The cruise industry in Florida will benefit. And more workers will be employed tosupport these new economic activities, helping to improve and stabilize Florida’s overalleconomy.

The U.S.-Cuba policy is changing and Florida is not the guiding voice. As an elected official, Iam here to include my voice for change, and urge you to ask your elected officials to join thisvoice for change: a change of policy to allow us our right to travel freely to Cuba, to allow usto freely export and import goods similar to what is allowed with other countries and to allowunlimited remittances to those Cuban families from their families here.

This policy change is good for Florida. This policy change is good for Cuban people in Cuba.This policy change is good foreign policy for our country. We can turn the noise of the pastinto the music of the future.

As an American, I am proud to represent a handshake across the waters to Cuba, a countryimproving its economy through tourism, not through aggression. As an elected official fromFlorida, I choose to be a voice of reason, a voice for change, because change is in the bestinterest of not only Florida, but of the United States of America.

ALVARO FERNÁNDEZFLORIDA DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT

"The Cuba issue in the United States will take a drastic and favorable step in our direction theday South Florida elects one U.S. congressperson who will look south to Cuba with love andcompassion."

I’d like to begin with a quote: It’s from a 20th century drama critic, George Nathan, who wrote:“Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.”

24

I represent in Florida a national organization by the name of Southwest Voter RegistrationEducation Project. I believe our name explains what we do. Next year we turn thirty yearsold, and it is our history and that of our founder’s – Willie Velazquez – that should teach ussome lessons: it is a story of zeal, enthusiasm and perseverance.

Velazquez died of cancer at 44, but he left a legacy whose results are an army of communityorganizers and activists around the country. Over the years SVREP has cultivated more than50,000 community leaders, and conducted close to 2,500 voter registration and Get Out theVote campaigns. 2.4 million registered Latino voters in 1974 have grown to more than 8million. And with our current national 10/4 campaign, we should hit the 10 million mark byNovember of 2004.

So I ask: how can we apply that zeal, enthusiasm and perseverance that is Willie’s legacy to anarea badly in need of these qualities from people like us? Fine tuning it, we should be askingourselves if we can apply these formulas to help do away with a Cuba embargo whosestronghold and vise is headquartered in Miami.

I am convinced that all we need is ONE. And that ONE can be achieved if everyone in thisroom today – most us from right here in Miami – agreed to work together to achieve this.

A couple of months ago, SVREP commissioned a poll of 600 Cubans. By now many of us areaware of some of the results, which include:

• To a normal Miami Cuban more than 60% feel their quality of life here is moreimportant than international issues.

• 55 percent agree that the embargo has not worked.• And Cuban-Americans feel that they are lied to by politicians who use the Cuba issue

for political gain.

But this morning I would like to focus on possibly the most important result of our survey, aquestion that was basically ignored by most media: question number 16.

I say the most important because in number 16 is the formula to achieve that ONE I mentionedearlier. In other words, I am convinced that together with all the work that is being done inDC, right here in south Florida, and in other parts of the country, the Cuba issue in the UnitedStates will take a drastic and favorable step in our direction the day South Florida elects ONEU.S. congressperson who will look south to Cuba with love and compassion.That person will not emulate our congressional representatives – some with names of formerU.S. presidents – who refuse to shed the hatred and rancor espoused by an unjust 40-yearadventure that never worked.

In number 16 we drew the picture of three separate candidates for political office: Candidate Awho took the hard line against Cuba; Candidate B, with a more moderate attitude, saying theembargo has not worked and encouraging new ways of democracy-building on the Island; andCandidate C who would allow trade, travel, investments and even retirement – if one chose to –in Cuba.

25

On his own, Candidate A wins, but not with a majority. The interesting result is when youcombine Candidates B and C: a Moderate candidate who is also looking ahead to thepossibilities of trade, travel, retirement, etc… in Cuba.

Someone with the talent to combine these two lines of thinking – without going to extremes –garners 43 percent of the Cuban vote across the board. Broken down: the numbers for this newcandidate surge to 62 percent with men under 45, and 56% with women of the same age group;and the figure is 54% with people with incomes over $60,000.

But let’s go back to the 43%. And let’s apply the SVREP philosophy. I’m talking ofengagement and cooperation. Miami-Dade County has a population of about two and a quartermillion people. Of those, more than 1.3 million are Hispanics. A bit under 50 percent of theHispanics are Cuban. There are about half a million African Americans and Haitians. And lestwe forget, most of the rest are the wrongly-called Anglos that are the real minority in thiscounty.

We’ve got to reach out. We’ve got to engage. We’ve got to network. In other words, we’vegot to let these other communities know that our aim is not only about Cuba, but about ourhome – Miami. Our message must be one of cooperation and love. Love of neighbor, and thecommunity we live in. Today I dare you and challenge you to work the streets of Miami: toknock on doors, make telephone calls, raise money (yes, money IS important in this challenge),and do whatever it takes to engage new voters, new participants, in a quest that in the end willmake this area a better place to live in.

If we take this on, I assure you that we can achieve that power that ONE can give us: the hardwork, the sweat and that Willie Velazquez-perseverance will help us elect to Congress onemember who looks like us, talks like us, and shares many of the same attitudes we will bediscussing today. Like I just said: I am here to challenge you!

ROB SCHROTHSCHROTH & ASSOCIATES, POLLSTER FOR MIAMI HERALDSchroth was unable to appear at the last minute and sent a brief statement

Based on the results from polls conducted for Noticias 23 and the Miami Herald over the pastten years, it is clear that the Cuban-American community's attitude toward "dialogue" with theisland regime has increased although their profound hatred for Castro has remained equallystrong. In other words, based on this body of research, South Florida Cuban-Americans areslowly -- but steadily -- more accepting of dealing/dialoguing with (non-Castro) officials onthe island, in an attempt to make issues like travel to Cuba and lifting restrictions on moneytransfers from the U.S. easier. In fact, a clear majority of the exile community (56%)supported holding a meeting -- in Cuba -- between the island's top diplomat to the U.S. andmembers of the exile community, according to a poll commissioned by the Miami Herald.

Indeed, the exile community now overwhelmingly believes that dissidents on the island willplay a more important role in any democratic transition in Cuba than they themselvesultimately will -- a dramatic shift in public opinion over the past generation of polling in SouthFlorida. In other words, there's been a sea change of Cuban-American public opinion on thesubject of dialogue with the regime since the days of fire bombings and protests that oftendominated the news in the late seventies and early eighties. (So much so that is was theCANF itself that actually proposed the meeting in Cuba earlier in March of this year.)

26

In my opinion, two key factors have driven this shift in attitudes: first is the psychologicalfactor: everything that's been done to isolate and collapse the island's dictator over the pastthirty years has essentially failed, which has led to widespread frustration among Miami-areaexiles... and frustration felt long enough often leads to a change of opinion and approachtoward a problem.

Secondly, the demographics of the exile community is inexorably changing -- meaning that "elexilio" today is much more populated by younger people with less memorable and personalties to the island than their older counterparts. (And, as with all things inexorable, this trendcan be expected to continue into the new millennium).

In conclusion, an incredibly large number of Cuban-Americans today share a deep hatred forFidel Castro -- while at the same time seeking different approaches -- including dialogue -- indealing with his rancid regime.

ANNIE BETANCOURTFORMER FLORIDA STATE REPRESENTATIVE, RAN FOR NATIONAL OFFICE AGAINSTCURRENT U.S. REP. MARIO DIAZ BALART ON A PRO-CHANGE PLATFORM TOWARDCUBA

"I would be open to take a strong leadership stand and consider an effective policy alternativethat help both the people in the island and the people of Florida."

During the eight years that I served as a member of the Florida Legislature, I devoted a greatdeal of time on issues related to economic development and international trade. And the reasonis very simple; Florida is blessed with a geographic location that’s second to none in ourhemisphere, perhaps only equal to Hong Kong in the Far East. Florida is known as the globalgateway for international commerce, with a growing consumer market and an environmentconducive to fulfilling any investor's expectations. No wonder Enterprise Florida, the state'seconomic development agency currently has a promotional campaign calling: Florida,Innovation Hub of the Americas.

Periodically Enterprise Florida organizes trade missions to different countries seeking tradepartners, most recently to Spain, South Africa and Germany. I visited South Africa two yearsago in a similar journey to establish business contacts and develop prospective ventures withinvestors. In their website, Enterprise Florida proudly displays five countries they activelyengage with, one of them is China. I find it particularly interesting that Florida has an office inChina to promote trade and investments and just 90 miles from our shores, all we get is aweekly quota of new arrivals or human cargo, people who have been smuggled to find a betterlife, and at the same time challenge U.S. immigration laws. It's sad that the only active tradebetween South Florida and Cuba is that of human cargo - conducted illegally by smugglers.

The island nation is Florida's closest Caribbean neighbor, just 90 short miles from Key West,with a market of 12 million souls hungry to taste prosperity. Florida is well positioned, betterthan any other state in the nation, to benefit in assisting Cuba's modernization and entry intothe 21st century economies. It is obvious that the longstanding cultural ties (almost 200 years)should put Florida at the forefront of the opening of the U.S.-Cuba relations. Any policymakerwho does not see this is just blind.

27

During the 1998 Legislative session in Tallahassee, economic development legislation wasdrafted which included directives to develop a strategic plan to allow our state to capitalize onopportunities with Cuba in anticipation of a return to a free market economy. In Florida we areestablishing a pragmatic approach to emphasize economic growth. Specifically internationaltrade, which is one of the main engines driving our growth, valued at $68 billion per year.Adding Cuba to this amount could easily increase another $8 billion per year. Back in 1999,Chairman of the Economic Development Council Rep. Carlos Valdes said, “The State must beprepared to again become a full-time trading partner with the island once a free marketeconomy is established."

Cuba is the largest and most economically viable of the Caribbean basin nations, with a largelabor force, its human potential remains underutilized. In addition, the rich soils andtremendous natural resources, the island nation is a logical target market for Florida.Historically, Florida and Cuba have enjoyed substantial trade, tourism, investment and culturalexchanges.

The United States was Cuba's principal and natural trading partner until Castro took powermore than four decades ago. Up until 1959, Florida was Cuba's largest U.S. trade partner,where 40% of all the cargo moving through Miami's customs was earmarked for Cuba, and85% of all the island's exports were destined toward the U.S. mainland. Therefore, it isanticipated that a change in U.S.-Cuba relations —perhaps easing some restrictions andopening into a free market, would open the floodgates for business opportunities for Florida-based companies.

According to Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, free trade not only promotes materialwelfare, it also fosters peace and harmony among nations. Unfortunately, he says, sometimesgovernment is the major source of interference with a free market system. When apredominantly voluntary exchange economy exists, there is the potential to promote prosperityand human freedom. And YES, there is a close connection between political freedom andeconomic freedom.

Being aware of all this, last year during my congressional race I was not afraid to bring to theforefront as part of the campaign platform a complete revision to current U.S. policy on Cuba(which by the way, I am the first one to acknowledge that this is a complex and multi-facetedissue). Some people were advising me not to even go there, this was a political minefield and Ishould not bring the "E" word into this race, just stay out of this emotional, not rational, butemotional issue. However, I reasoned, this is precisely the moment and the kind of race wherethis issue belongs, - not at a local race, for county commissioner, not at a state race, for a houseor senate seat, but YES, at a federal race, a congressional campaign this is the place to debatethis issue.

I simply wrote an open letter stating my position to the Editor of The Miami Herald, which wasby the way, not published. However, he said, it is an interesting position, and is newsworthy,so a story appeared the next day and this generated quite a stir in our community.

In this letter I stated that if elected to the newly created 25th Congressional District, I wouldwork diligently with my colleagues in Congress to build consensus and take the necessary stepsto change a failed policy—a policy which is incoherent and hasn't achieved any results, apolicy that doesn't pander to the Cuban regime but likewise, doesn't punish the Cuban people.If elected, I would consider different options to the 40 year-old U.S. economic policy on Cuba,

28

which is nothing more than Castro's own failed economic policies exacerbated by tough U.S.sanctions. These have been the tired and fruitless formulas that have helped perpetuate thepower of a tyrant. I finally said, that I would be open to take a strong leadership stand andconsider an effective policy alternative that would help both the people in the island and thepeople of Florida.

Yes, in retrospect, we are experiencing a major change in public opinion, and although I didnot win the congressional seat last fall, I had the courage to speak up on these thorny issues. Iliterally put a stake in the ground, and frankly, when it comes to winning congressional races,there are three fundamental elements needed: money, money and more money, particularly in acompetitive media market such as South Florida.

In summary, it is about time that the United States becomes more proactive in a policy ofeconomic engagement towards Cuba. Easing travel restrictions would be a start...trade wouldfollow. Again, I firmly believe that there is a close connection between political freedom andeconomic freedom, and so I say, let's give freedom a chance. It is imperative to bring stabilityand prosperity to the island, by combining opportunities for peace and investments.

As it stands, the current U.S.-Cuba policy is incoherent, makes no sense and is impossible toenforce. Using clinical terminology, it's like a bi-polar disorder, (manic-depressive perhaps)which need a different modality of treatment, a new approach, and maybe a second opinion.We must face realty and move away from the political inertia, we need innovators, creativethinkers, and above all, the political will necessary to shift the conventional paradigm into anew direction.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Question: (to Annie Betancourt): Have you visited Cuba and when do you intend to visit?

Annie Betancourt: After much agonizing and after a 43 year absence, I traveled to Cuba. Ihad some thoughts in terms of my family. I wanted to visit my grandfather’s tomb in thecemetery. I wanted to connect with my heritage. As an American, no one can deny mefreedom to reconnect. I’m sure that dissidents of Ireland, France or Germany would desire toconnect with their heritage

Question: If the embargo is lifted and the tobacco cigar products can be imported into theU.S., what would be the impact on the Tampa cigar industry?

Pat Frank: Unfortunately, the Tampa cigar industry has reduced considerably. There are stillsome outstanding cigar manufacturers in the area, but they are small in numbers. I think thatthey would still hold their own. It’s obvious that there would be an immediate attraction toCuban cigars, but I think that we also have a good history and quality cigar that we sell. So, Idon’t see this as a threat.

Question: What percentage of people polled abstained from answering question 16? Whatwould be effective to marshal Miami Cubans to vote for anyone but Bush to demonstrate thatthe election of a president does not depend upon a block vote of Cubans in South Florida?Would a president then sign, without fear, legislation passed to end the embargo?

29

Alvaro Fernández: Percentage abstaining ran from between 4-12%. For most of thequestions it is basically the same. It is interesting what is happening now in Miami, I get afeeling that there are going to be plenty of Cubans not voting for George W. Bush based onwhat is happening and we see it played out everyday in the newspapers. What they call herethe hard right is arguing amongst themselves over things that they need to work out. PresidentBush is worried about that.

OUR NATIONAL INTEREST, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

MODERATOR: LISSA WEINMANNCUBA PROJECT, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE

When the Cuba Project began in 1997, we focused our research and public discussions on theimpact the embargo was exerting on Cuba itself, including the implications of what was then atotal ban on the sale of U.S. - produced food and medical products. Since then, our workexpanded logically into the ramifications on the U.S. itself which surprisingly is actually fargreater than we expected going in. We began to learn that the policy had important negativeeffects on various interests, including the economic impact on the agricultural community andvarious local communities throughout the nation for whom Cuba is a natural trading partner.Right now, our project is working to more precisely define the international ramifications ofU.S. policy toward Cuba, particularly how our the policy, which defies numerous internationalcovenants and human rights conventions, impacts America’s ability to lead in a changingworld. The panel later this afternoon on international perspectives is a very important part ofour future work. That U.S. leadership is obviously closely tied to our national security. I amvery honored to bring to you this very distinguished panel of speakers who can speak withgreat authority on these matters.

GENERAL JOHN SHEEHAN, USMC (RET.),FORMER COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF U.S. ATLANTIC COMMAND,SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER ATLANTIC

“When someone says to you there are weapons of mass destruction in Cuba, don’t believethem. It’s not true.”

I apologize for being a couple of minutes late, but in my world if you don’t know what theopposition is doing, you have a difficult time (Editorial Note: Sheehan is referring to theparallel conference arranged by Miami International University’s Cuban Studies Programwhich highlighted Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Roger Noriega which wasplanned after the Summit and held at the same hotel. Sheehan went to sit in on Noriega’scomments.). One of the comments that the Ambassador from the State Department made as hewas giving his presentation is that those of us here on this side of the hotel are newcomers tothe issue of Cuba. I take exception to the concept of newcomers because when he was going togrammar school in the Central part of the United States, I was walking the hill lines with a riflein Guatánamo Bay, Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. So, being a newcomer to the issuereally isn’t true. When I look around this room and I see people here that were in the Bay ofPigs, I say maybe he is a newcomer to this issue and doesn’t quite understand it.

The other part of the conversation in the other room was that there was a member of the Houseof Representatives who made the introduction and her comments were all about weapons ofmass destruction and the fact that the Cubans have this kind of capability. As all of you know,there has been a great deal of discussion over the subject of weapons of mass destruction. Thefact is there are no weapons of mass destruction in Cuba.

30

As the Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command responsible for the security of theUnited States, I saw no intelligence that Cuba was a military threat to the United States. Itwasn’t then and it isn’t now. As a matter of fact, the Cuban military, since the collapse of theSoviet Union, has continued to deteriorate. In that process of deterioration, that military, whichat one time was a global expeditionary force, now is a National Guard defending the Cubanhomeland. Defending it against whom? It is defending it against people from this part of theworld who would cause insurrection in Cuba.

What strikes me about this whole debate about weapons of mass destruction is that there is apolitical component to it. When you see what’s happened to Ambassador Wilson’s wife, youhave to be concerned about the politicization of intelligence. I’ve lived with my wife in theUK for the last five years because I work in the former Soviet Union, and when you look atwhat’s happened to David Kelly, who committed suicide because his information waspoliticized, then you have to ask yourself a very fundamental question: when a democracymisuses intelligence for political gain, then there is something fundamentally wrong. Andwhen political representatives misuse information to induce a fear factor, that is really in therealm of the desperate. So, I would say to you as an American who has spent 35 yearsdefending this nation, don’t listen to that type of diatribe. It is not true.

America is a great nation. Its greatness comes because it has allowed immigrants into thisnation. This nation was built on immigrants. I live in Texas. The area I live in now betweenMexico and California, 750,000 illegal immigrants are picked up by the border patrol everysingle year and returned to their native lands. Yet, we deal here in Florida in humancargo—people who risk their lives to come here come to the United States. Why? It’s notbecause they hate Fidel, Raul and family. It’s because they want a better way of life—thesame way 750,000 captured every single come here for a better way of life.

I’ll give you two stories. When I ran the camps in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, I used to visitthere very frequently. During the very bad days we weren’t sure what the policy was—whocould go or who could come. There were some very desperate times in those camps. On theairfield at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, oftentimes it was 110 degrees in those tents. During one ofmy visits, I went to one of these tents to visit a family. They gave me a picture. The picture,essentially called refugee art – as you know Cuban people are incredibly talented artistically –is a painting of the Statue of Liberty. The interesting part of the Statue of Liberty is that it hasa blindfold on it and at the base of the statue there are naked people who created a parallelpyramid. If you look really closely, the people are handing babies up the pyramid. I asked theartist to tell me what this was about. He said, “Look, you Americans have a great symbol, theStatue of Liberty. It’s a symbol of hope. But your government is blind to our plight, that’swhat the blindfold on the Statue of Liberty is.”

I said tell me about the people. He said that the people represent the people of this camp. “Wehave no hope. The kids, our kids, do have a chance if they get to the United States.” That’swhat the symbol of the kids moving up the pyramid is about. We did let some of them intoUnited States and they are citizens today doing a good job.

The sequel to that story is that a couple weeks ago when I was traveling, I was sitting in anairport waiting for my flight when a planeload of soldiers coming from Iraq came by and oneof them stopped me and said, “You’re General Sheehan.” I thought, “Oh God, it’s someoneI’ve done something to a long time ago and it has now come back to haunt me.” He said, “Youdon’t remember me do you?” He was obviously Hispanic, but I said, “No, I don’t.” “You used

31

to play basketball with me and my brother in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.” One of the things Iused to do is play basketball all the time, because that was the only thing I knew how to dowell. He said, “You were on our team and we won every game.” I said, “Good. What are youdoing now?” He said, “Well, I’m in the army. I got into the United States. Do you rememberthat you used to talk to us about participating and being part of America, so I joined the army.”

He talked about his family and how most of them are still in Cuba operating under minimalconditions of caloric intake because of insufficient food and medicines. I asked him where hehad been. He said, “I’m coming from Iraq.” He was with the American army in Iraq liberatingthe Iraqi people. Just before he left he made an interesting comment. He said, “General, whenthe Castro brothers leave, don’t let the United States make the same mistakes that we’remaking in Iraq.” I thought about it, but I had to catch a plane and he had to catch the bus.

I just left Ambassador Noreiga’s remarks and during the question and answer period, someoneasked what was being done about the transition to power in Cuba. Essentially he said, “We’recreating a government in exile. We’re creating a new Chalabi who is hanging around heresomewhere on the East coast of the United States.” So when the Castro brothers leave they’regoing to impose this leadership on Cuba. Let me tell you something, don’t do it! The Cubanpeople need to lead Cuba, those who are there. Because if you do that, if you allow an outsideinfluence an outside refugee kind of leadership that hasn’t been to Cuba in 43 years, you’ll getexactly the same results as you have in Iraq right now. You’ll have disenfranchised peoplewho won’t support what you’re trying to do and Americans will become casualties.

Cuba is about the Cuban people. It’s not about two brothers who are going to pass from thescene one of these days now. When someone says to you there are weapons of massdestruction in Cuba, don’t believe them. It’s not true. I’ve been to the biological laboratoriesand there is no evidence of weaponization and, in addition to that, it’s very hard to do.

So when someone says to you, “The Cubans are talking to the Iranians, the Cubans are talkingto the Syrians.” That’s ok, because I talk to the Iranians and the Syrians too because I want todo business there, not because I’m producing weapons of mass destruction in my garage. Sowhen someone says to, “What is Cuba about?” Cuba is about 11 to 12 million people whowant a better way of life. How do you do that? You trade.

What I find so inconsistent is that we are killing ourselves to talk to Kim Jong Il from NorthKorea. We’re giving him food, we’re giving him material, and we’re actually even giving hima processing capability. At the same time, there are 11 or 12 million people 90 miles away,whom we can’t do the same thing for. There is something inconsistent in my mind about ourpolicy process. If we’re rushing to talk to Kim Jong Il who is really an idiot and reallydangerous, why can’t we do the same thing with the Cubans? That is inconsistent, it doesn’tmake sense and that is not what America is about. America is a nation that reaches out to helpother people. That is what made this place so great, that is what makes this conference sogreat—people who can reach out and touch people, not people who go out and build biggerfences. Thank you.

32

THE HON. WILLIAM D. ROGERSVICE CHAIR, KISSINGER ASSOCIATES, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATEFOR INTER-AMERICAN RELATIONS (1974-1977)

“In my view, the United States should adopt with respect to Cuba a foreign policy akin to thatit practices with each of the other residual formally Communist regimes: normalize diplomaticrelations, exchange ambassadors, open the channels of trade, travel and investment.”

There is a fascination with Cuba in this country, and one may well wonder why. The world haschanged enormously since the United States and Cuba first embarked on their long mutualhostility, but U.S.-Cuba relations have been froze.n in amber, seemingly, for the past 40 years.During that period, the Soviet empire came to an end. Communism has been dismantledthroughout Europe and Central Asia and survives in rather modified form only in China,Vietnam and North Korea.

Furthermore, Cuba is not anywhere near the top of this country's foreign policy agenda. TheMiddle East, North Korea, economics and trade – all are far more significant. Even in thishemisphere, Mexico and Venezuela loom large in our national interest scale. Yet Cubacommands far more ink and TV attention than the rest of the hemisphere.

Part of the reason, I suspect, lies in the fact that Cuba has always had a great power relationshipto define its identity. First as a colony for several hundred years until 1898, then as a virtualU.S. dependency and then, when that came to an end with the overthrow of Batista, it enteredinto the Soviet sphere – as the only country voluntarily to do so, let it be noted – largely inorder to strengthen its role and image as outside that of the United States. One might suggestthat for this entire century, Cuba has attempted to understand its national role in terms of itsrelationship to the United States, first positively and then for forty years negatively.

But change is inevitable, and we should accept, understand and reckon with the consequencesof that inevitable change. The Soviet subsidy is finished. Cuba's economy is a disaster; theend of the Soviet subsidy coincided with a sharp global slowdown; Cuba can look forward tofurther economic deterioration. Finally, Castro will not last forever.

What might be said about the consequences when the inevitable change occurs? First, thatCuba is vastly different than it was in 1959. There is no possibility of rewinding to that earlierera, even if one would wish to reinstall the society, culture and economic structures of theBatista era. Sugar is dead as a factor in the world economy. Cuban production is one-fifth ofwhat it was a few decades ago. Most of the mills are closed. And other economic prospects areunfavorable as well. Tourism in Cuba, whatever the attractions of its beaches and old Havana,will, under the best of post-Castro circumstances, have a long way to go to capture substantialmarket from Mexico and the Dominican Republic, and to forge a tourism industry which canmake a major contribution to the domestic Cuban economy. In short, it is fanciful to supposethat Cuba will very quickly and easily move to a happy upland of economic prosperity whenthe transition occurs.

If the economics are not wildly hopeful for the transition, what of the politics? Here again,uncertainty rules. There is a variety of possible scenarios to choose from. It is conceivablethat Cuba will move smoothly and easily from authoritarian rule to representative democracyand a civil society, as was the case, for example, with Spain and Czechoslovakia – but in my

33

view quite improbable. The potential for conflict between the factions within Cuba, andbetween the interests of those who stayed in Cuba and those who emigrated to the UnitedStates, are too great. It is also possible that Cuba will open its economy to the outside world,as in the case or China, but attempt to maintain political control at the center and suppressdissent. But this is not an easy course for the successor regime to follow.

It is, unfortunately, just as conceivable that Cuba will suffer through a bloody and conflictivetransition, as in the case of Romania and other countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asiawhich shed their Communist heritage. This desperate scenario, it seems to me, needs to beseriously considered as we contemplate the future of Cuba. It is not by any means a certaintythat Cuba will enjoy a soft landing from its bumpy ride with Fidel. The recent crackdown andjailing of almost 80 leading dissidents are especially tragic in this respect. For as TheresaBond has suggested in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, "Having thrown the cream of hiscountry's civil society behind bars, Castro has ensured that his departure – whether caused bybiology or ideology – will be chaotic, since Cuba will be unprepared for it. In fact, thetransition may look more like the bloody end of Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989 thanlike the carefully planned soft exit of Poland's general Wojciech Jaruzelski, who is now writinghis memoirs in retirement.” (Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2003)

This brings me to the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba. The relationship has been in stalematefor 40 years. Fidel is now squaring off against his tenth American President. By the sametoken the United States has maintained an "embargo" – forgive the shorthand for the moment –for four decades the only change has been to tighten and strengthen it. Such was the case withthe Helms-Burton legislation, which very considerably raised the bar for normalization torequire first a Cuban government selected through open elections. The more recentAdministration promises to severely enforce the travel ban against American visits to Cuba.

In my view, this "embargo" is flagrantly counterproductive and against the national interest ofthe United States. That interest is in a soft landing – one in which conflict and confrontationare minimal and which moves the nation toward democracy, freedom and market economics assmoothly and as quickly as possible. Iraq has brought home the plain truths about regimechange. First, the misleading and inadequate quality of our intelligence about what is going onin closed societies. Second, the law of unintended consequences, which counsels moderationand careful consideration of proposals for intervention. Thirdly, that no nation can imposedemocracy on another, and that political and economic progress must spring from native soil.

The "embargo" does not, it seems to me, contribute to the probability of a soft landing. Indeed,it provides a prop to those – Fidel most particularly – who agree that the failures of the Cubaneconomy are due to U.S. policy and not to Marxism. It isolates the United States from the restof the Hemisphere and puts us in a minority every year at the UN. Finally, it contributes to ourdeclining reputation in the world; Fidel is admired – witness his recent visit to Argentina(Editor’s note: where Fidel Castro was welcomed in 2003 by thousands in numerous officialand unofficial demonstrations of support) – as a heroic David battling with Goliath.

In my view, the United States should adopt with respect to Cuba a foreign policy akin to that itpractices with each of the other residual formally Communist regimes: normalize diplomaticrelations, exchange ambassadors, open the channels of trade, travel and investment. Theembargo has failed. It has not brought about regime change, but it has cut Cuba off frominfluences from abroad which could only strengthen the desire, and the possibility, of moreopen society and economy on the island.

34

I urge diplomatic and economic normalization, not because I would anticipate any concessionsfrom the regime. Far from it. As Assistant Secretary of State in the mid-1970's, I negotiatedsecretly, at Henry Kissinger's orders, a proposed road map for normalization with the Castrogovernment. Fidel refused the proposal. The reason was then, I concluded, and continue tothink, that Fidel realizes that he needs the United States as an enemy to maintain his claim onpower in Cuba. Some might say that this is no time for a relaxation of American hostility,since Fidel has so recently imprisoned the leading dissidents on the island. In my view, thatmost recent demonstration of the tyrannical nature of the regime strengthens the case for amore enlightened policy, since it is a policy designed to hasten the end of the tyranny andenhance the pressures for change.

WILLIAM RATLIFF, PH.D.RESEARCH FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION, STANFORD UNIVERSITY

“Our policy toward Cuba is highly destructive of what Joseph Nye has called our ‘soft power,’that is the level of international support that inclines other nations to co-operate with us inmatters of real national importance such as the war on terrorism… On the other hand, theembargo feeds Castro’s soft power. Our policy not only feeds his ego and prolongs hisinternational reputation; it provides him an international stage from which to condemn U.S.policies generally and globalization more broadly. If we took this scapegoat from him bydeclaring him a non-issue, we would come as close as possible to killing him while he is stillalive.”

The problem we are probing today from various angles is how the United States can developand implement an effective policy toward Cuba during the remainder of Fidel Castro’s lifetime.Unlike our current policy, it should have realizable goals and serve, as much as is possible, theinterests of the vast majority of the American and Cuban people.

The underlying problem with our policy today is that while its objectives are altogetherdesirable, they cannot be realized with the resources we are willing to commit, or perhaps at allunder current circumstances in Cuba. We claim to be promoting democracy, human rights,economic reform and a peaceful transition in Cuba but in reality we are doing little or nothingto advance any of these goals. All the same, the policy resonates with Florida voters and soboth major parties continue to exploit it for domestic political purposes.

There is no easy resolution to this challenge precisely because its supporters and opponents,both here and in Cuba, are often more passionate than practical in their thought and actions.This almost guarantees bad policy. It is hard to follow the logic that by trashing the island,which is the real purpose of the sanctions, embargo supporters are the special friends of theCuban people. This might be so if there were significant evidence that pressures wouldchange and perhaps eliminate Castro, but there is none. Current U.S. policy is crippled byour inability to see that we do not have the means to achieve our lofty stated objectives andthat much of what we are doing deepens the woes of the Cuban people.

We must be clear about two things before proceeding. Firstly, in most respects the embargo ismore symbolic than effective. Cuba’s economic problems in the past and today have neverbeen the result of the embargo, but almost entirely the predictable consequence of Castro’sown political and economic policies. Today almost every country in the world has political

35

and economic relations with Cuba, but Cuba can’t produce much to sell abroad and has verylittle money to buy from others. To the degree that the embargo does have an impact,however, it is more negative than positive, to the point of becoming a strategic liability forAmerica and the Caribbean. Roger Fontaine and I discuss these issues in detail in our HooverInstitution study cited below.

Secondly, we must eliminate a common misunderstanding with respect to our current ossifiedpolicy. It is a bipartisan disaster that cannot be blamed on Republicans and conservatives.Remember that one of our panel members today, former Under Secretary William D. Rogers,conducted secret negotiations with Cuba almost thirty years ago in an effort to normalizerelations. One of the first to call for a lifting of the embargo after the end of the Cold War wasRichard Nixon. Other long-time critics of the embargo include Bill Buckley, George Will,Roger Fontaine, a Latin Americanist on President Reagan’s NSC, and analysts at Cato and theHoover Institution, the latter being me. Two days ago Richard Lugar, Republican chairman ofthe Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that in dealing with Cuba “we must thinkbeyond our fruitless war of attrition.”

And the Democrats’ role?

The first great leap backward in our relationship with Cuba after the end of the Cold War, atightening of the embargo, was largely the work of Robert Torricelli, a Democrat. PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush opposed Torricelli’s legislation until Bill Clinton endorsed it whilecampaigning in Florida. Remember also that the father of the proposed Presidential BipartisanCommission on Cuba in 1998-99 was again Bill Rogers. This effort to seriously examine thesuccesses and failures of U.S. policy drew broad Republican support from former secretaries ofstate Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, the majority of the Republicanmembers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and many others. But it was blasted byCuban-American legislators, Republican and Democrat, among others, and was finallyterminated by Bill Clinton. The Clinton Administration stubbornly blocked significant changeas long as it was in office. Now the Bush Administration, with the help of such Democrats asJoseph Lieberman, is adopting an even more aggressive and potentially dangerous approach tothe island.

Here are just a couple of the issues we should consider:

The embargo is intended to make conditions in Cuba so bad as to spark “regime change,”namely the removal of Fidel and Raul Castro from power. This is a change most of us wouldwelcome, but the process is dangerous because it could easily lead to a domestic uprising.Should there be a civil war, the democratic forces would likely be crushed by Castro’spowerful repressive apparatus unless they get strong support from the U.S. military. But U.S.military involvement in Cuba is something we should try very hard to avoid. Also, underembargo conditions what should be minor matters, like the Elian Gonzalez incident, canescalate into serious conflicts.

As wonderful as Cubans may be individually, and however delightful their culture may be, thecountry is a mess. A character created by Cuban novelist Pedro Juan Gutiérrez (in DirtyHavana Trilogy, which had to be published abroad) remarks that she is “pained to witness somuch poverty and so much political posturing to disguise it.” One might only add moralposturing as well, by Havana and Washington.

36

Intelligence reports show clearly that Cuba is no military or economic threat to the UnitedStates. But our policy toward Cuba is highly destructive of what Joseph Nye has called our“soft power,” that is the level of international support that inclines other nations to co-operatewith us in matters of real national importance such as the war on terrorism. The polls,confirmed by my personal experiences, and probably by your experiences as well, tell us thatAmerica’s image around the world today is very low and hostility toward our policies is rising.Most of the antagonism toward the United States results from what more and more considerour bullying and bombing of other sovereign nations, highlighted by the attacks on Yugoslaviain 1999 and Iraq in 2003. Thus Cuba is not a major cause of our current reputation today, but itfits the pattern of the world’s only superpower bullying small countries. A unilateral lifting ofthe embargo would help improve our image, at least in Latin America, besides reducingtensions on the island.

Some embargo supporters say lifting the embargo now would reward Castro for hisstubbornness, even for his recent repression. No. A bad policy is a bad policy and should bechanged. We should announce that Castro has been dumped from our “most wanted” to our“least relevant” list. His international admirers would say “Viva Fidel,” but most of the worldwould just say, “It’s about time.” It is even remotely possible that if we let Castro “win” therecognition matter, he would consider a more positive transition policy within the country.

On the other hand, the embargo feeds Castro’s soft power. It gives him a scapegoat for hisrepression and economic failures, but it also polishes his image as the scourge of Americanimperialism, the image he has cultivated for his entire career and without which he could neverhave played such an assertive role abroad. Our policy not only feeds his ego and prolongs hisinternational reputation, it provides him an international stage from which to condemn U.S.policies generally and globalization more broadly. If we took this scapegoat from him bydeclaring him a non-issue, we would come as close as possible to killing him while he is stillalive.

The Helms-Burton Law, the heart of our current Cuba policy, is destructive of U.S. interestsbecause it makes demands on the current and future governments that are imperialistic andinappropriate. Helms-Burton is a new Platt amendment, one hundred years after the first.American Enterprise Institute conservative Mark Falcoff has noted correctly that the PlattAmendment planted “seeds of a long smoldering resentment” in Cuba and Helms Burton isdoing the same.

Many embargo supporters note that dollars made from trade and tourism support oppression.Yes some do, but so do remittances by Cuban-Americans to family members that have becomefar and away Cuba’s main source of foreign currency. But almost all of these dollars also feedpeople and give them at least some chance of a better life. If that isn’t so, why is the countrycrawling with Cubans of all ages doing whatever free-lance work they can to earn U.S. dollars?

The logic of the “dollars foster repression” argument should demand stopping all remittancesas well, though to do so would be barbaric. But the logic of continuing remittances is toexpand the circulation of dollars on the island by tourism and in other ways, not least becausedoing so would get more dollars into the hands of Cubans who do not have family membersliving abroad who can ease their plight. Not least important, the tourism industry in particularspreads out the benefits and thus reduces the growing and potentially explosive divide betweenCubans who have dollars and those who do not.

37

Then there is still another angle on dollars. This money may subvert as well as supportrepression. By the late-1980s the amply-funded Ministry of the Interior, the ministry thatprotects and promotes Fidel, had become the most liberal, reform-oriented body in Cuba.When General Ochoa was executed in 1989, in a parallel action that was hardly noticed in thiscountry, the top three levels of the Interior Ministry, including the Interior Minister himself,were purged. Stalinist types were put in. But this subversion of the Cuban repressiveapparatus could happen again and is something to be quietly cultivated.

There are indeed legitimate concerns the U.S. should have about Castro and Cuba. After all,Castro has devoted his life to fighting the United States and we, in turn, are trying to overthrowhim. The issues that warrant attention include whether the dictator is helping or obstructing usin the war on terrorism, what role he may be playing in the transshipment of drugs or money-laundering, and whether Cuban scientists are developing a germ warfare capacity.

But even if he were doing some of or all of these things, we would be able to monitor thembetter with more rather than fewer people on the island. And an embargo targeting the entirecountry is an aggressive and unproductive way to address these alleged activities of a tiny elite.We desperately need more friendly or at least informational contacts with Cuban politicalleaders, military officers, academics and people in general. These contacts should not bedeveloped in ways that threaten the Cubans’ well being while Castro is still in power.

Finally, has the embargo improved human rights, brought more democracy, or promotedpeaceful transition? For all their claims to supporting the Cuban people by marching on themoral high ground, there is no evidence that the embargo has improved the lives of Cubans orlessened repression. There is much to the contrary.

Embargo supporters say the repression of last March and April 2003 proves that the moderateengagement line of the Europeans has failed. But that European policy was conducted to theconfusing counterpoint of our militant policy and if anything the recent repression proves thatour policy has failed. The arrests and executions in March and April were a severe blow tothe human rights movement, and there is some justification for the argument that theaggressive involvement of the U.S. Interest Section with dissidents provided a justification forthe crackdown even if it was not its cause.

Would lifting the embargo bring improvements? Probably in some respects, though it wouldbe no panacea. Much repression will continue as long as Castro lives, though there is reasonto believe that with more and more Americans roaming around the island the dictator would atleast have to think twice before becoming significantly more repressive.

In reality, history since 1959 when Castro took power shows that neither threats norenticements, from the former Soviet Union in the past or from Europe or us today, will moveCuba closer to being a free market democracy – unless Castro decides that is what he wants.Castro is as hard to change with the resources we have as the Rum Tum Tugger. As T.S. Eliotsays, slightly paraphrased: “Fidel Castro WILL do, as Fidel Castro DO do, and there’s nodoing anything about it.”

Two years ago I spent a long evening with Cuban dissidents Elizardo Sanchez, OscarEspinosa Chepe and Hector Palacios, two of whom are now serving decades in prison.Palacios had recently polled dissidents on the island and found that 90% wanted the embargolifted. Why? Because as Sanchez said, “isolation is oxygen to totalitarians.” And yet the

38

United States is not only maintaining the embargo but cutting back on the number ofAmericans who can visit the island legally, a tragically misguided and counterproductivepolicy that increases the isolation that is the oxygen to totalitarians.

Who knows better how to deal with Fidel Castro: Cuban-American legislators in the Stateswho represent militantly anti-Castro constituencies, and their declining supporters around thecountry, or the people of Cuba, most certainly including the dissidents on the front lines and injail? I should think we would all vote for the latter. Cubans generally and the dissidents wantto see Americans and others traveling around Cuba, so why are we cutting that back?

We persist in pledging to increase support for the dissidents, despite the fact that 75 have justbeen given long prison terms and many are very wary of assistance from abroad, particularlyfrom Washington. Dissidents have told me it “burns” because it seems to give credence toCastro’s charge that they are tools of the American imperialists, a main charge made in theirStalinist “trials.”

Embargo supporters are gleeful when the dissidents condemn Castro’s repression, but theyclose their ears when the vast majority calls for more contact with Americans through a liftingof the embargo. If we Americans really admire courageous men and women like Palacios,Payá and many others who stand up to Castro to demand a little more freedom, why don’t weshow them the ultimate respect of doing what ask of us. Why don’t we open the doors widerto Americans wto want to visit Cuba, or better yet lift the embargo altogether?

KEN LINDEMANSENIOR SCIENTIST AND CUBA PROGRAM DIRECTORENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE

“Interchange between American scientists and conservation NGOS generates products that gofar beyond simply new research and conservation products, and can help catalyze newavenues for local community participation.”

The northwest Caribbean is the convergence point of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, andGulf of Mexico. Cuba is at the center of this convergence, has the largest insular shelf in theCaribbean, and far exceeds other islands of the Caribbean in biological diversity. Far-rangingbenefits can result from conservation science efforts that improve coastal management inCuba.

Due to the prevailing currents and the close proximity to neighboring countries, theconservation of Cuba’s fisheries, notably snappers, groupers, lobsters, and corals serves theinterests of the greater region. Millions of dollars of annual fishery production in thesoutheastern U.S. depend on replenishment from fish and lobster populations that spawn inCuban waters, because their eggs and larvae are carried by currents to the north from Cuba.This is particularly important in Florida.

Clean water, clean air, and sustainably harvested fishery and land resources are criticalcomponents in the national interest of any civil society. Achieving these seeminglyfundamental goals has been difficult for many island nations of the Caribbean. Problemsabound throughout the region. Examples include efforts to provide adequate sewer andsanitation, avoid elimination of coastal habitats for tourism development, and to restoredegraded reefs and fisheries.

39

These issues are also common to Cuba, and are amplified due to its extraordinary size andbiodiversity. Examples of Cuba’s exceptional biodiversity have been provided in manyforums and do not require detailed review here. However, I will comment on several keycoastal science and management topics in Cuba I have physically worked and published on for10 years in terms of two primary themes: 1) Sustainable environmental management in Cubabenefits both the U.S. and Cuba; and 2) the interchange of scientific and conservationorganizations can foster improvements in public participation in local decision-making.

Many of the most valuable fishery species and coastal habitats in Cuba and Florida areoverexploited and insufficiently protected by traditional management tools - this is welldocumented in both countries. However, many scientists and managers in Cuba and Floridaare now seeking the implementation of well-designed marine park networks to protect criticalspawning populations and the habitats they depend on.

We and other external organizations have worked for many years to help lay the scientificfoundations for the marine park design and implementation actions that will benefit both Cubaand South Florida. In 25 years of living and doing science in the Caribbean, I’ve publishedover 30 peer-review journal articles and book chapters, and two books with over 40 co-authors– and the Cuban marine scientists we have worked with on this marine park network projectare as hard-working and scholarly as any scientists I have known.

We have identified many of the most significant fishery production areas around the island,including sites where groupers and snappers aggregate only once a year for massive spawningevents, we have executed multi-year planning and analysis exercises resulting in the consensusidentification of Cuba’s nine primary coastal eco-regions; we have conducted leading-edgelarval transport modeling and separate decision support modeling to optimize alternatives tobest place and shape marine park boundaries around the island. All of this work provides thebasis for the park management plans now in development – these emphasize local communityeducation and scientific monitoring of park functioning. Ultimately, this will be the largestnational network of marine parks in the region and will be based on some of the mostthorough scientific underpinnings yet accomplished in the Caribbean.Cuba’s coastal lands and waters will continue to be subject to increasing development pressureunder any scenario. Cuba is now trying to develop a system for coastal construction permittingand environmental impact assessment that borrows from protocols used in several otherCaribbean countries and the U.S.. An informed and participatory public is essential to theprotection of natural resources. Some mechanisms to provide communities with access toenvironmental information on proposed construction projects and to promote publicinvolvement are in place in current policies. For example, information on pending projects(e.g., proposed waste treatment facilities) has been provided to some local neighborhoods orcommunities. However, for the most part, agencies have not yet established systematicmethods for consulting the public about proposed projects, and consequently the opportunitiesfor effective public comments are limited.

Public participation in environmental decision-making is relatively new terrain in manycountries. In Cuba, some sectors are interested in developing methods for increasing publicparticipation in the environmental review process. One way to expand public involvementwould be simply to provide public notice of draft Environmental Impact Assessments and draftconstruction permits before issuance of final permits, as is done in most other countries.Ultimately, the entire process, from planning to post-construction monitoring could be

40

informed and enhanced by the availability of early drafts of key documents to the public. Weare working on obtaining these modifications in several manners. The larger point here is thatinterchange between American scientists and conservation NGOS generates products that gofar beyond simply new research and conservation products, and can help catalyze new avenuesfor local community participation.

Sustainable development practices are often discussed with regard to coastal areas, butexamples of long-term applications remain limited even in the developed world. Even in thoseplaces where some sustainable development policies have been applied, a wide variety ofeffective best management practices are still commonly underused. The process of seeding andnourishing the needed environmental research, policy refinement, and public participation isslow and requires continuous and creative interchange between external and internal players.These larger goals depend on seemingly simple things, like bringing in new books, journals,and other educational materials. We bring in more than a ton of such information items eachyear for major science libraries and individuals in Cuba - and these materials are hungrilyconsumed with both immediate and long term benefits to all parties. Opportunities to build theskill-sets of the current and next generation of Cubans, while improving local participation indecision-making, while simultaneously contributing to improved environmental managementare worth continuing and expanding.

MAYOR MICHAEL C. DOWMOBILE, ALABAMA

“I believe that today the Cuban embargo hurts the 12 million Cuban citizens. We keep themtoo isolated and too weakened to help themselves find a more free, open and democratic life, anew politics and a better, stronger economic model.”

I am here today as a four-term mayor of my historic, 300-year-old, port city of Mobile,Alabama. Like Charleston, Savannah and New Orleans, Mobile was founded in colonial daysas a trading city on one of America’s largest delta, bay and river systems. Mobile was, in fact,founded by the French in 1702 and was the original capital of the Louisiana Purchase prior toour founders later establishing New Orleans. (Obviously, we had our Mardi Gras a long timebefore New Orleans did, and ours is family-oriented.)

The French brothers, Iberville and Bienville (Mobile’s founders), were based out of Havana,Cuba. In fact, Iberville is buried in Havana’s History Museum on the City Square near one ofHemingway’s favorite hangouts. A replicated, larger-than-life statue of Iberville stands onboth the Port of Mobile and on the Port of Havana. Both of these statues of Iberville arelooking to the sea, reminding us of our historic ties and centuries-old relations.

At one point in our history, Havana, Vera Cruz, Mexico, and Mobile owned the Gulf tradeunder French, English and Spanish flags. Today our citizens have new-found relationships,lost and found relatives, lost business, sister-city exchanges and many memories of this 300-year history and hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow.

Mobile has had a sister-city relationship with Havana since 1993. Our citizens have mademany, many trips to Cuba over the last 10 years resulting in humanitarian aid, cultural andeducational exchanges, architectural, archival research and historic redevelopment purposesand many other people-to-people initiatives.

41

These trips have over the years been authorized by a U.S. Treasury Department License to ourMobile-La Habana Society without major incident. Recently, Alabama has been licensed toparticipate in U.S.-authorized trade to Cuba. The first U.S. flag to reach Cuba in 40 yearscame from a load of donated medical equipment, medicines and supplies out of Mobile toHavana’s hospital system.

Last November under a proper license, we flew two Lear jets directly from Mobile carryingformer Alabama Congressman and Foreign Appropriations Chairman Sonny Callahan;Alabama’s Lieutenant Governor Lucy Baxley; U.S. Airlines Chairman and CEO of theRetirement Systems of Alabama Dr. David Bronner; Jimmy Lyons, Mobile’s Port Director;Alabama Power Company President Charles McCrary; Cooper T. Smith’s David Cooper(whose family provides port and trade services to 40 ports around the world); Bay Haas,Mobile’s Airport Director and others of influence to see beyond the rhetoric and our outdated,Cold War foreign policies towards this small island 90 miles off our southern border, to seebeyond Castro and a dated revolution and to see beyond Communism that has failedworldwide. I took those prominent individuals with me to look into the hearts and minds of theCuban citizens and to look into the future.

I am here today not only as a mayor but more fundamentally as an American. I love andrespect my country. I spent two years in Vietnam. I have two brothers who are 100% disabledin their defense of this great nation. I love our democracy and our freedoms. I want a freer,more democratic Cuba.

In the 1980s, I watched then President Ronald Reagan develop a relationship and send SovietPresident Gorbachev a heartfelt message to tear down the walls of the former USSR. When Ibecame the mayor of Mobile in 1989, I established a sister-city relationship with Rostov-on-Don, Russia, to foster change and participate in this great event. I met an intelligent, wonderfulpeople yearning for peace with the same dreams I dreamed in America. Taking down the wallswas a dramatic and effective psychology and foreign policy for economic and political change.Reagan and Gorbachev created a better world. They were effective leaders.

Today, through a consistent, clear policy of détente and active engagement, Communist Chinahas free-trade status and Communism is destined to fade to democracy and capitalism as Chinacaptures more world trade and its people become more engaged, aware and involved andinterdependent on outside influence.

Even Vietnam, where I served as an 18-, 19- and 20-year-old paratrooper and helicopter doorgunner, is now, through similar foreign policies, an active U.S. trade partner. Our once World-War enemies, Germany and Japan, are now our greatest friends and allies. Isolation andoutdated foreign policies did not create this economic and political alliance - this safer, sanerworld.

Are China, Russia and Vietnam more important and economically valuable to the U.S.economy than tiny Cuba? Is that partly why we pushed Cuba to last place? Certainly. Ourforeign policy has followed our nation’s belief that ideological and political barriers arenormalized and lifted by economic trade and reciprocal investment, but our policy has alsofollowed the money. Cuba’s economy is much smaller and, unfortunately, it has been writtenoff as an economic priority.

42

We all know that our Cuban policy is tied to the impact or feared impact of the Cuban-American vote in South Florida. Is that a good enough reason to keep those 12 million Cubanpeople trapped in an outdated 1950’s Cold War standoff? My friends in Cuba look at me withpain, consternation and a yearning for a better life for them and their families – a yearning forthe American people to engage and help them if our leaders on both sides fail to do so. Whereare the American people in this debate? Where is our concern for the 12 million Cubanpeople?

It is my belief that today the Cuban embargo hurts these 12 million citizens. We keep them tooisolated and too weakened to help themselves find a more free, open and democratic life, a newpolitics and a better, stronger economic model. We need free travel, free trade and a caring,compassionate, more active engagement at all levels to mold a better politics and future.History has proven that. We know that.

It interests me that the 10-year-old, people-to-people, sister-city relationship that Mobile hashad this past decade has not been able to get its license renewed this year by the TreasuryDepartment and that people-to-people initiatives are now a problem in our Cuban policy. Wehad been told for the past 10 years not to trade or have a business agenda, and we were onlyauthorized to have people-to-people initiatives. We followed those rules.

Now we are being told that people-to-people contact is out and trade is in favor and our StateDocks and State of Alabama agricultural and forest products interests are getting licenses as isevery port and state on the Gulf Coast. Our large grain, farm and forest products states andcorporations are now engaging in trade. I feel certain that political changes will now followthis business interest and follow the money as has been the case in Russia, China and Vietnam.In fact, many states are now passing Cuba trade and travel legislation. I understand that eventhe Cuban-Americans feel that we need free travel and trade and a new policy of engagementwith Cuba.

It is my hope that our hearts, minds and intellect will better guide our actions towards Cubainto the future and do it sooner than later. It is time for change. We are a great nation. Wemust act like one to keep our self-respect. It is time to deal with this complex issue moresincerely, humanely and effectively. Let’s tear down our ideological and political walls withCuba by engaging and freeing the Cuban economy and its 12 million people. Let’s tear downthose walls!

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Question: Can you comment on China’s involvement with Cuba and whether China andCuba’s relationship could pose a future threat to the United States?

General Sheehan: The answer is no. China and Cuba have had a long historical relationshipdating back to the Soviet Union days. Cubans were involved with the Chinese in Africa andvice versa. I happen to know a little bit more about this subject because the company I workfor now is building a large petrochemical plant in China. The Chinese military is still verymuch in control in China. Yes, there is a transition going on and China – part of the economyhas been privatized and part is still state-controlled. It is a big place. There are a lot oftransitional issues that the Chinese are facing in trying to become a part of the World TradeOrganization, etc. The Cubans are looking for a window into, a way to manage a failed

43

economy. They are following what I would call the “Chinese model.” They are trying withmodifications. They’re not getting there very well, but there trying to work through it. So ifyou said to me, “Do I think China would sacrifice its strategic position in the world and supportsome stupid act in Cuba?” The answer is absolutely no. China is after China’s interest. TheChinese-Cuban relationship is a matter of economic and technological convenience.

Ratliff: I would agree with that. The one thing that I will add is that the Chinese relation toCuba goes back to the 19th century because there is was a very substantial Chinese populationin Cuba, at least there was for a while, a lot of them have gone abroad. But, that was a seriousethnic group in Cuba for awhile.

I would add that I think one of the things Fidel Castro will not do and has not done yet, butRaul Castro probably would, that is really follow the Chinese model and carry out serious long-term institutional changes. Fidel has fiddled around with things but he hasn’t done it. If hewere to, or if Raul or whoever were to come after would follow the Chinese model, there is atransition period that could pass and a more logical one, rather than it suddenly becoming moredemocratic.

But as far as far as China becoming involved with Cubans and across the world, China is a bigemerging country, it is going to be involved with countries around the world.

General Sheehan: When you come half way to the United States and you get picked up by theCoast Guard, you’re returned to Cuba. But if you set foot in Iraq, that is U.S. territory and youget to come to the United States. It’s interesting where I live in Houston. The Border Patrolwill not pick up a migrant if that migrant is injured because the migrant will go to a hospitaland will get lost in the system. So, we have migrants now purposely injuring themselves sothey don’t get

picked up by Border patrol. We have people who are really in harm’s way because our body oflaws that have to do with hijacking, migration, both legal and illegal, are so complex. We havelawyers making a cottage industry out of this business and I think we need to focus on thehuman dimension of it rather than the political dimension of it. I defer to the lawyer of thegroup.

Rogers: One additional point that needs to be emphasized is that the inconsistency andconflicts within our immigration policy and laws are something that deserve attention. Thediscrimination that we practice with respect to Cubans versus other Carribeans who areattempting to come to the United States is not a monument to rational law-making. I quiteagree with the General that all of this needs extremely careful attention.

Weinmann: So that would tend to negate the potential effect of state resolutions calling fornormalization of relations with Cuba that we have seen passed as by states such as California,Texas, Lousiana and others.

Question: This question is for Ken Lindeman on the travel ban. Has the travel ban affectedscientific exchanges, particularly with reference to the Cubans ability to come to the UnitedStates?

44

Ken Lindeman: I’ll start with the first. It is complex to understand. The policy to foster acivil society in Cuba by allowing research that is conducted full-time and results in publicdissemination of research products has served its purpose very well. The ability of U.S.academics and U.S. NGO professionals to enter Cuba, work directly with Cuban colleagues,generate research products, has been very productive in many, many ways. They can bedocumented not only in terms of environmental science, but in terms of art, culture andarchitecture and many other categories. The nature of the recent and long-term politicalhistory of Cuba is such that the ability to get general and now specific licenses is variable. Idon’t have a comment on that. But I would suggest that there is a long-term history of theexistence of this general license since it was made possible in 1999. The existence of thisgeneral license, which allows legitimate researchers to go to Cuba and to do legitimateresearch, has generated extremely and quite obvious products of benefit for both countries.And it’s currently endorsed by the State Department and OFAC policy.

Question: For Ken Lindemann, regarding the Zapata peninsula and how Israeli developmentthere might contaminate that very delicate ecosystem similar to what has occurred with theFlorida everglades ecosystem.

Lindemann: Regarding the second issue, the Zapata peninsula, this is in South Central Cuba.It is one of the largest wetlands in the Caribbean. It has “protection” both from the Cubangovernment and international conventions that is moderately rigorous. There are a variety ofdevelopments proposed in the Zapata peninsula, just as there are in many other importantprotected areas in the North Caribbean. I cannot comment specifically on the developmentproject mentioned. I can tell you what Cuba, as I indicated in my talk, is facing even with theembargo. People think it’s virgin and it is just sitting there. Every other country in the world,many of them know how to do hotels very well, are very carefully and some more aggressivelyattempting to produce developments of substantial nature in Cuba. So what you see in Cuba, iswhat you see in the U.S., Mexico and elsewhere. There are important places and they haveimpending development pressures. In Cuba we have an opportunity to help shape themechanisms to guide whether those development pressures will be executed in sustainablefashions or not.

Question: At a time when most of Latin America is in turmoil, isn’t the obsession about Cubacounter-productive?

Rogers: I don’t think that it is a zero-sum game. I don’t think that the fact that there is, Ihope, an increasingly active debate on the wisdom of our present policy on Cuba, detracts fromour capacity to move effectively with respect to the problems in Latin America. I think,basically speaking, the Administration is not nearly as off-base with Latin American policy asis its policy with respect to Cuba. Policy with respect to Argentina: We have been assistingthe effort to reorganize the international finances of the country in a very important way.Policy with respect to Brazil: We’re cooperating with Brazil. We’re not moving as viciouslyand vigorously as we ought to with respect to the major concern of Brazil, which is thedismantlement of agricultural protectionism both in the United States and Europe. But, we aremoving forward with respect to Brazil and other countries in terms of free trade agreements,which is important. I don’t think that we’re paying sufficient attention to Mexico, but ourpolicy is not terribly off-base there. The fact of the matter is that Cuba policy is the greatanomaly in our Latin American policy and I think it deserves consideration. I do not think thatserious consideration of revision to it is affecting our capacity to continue to assist elsewhere inLatin America.

45

Question: If all of you have made such honest, solid arguments against the embargo and makesuch practical sense, why and who keeps these absurd laws for years and years?

Mayor Dow: I’ll touch on it lightly if I can. The President has been authorized to do whathe’s doing by Congress. Until Congress passes some legislation that says that we want to seethings done differently, things will continue as they are, unless the President makes up hismind that he wants to have things change. This is policy at the highest level. Now what theCongressmen and Senators tell me is that they all will agree that this change needs to comeabout, but it causes too much dysfunction in Congress when this issue is brought up. Becauseit causes dysfunction in Congress, it is shoved to the side. Also, I think that Cuba’s economy israther small, so that we can write it off. That is changing though. Their economy is comingback to the forefront now as becoming more important to us. I think it will move them backinto the mainstream as we see more and more states, corporations, and agricultural interestswho are trying to get this movement back up in front of Congress.

Ratliff: I would add and largely agree that the problem is that Cuba is not a very serious issuetoday for the United States as a whole. In fact, I do think it is serious. But, in the eye of thepublic and Congress, it is not considered all that important. So, the effective lobbying that’sbeing done by the people who continue to support the embargo just raises the spector of somuch trouble that it’s just easier to put it aside and not deal with it anyways.

Rogers: The funny thing about the Cuban issue is that for political purposes, it is only adownside issue, not an upside issue. There aren’t many Congressmen and Senators andcertainly no President who see a great advantage in advocating a change in Cuba policy. Butthey sure see a lot of disadvantages and the disadvantages are concentrated right here in Miami,Florida, which is a key voting block in what is inevitably a key state. Nobody wants to, if it’simportant to them, as it certainly is to any Presidential candidate, alienate the possible votingblock by advocating a change. I think if it ever got to the merits for a majority vote, in both theHouse and the Senate, there would be no problem about changing Helms-Burton. In our effortto organize a national bipartisan commission, we had over two dozen moderate Republicansprepared to go to Clinton and say, “we will join you—Republican with Democrat in favoring acareful objective reexamination of U.S. policy towards Cuba.” It was destroyed at the WhiteHouse level, at the senior policy making level of the Democratic administration at the time asother similar proposals have been in other administrations, both Republican and Democraticbecause the Administration could only see a negative effect at the final voting calculation thatwas important for presidential candidates.

Mayor Dow: I believe it boils down to principled Senate leadership and doing the right thing.This is really more of a right thing issue and sometimes in politics, you make those choices,you do those right things if you’re really serious about your job and are trying to represent,especially in America.

Question: What is the wisdom of increasing United States government financing to politicaldissidents in Cuba?

Rogers: I’ll give you my perspective which originated while I was responsible for the policyin the State Department. I think that it’s profoundly negative. It is splendidly self-congratulatory to proclaim as a government official that we’re going to support and doeverything we possibly can to nurture and assist the dissidents in Cuba. But I think there is

46

nothing more poisonous to their credentials, as independent Cuban leaders of civil society, asthe notion that they are taking money from the United States. They don’t actually have toreceive any, but the idea that the United States is anxious to thrust assistance to them, makesthem easily portrayed by the regime as instruments of U.S. policy. I think, therefore, that it isterribly counterproductive in that sense. I think we can continue as a nation and as individualsto express our extraordinary admiration for their efforts, our extraordinary sympathy for thestruggle they’re engaged in and the difficulties they face. But I think the idea that we would bethere funding and financing their activities is counterproductive.

Ratliff : I might add very briefly that when I talked with Dr. Palacios a couple of years ago (heis now serving 26 years), he said specifically that this is very dangerous, that to accept thismoney and aid from abroad burns. It challenges their credentials. As much as we might wantto give money with the best of all possible things in mind, as much as we would like to make itpossible for them to have more fax machines, and more of this and that, it is a very touchyissue and a lot of the dissidents are very uncomfortable with it. Some of them probably acceptit, under what pressures I don’t know, to what ends of course, so they can spread the words.But, it’s very, very dangerous.

General Sheehan: I think that focusing on one group of people is not a great idea. I think,across the board, there are a number of institutions including the Cuban military we have tohave daily conversations with. We don’t know what the future transitional process will looklike, so the more contacts you have in the country the better opportunity you have tounderstand what that transitional process is going to be. Cutting off communications is likewhat we are doing in Baghdad. We cut off our relationships with the Iraqi army, yet we’regoing to spend $2 billion and raise 27 battalions of Iraqi soldiers over the next two years. Itdoesn’t make sense. The other point that I want to make is that it’s not just a question of whatwe do inside Cuba, in terms

of the outreach. When you sub-contract your foreign policy to a minority group of hardliners,when it comes time to shape the policy for their transition, you’ll come up with the wronganswer. So, it isn’t just the question of who we talk to in Havana, but also the question of if weas a group reach out to other Cuban-Americans across the United States to shape this issue.The future of Cuba lies with the Cuban people. Who are the next generation Cuban leaders?We don’t know. We do know that the current institutions, including the army, are going to bepart of that transitional process. So, “deBaathizing” or “deCastroizing” the Cuban military, asa matter of policy, is a failed policy, and we are going to watch a very bloody process if we godown the same road as we did in Iraq.

THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF U.S. POLICY

MODERATOR: LULY DUKEPRESIDENT, FUNDACIÓN AMISTAD

Luly Duke: My name is Luly Duke, Founder and President of Fundación Amistad, a501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization that promotes mutual understanding and respect betweenthe people of the United States and Cuba through exchanges and research projects, communityoutreach initiatives in the arts and culture, environment and human development. FundaciónAmistad performs this unique work on a collaborative basis with the variety of cultural,academic, and non-governmental institutions in the U.S. and Cuba within the appropriate traveland operating regulations of both countries.

47

JOSÉ MIGUEL VIVANCOEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAS DIVISION, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

“Leading Cuban dissidents understand that the embargo helps Fidel Castro’s cause, not theirs.Because it is indiscriminate, rather than targeted, it enables the Cuban government to shiftblame to the United States for the Cuban people’s suffering. Because it isolates the Cubanpeople from the world, it makes it easier for the Cuban government to control what they hear,see and know. Because it is bitterly opposed by most nations, it enables the Cuban governmentto divide the international community, leading, ironically, to less international pressure onFidel Castro, not more.”

Thank you for your invitation to address the human rights situation in Cuba and to discuss U.S.policy toward that country. Anyone who cares about human rights in the region, specificallyCuba, should be here trying to promote a debate as well as to identify the best instruments todevelop human rights conditions in Cuba.

Human Rights Watch has been monitoring human rights conditions in Cuba for morethan fifteen years. Severe political repression has been constant throughout this time.Cuba has long been a one-party state. It has long restricted nearly all avenues ofpolitical dissent. It has long denied its people basic rights to fair trial, free expression,association, assembly, movement and the press. It has frequently sought to silence itscritics by using short-term detentions, house arrests, travel restrictions, threats,surveillance, politically motivated dismissals from employment, and other harassment.

But this year’s crackdown on political dissent in Cuba, in its scale and intensity, is theworst we’ve seen in a decade or more. The crackdown was a reaction to the floweringof civil society in Cuba over the last several years, and to the growing activism andambitions of its dissident community. It followed the success of the Varela Project,led by dissident Osvaldo Payá, in gathering signatures from Cuban citizens on apetition calling for political reform.

The crackdown began on March 18. In just a few days, state security agents arrested dozens ofpeople, launching an all-out offensive against nonviolent dissidents, independent journalists,human rights defenders, independent librarians, and others brave enough to challenge thegovernment’s monopoly on truth. In due process terms, their trials were a sham. And in theend, 75 defendants received sentences ranging from 6 to 28 years, with an average sentence of19 years. Cuban courts have not imposed such draconian sentences on such large numbers ofpeople in more than two decades.

What do these troubling developments mean for U.S. policy towards Cuba? What approachoffers the greatest likelihood of effecting change?

The first thing I hope we can all agree on is that no one should have any illusions about thecharacter of the Cuban government. No one should romanticize any aspect of this cruelsystem, or make any excuses for Fidel Castro’s abuses. The crackdown on dissent in Cuba isnot the fault of the United States, or the fault of the U.S. embargo, or the fault of the Cuban-American community. The responsibility lies with Fidel Castro, period.

48

We should also agree that this is no time to reward Fidel Castro; this is a time for maximizingeffective pressure on the Cuban government to change its policies. But we also need to betough-minded and strategic in assessing whether the all-out embargo currently in place is thebest available tool for achieving our goals. Is it likely to move the Cuban government? DoCuba’s cynical rulers even see it as punitive? I believe the answer to those questions is no, andthat a middle ground approach would serve the cause of Cuba’s brave dissidents far better.

I say that as someone who is often supportive of economic sanctions, even unilateral economicsanctions, against governments that systematically violate human rights. My organizationbelieves that sanctions, when carefully targeted and deployed as part of a larger diplomaticstrategy, can be effective in promoting human rights and in expressing where the United Statesstands on human rights. This year, for example, we applauded the U.S. Congress forsupporting additional U.S. sanctions against the government of Burma. We are generallyskeptical of arguments that trade with the United States or exposure to American values andpractices can somehow convince repressive governments to be kinder and gentler to theirpeople.

But it seems to us that any American policy designed to promote human rights in anothercountry has to meet two basic tests to be worthy of continuation. First, is the policy morelikely to be effective than the alternatives? Second, does it advance the interests and speak tothe needs of those struggling to defend human rights in the country concerned? After 40 years,it’s clear that the all-out embargo against Cuba fails both tests.

Many of the dissidents struggling for change inside Cuba want to see the embargo eased,including the writer Raul Rivero and the activist Hector Palacios Ruiz, who were sentenced,respectively, to 20 and 25 years in prison in April, as well as Oswaldo Payá, the leader of theVarela Project. Refusing to heed those who risk everything for freedom in Cuba is senseless.It would be as if the United States had taken steps to defend liberty in the old Soviet empirethat were categorically opposed by Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, and Vaclav Havel.

Leading Cuban dissidents understand that the embargo helps Fidel Castro’s cause, not theirs.Because it is indiscriminate, rather than targeted, it enables the Cuban government to shiftblame to the United States for the Cuban people’s suffering. Because it isolates the Cubanpeople from the world, it makes it easier for the Cuban government to control what they hear,see and know. Because it is bitterly opposed by most nations, it enables the Cuban governmentto divide the international community, leading, ironically, to less international pressure onFidel Castro, not more.

At the same time, a relaxation or end to the embargo would not, by itself, be an effectivestrategy for promoting change in Cuba. We need to be clear-eyed about this as well; the Cubangovernment isn’t going to stop locking up dissidents just because American tourists havejoined the Canadians sunning themselves on Cuba’s beaches, or because American CEO’shave joined the Europeans signing contracts with Fidel Castro. There does need to be carefullytargeted, multilateral pressure on the Cuban government, or Cuba’s dissidents won’t have thespace to fight for change. We need a middle ground between unquestioning engagement withthe Castro government and an all-or-nothing approach that plays into Fidel Castro’s hands.

All sides in the Cuba policy debate need to ask themselves: What does Castro fear most fromthe United States? It is not the continuation of the embargo, or its demise. It is the prospect

49

that the United States might someday agree with allies in Latin America and Europe on aneffective common strategy for defending the rights of the Cuban people.

For that reason, I would argue that America’s Cuba policy should not even be directed atHavana right now. Given the history of this relationship, there is very little the United Statescan do bilaterally to influence the Cuban government. Instead, America’s Cuba policy shouldbe directed towards the other nations of Latin America, towards Europe, towards Canada. Itshould be aimed at forging a principled, common strategy for promoting political change inCuba.

A united international community will have immensely more political and moral authoritywith the Cuban government than a divided international community. Because of thecrackdown in Cuba, there is an opportunity now to forge a more united approach. TheEuropean Union has already toughened its common position on Cuba, for example. LatinAmerican countries have supported resolutions on human rights in Cuba at the U.N., which,although far too mild, are a step forward. But much more can be done.

The United States should be urging Latin democracies to speak forcefully against politicalrepression in Cuba, and to stop backing Cuban membership in bodies like the U.N.Commission for Human Rights. It should press Latin diplomats to meet with Cubandissidents.

It should urge European countries to impose on the Cuban leadership the same targetedsanctions, including the denial of visas and the seizure of assets that they have imposedagainst other repressive governments, such as Burma and Zimbabwe.

While easing some trade and investment with Cuba, and ending the senseless ban on travel toCuba, the United States should also work with allies to develop common rules governingeconomic engagement there. Foreign investment in new private enterprises has helped limitthe power of the state in countries like China and Vietnam. But in Cuba, workers in jointventures with foreign companies are still hired and paid by the Cuban government, thusremaining at the mercy of the state. European, Canadian and ultimately American companiesshould receive licenses for investment in Cuba only if that policy changes.

The tragedy of the all-out U.S. embargo, and a key argument for easing it, is that it makes theUnited States impotent in pressing its allies for these tougher measures. The Bushadministration knows it has virtually no influence with the rest of the world on Cuba. WhenCuba was up for reelection to the U.N. Human Rights Commission this year, the administrationhardly even tried to convince Latin countries to find an alternative candidate. In most capitals,Castro has succeeded in making the embargo a bigger issue than his own repression.

The best alternative to dumb sanctions against Cuba, therefore, is not a policy of no sanctions.It should be possible to forge a middle path that isolates the Cuban government, not the Cubanpeople. But so long as the United States is unwilling to climb down to a tough, yet sensiblepolicy, it will not persuade its allies to rise up to such a policy.

50

HOLLY ACKERMANAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

“In the area of civil and political rights, Amnesty International believes that the U.S. embargohas also had a negative impact by fuelling a climate in which such fundamental rights asfreedom of association, expression and assembly are routinely denied. As witnessed in therecent crackdown, the embargo provides the Cuban government with a “justification” forrepression, while the widespread sympathy the country has garnered for resisting U.S.pressure has left third countries reluctant to push Cuba to resolve its human rights issues.”

Amnesty International's (AI) vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the humanrights (HR) enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other internationalhuman rights standards. AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economicinterest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor doesit support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concernedsolely with the impartial protection of human rights.

The case of Cuba is one where maintaining that crucial impartiality has required sustained andstubborn effort in the face of extreme pressure from both those who support and those whocondemn the revolutionary government. Some critics of AI’s work feel that human rightsviolations in Cuba are either impossible, that is that they simply don’t occur, or that when theyoccur they should be allowed to pass without remark or intervention because Cuba is seen asunder duress from the U.S. embargo.

Others, who maintain that HR violations in Cuba are much more relentless and severe than AIindicates, feel that AI’s response on Cuba is too ‘soft’ – that its denunciations of human rightsviolations in Cuba are too limited and its language too measured. All of these groups aredeeply committed, highly vocal and directly opposed. Pity the human rights organization thatwades into a situation in which both sides deny the existence of an impartial middle groundbetween extremes. Every condemnation of violations of civil and political rights by Cubanauthorities is subject to intense criticism as is every mention of the harmful effect of the U.S.embargo on Cubans’ enjoyment of their human rights. Volunteering to work for improvedhuman rights in Cuba means volunteering to be unpopular.

Fortunately, the number of those committed to a middle ground between extremes appears tobe growing in the case of Cuba. As recent Florida International University and the SouthwestVoter Registration Education Project surveys have shown, Cuban-Americans are increasinglyopen to dialogue and other more moderate approaches. Your presence here today in Miami is atestament to that opening. Amnesty International hopes that this will lead to a growingreceptiveness to a balanced, rights-based approach to the situation in Cuba.

The work of AI is also evolving, from a commitment to do one thing well and universally -namely research and advocacy for certain Civil and Political Rights of citizens worldwide - to astrategic approach to the full range of human rights including economic, social and culturalrights. We are currently in transit and in some ways AI’s work on Cuba illustrates thetransition. Amnesty International calls for the lifting of sanctions where it believes theircontinuation might contribute to grave human rights abuses.

With regard to economic and social rights in Cuba, the overwhelming evaluation of expertssuch as specialized agencies of the United Nations is not only that the United States’ embargois highly detrimental to Cubans' enjoyment of their rights, but that its negative effects are felt

51

disproportionately, not by the decision makers and authorities whose policies the embargo isaimed at influencing, but by the weakest and most vulnerable members of the population.

In the area of civil and political rights, Amnesty International believes that the U.S. embargohas also had a negative impact by fuelling a climate in which such fundamental rights asfreedom of association, expression and assembly are routinely denied. As witnessed in therecent crackdown, the embargo provides the Cuban government with a “justification” forrepression, while the widespread sympathy the country has garnered for resisting U.S. pressurehas left third countries reluctant to push Cuba to resolve its human rights issues.

Meanwhile, specific embargo provisions such as the allocation of significant amounts of aid for"democracy-building" have facilitated the government's efforts to paint dissidents as foreignsympathizers and ultimately weakened prospects for a strong and independent human rightsmovement. For these reasons, Amnesty International calls on the United States to review itspolicies toward Cuba with a view to ending the harm caused by its embargo and relatedmeasures.

At the same time, Amnesty International continues to focus its Cuba work on the way in whichCuban authorities treat their citizens. Following the March crackdown, in which 75 dissidentswere arrested in targeted sweeps and subjected to hasty, manifestly unfair trials before beinggiven long prison sentences, the number of prisoners of conscience on the island has leaped to89, from a total of only six two years ago.

Amnesty International continues to press for their immediate and unconditional release, and forthe abolition of laws that restrict internationally protected freedoms. The resumption ofexecutions in April, ending three years of a de facto moratorium, is another worrying elementin the deterioration of respect for human rights on the island.

The recent clampdown has created an unprecedented consensus worldwide on the need toattend to the situation of human rights in Cuba. Amnesty International hopes that thatconsensus, coupled with the opening of a less politicized “middle ground” in the debate onCuba, will lead ultimately to an improvement in the respect for all human rights in Cuba. Weinvite your comments & questions.

ROBERT BACH, PH.D.SENIOR VISITING FELLOW, INTER-AMERICAN DIALOGUE, FORMER EXECUTIVEASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR POLICY, PLANNING AND PROGRAMS, INS

“Continuous human tragedy in the Florida Straits perpetuates the image of instability andchaos and demands change. The practice and public images of intercepting boats yards fromthe safe haven of dry shore, and the continued vigilance against the work of smugglers, arediverting substantial resources and the energy of U.S. and Cuban armed forces and lawenforcement agencies.”

For forty-three years, the tortured relations between Cuba and the United States have beenexpressed through, and in many ways, have depended on the migration of families across theFlorida Straits. From those early days of flight, so-called aerial bridges, boatlifts, balseros, andnow smuggling, each government has used migration policies, or reacted to the other’s tactics,to try to gain an advantage over the other. As the Elián González episode showed, each punchand counterpunch represented a human drama that was rarely fully understood.

52

My purpose here is not to rehearse old arguments, tired debates, and redundant evidence, butrather to forge ahead to highlight three dimensions of Cuban migration that are already forcingchange in the relations between the United States and Cuba. Like it or not, we are on a path ofnormalizing migration policies and the challenge is to accelerate our steps along it.

In addition to witnessing the deep human tragedy of the Elián González episode – a familydrama in more than the obvious sense – the entire United States came to understand ,“forperhaps” the first time, how U.S. migration policy toward Cuba stands alone in a world whereso many other nationalities also want to leave their country and come to the U.S. for botheconomic and political reasons. As a nation, we also understood, perhaps for the first timealso, the length to which both sides of the argument would go, when pressed, to try to win.

The Elián episode underscored the essential characteristic of the migration relations betweenthe United States and Cuba – its enduring capacity to destabilize both relations between thetwo governments and, more importantly, within our communities inside the U.S. and Cuba.

Yet, realization and acknowledgement of the uniqueness of our migration relations are stepsforward in appreciating the ways in which the two governments must respond to the endemicinstabilities. The two governments, despite sharply divided political assumptions, are comingto a mutual understanding of the need to respond to the following instabilities:

• Cuban migration presents a continuing series of dramatic, abnormal security events– hijackings, boat rescues, and other events. Although similar events may be foundamong the world’s migration patterns, these events involving Cuba cause the U.S. tomake national security-related decisions at the highest levels. Decision-making atthat level is inherently unstable;

• A broad cross section of the United States increasingly understands that theinequities between the clear special status of Cubans and all other immigrant groupsmakes it very difficult, and often visibly illegitimate, to conduct U.S. foreign policywith other governments. Demonstrably, the U.S. finds it impossible to argue againstother “special statuses” for migrants from Mexicans, El Salvador, Nicaragua,Colombia, etc.;

• Cuban migration creates an imbalance in domestic U.S. politics. Increasingly,mainstream politicians grow frustrated with extremist, single issue partisanship andthe extent to which a relatively secondary issue of national policy (immigration) hasbecome a political force beyond its scale and number;

• In the end, continuous human tragedy in the Florida Straits perpetuates the image ofinstability and chaos and demands change. The practice and public images ofintercepting boats yards from the safe haven of dry shore, and the continuedvigilance against the work of smugglers, are diverting substantial resources and theenergy of U.S. and Cuban armed forces and law enforcement agencies. Theyunderstand there is a clear resolution to the problem, and increasingly the nationalsecurity branches of both governments understand what the public is just learning –the end is clearly in sight, and only very particular politics stand in the way.

Given these pressures and increasing awareness, the U.S. and Cuba are moving towardnormalizing migration relations.

53

The 1994 agreements between the U.S. and Cuba on migration have many weaknesses, buttheir essential quality is a dramatic step forward toward improving the safety of individualmigrants and their families. Although little noticed, the agreements achieved both a sharpreduction in disorderly movements, and an increase in the number of migrants from Cuba tothe United States. The point: these are not punitive or anti-immigration measures, but rathergo to the heart of protection, safety, and future orderliness.

The infamous wet feet/dry feet policy, though sometimes absurd in its implementation,successfully introduces another critical step toward normalizing migration relations: the clearneed to interdict, and often rescue, those who have taken to sea to leave Cuba, and to returnthem under the same asylum procedures available throughout the world. The policy, which isobviously a significant break from historical practices, brings the Cuban government anotherstep closer toward participating in a normal orderly and legal migration framework bydecriminalizing migration and accepting people back.

Unfortunately, the “dry feet” part of this policy still remains hostage to the Cuban AdjustmentAct of 1966, nearly a 40 year old policy designed and intended to assist in resettlement, not toencourage a migration flow. We now have far better ways to assist the resettlement of asylumseekers and we would all be better off – the migrants and the State of Florida would be betteroff – to turn to those benefits rather than perpetuate this practice.

As is well known, U.S.-Cuban cooperation on smuggling is strong, productive and prepared forexpansion. Now, and into the future, the money that is available to smugglers will continue togenerate this illicit trade in human beings. Even if we had full normalization, the financialgains are such that smuggling will continue. The U.S., Cuba, and the rest of the Caribbean,need to accelerate cooperative steps toward combating it. The need for cooperation againstsmuggling is a systemic force behind normalizing relations between the two governments.

Given the recurring instabilities, and the pressures toward normalization, what are some of theimmediate policy steps both governments should take?

• Phase out the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 by extending the period of residenceneeded from 1 year to 3 years before automatic adjustment can occur; then end it;

• Phase out the special “guarantee” of 20,000 migrants a year from Cuba, including thelottery, and return to normal migration processing;

• Intensify anti-smuggling cooperative efforts, and involve Cuba in region-wide anti-smuggling activities;

• Increase temporary visas – to be used for travel and family visits – both to depoliticizeeach request for travel, and to build an experience of return. Looking ahead, futureCuban migration through normal channels will involve a substantial circular movement,and it would be wise for the United States to organize it now so it remains within thelegal bounds.

In conclusion, we all have heard that the driving force behind U.S.-Cuban migration policy isconcern that tensions will result in another Mariel boatlift-type eruption – when 125,000people fled Cuba and landed in Florida in just a few short months. However, since 9/11 wehave far greater reasons for concern.

54

Another large boatlift crisis in the Florida Straits – of Cuban or Haitian origin -- wouldseriously undermine homeland security preparedness. The mass migration emergency plan forthe Florida Straits relies on using Guantánamo Naval Base as the holding center for largenumbers of interdicted migrants. Yet, Guantánamo is now occupied, and there is no realisticalternative to using it.

Another boatlift would also consume large numbers of military and law enforcement assetscurrently aligned to protect homeland security. During an earlier, smaller Haitian boatlift, forexample, the U.S. needed 17 Coast Guard cutters, 5 Navy ships, and 9 aircraft to interdict,rescue, and transport. The choice now would be between keeping Coast Guard and Navalvessels at work inspecting thousands of cargo ships for terrorist threats, or rescuing hundredsof tiny boats and ferrying thousands to shore.

Tough, punitive measures to tighten the cap on Cuba, which the Bush Administration appearsintent on pursuing, are against our national interests and security. Our policy focus should beon finishing the trek toward normalizing migration relations. Bridging the divide between thevarious sections of the Cuban community, one south, the other north of the Florida Straits, is amuch wiser, more secure and more humane policy path.

THOMAS WENSKIBISHOP OF ORLANDO, FORMER BISHOP OF MIAMI

“To use the embargo to foment a popular uprising against the government of Cuba - whichhasn't happened in 40 years - is immoral. It seems to say that the ends (regime change) justifythe means. We cannot use evil means - indiscriminately hurting the general population ofCuba - to justify a good end - needed changes in the regime that controls Cuban society.”

The title of this panel is “Human Dimensions of U.S. Policy.” I guess we can say that thepolicy is always very human, if not always very humane. The embargo has not been a humanepolicy because embargoes are very dull weapons and sometimes they can punish the peoplethat are innocent and those that are guilty, the one that are supposed to be the objects of theembargo, have the means to circumvent it or not be wholly affected by it. Nevertheless, whilenot very humane, it is not very human.

I would say from a pop psychology perspective, if you allow me to indulge in pop psychology,we have to remember that the embargo really fulfills a psychological need rather than any needof a state. We have to remember that the embargo was established by the KennedyAdministration. It was the Democrats’ fault. The Democrats are always accused of proposingfeel-good policies. This really is a feel-good policy because it allowed people to feel goodabout themselves “being tough on communism.” It allowed the Kennedy administration to feelgood in spite of their failure with the Bay of Pigs and an earlier failure at Yalta. It is alsomorphed into a feel-good policy for the exile community because it represents for them a sign,a symbol that they haven’t surrendered—they haven’t accepted the status quo of thecommunist regime. So it is human, but not always humane.

I remember talking to someone about the policy and this is someone who described therelationship between the United States and Cuba in terms of co-dependency. You have theclassic story of the alcoholic son, and the mother really needs her son to be dependent on her.

55

Therefore, she really doesn’t follow-through with the tough love provisions that might lead himto get treatment and end this unacceptable behavior. It is the co-dependency—the enabler typeof thing. Often times, as already has been said, this policy enables the Cuban government toblame its failures on the United States. It makes what should be a domestic issue, aninternational one and by doing so, it makes it more complicated for people to see their wayclear to come up with productive and positive solutions. So, very human in that aspect.

In spite of changes, and there have been significant changes, at this present I think the UnitedStates is the biggest supplier of foodstuffs to Cuba. Cubans today are eating chicken, corn, andcattle from the United States. Even lumber comes from the United States, while at the sametime the Administration is saying, ‘we are hanging tough.”

Often times, that desire to message those people who need to feel good about “hanging tough”we are creating policies that result in hurting the Cuban people and also hurting ourselves.Many people have already spoken about the human rights situation in Cuba which hasdeteriorated, there is much tension.

The Church in Cuba has certainly become more vocal in the past year. In the past ten yearsthey have tried to enlarge its space in Cuba. Again, with the crackdown on visas and a newregime here in the U.S. because of national security reasons, even that has been adverselyaffected.

For example, a Bishop in Cuba will have to wait sometimes more than ninety days before hecould come to the United States to come to a forum like this or to visit his sick mother becauseno one in Cuba in the American Interests Section can make a decision and grant him a visa. Ithas to be sent to Washington and the FBI has make an investigation to see if someone cancome into the country based on if they represent a security threat. Imagine if the Bishop’sname is José González, and there are 40,000 people with the same name in the country—whatthe FBI has to go through just to clear him. So, these types of things are not positive. Weshould try to support the effort for dialogue, support the efforts for reconciliation and to do thatmeans to make it possible for people to dialogue and to reconcile.

In the aftermath of the Pope's visit to Cuba, once again I affirm the position not only of theHoly Father, but the Bishops of Cuba and our own Bishops' conference (USCCB) in solidaritywith the Cuban bishops that the embargo against Cuba should be lifted.

In forty years it has proven ineffective in achieving its stated goals. It therefore should be re-thought. We must remember the context in which the embargo emerged. Following the fiascoof the Bay of Pigs invasion the democratic administration wished to show that it was capable of"being tough" on communism - this in spite of Yalta. At the same time the exile communityembraced the embargo because it symbolized that they would not "surrender" and accept thereality of a communist regime in Cuba.

These are not reasoned positions but are emotional reactions, a policy that makes both U.S.government officials and Cuban exiles "feel good". Nevertheless, while making these groupsfeel good, the embargo does not punish the elites in Cuba responsible for present policy ormaintenance of the present regime. It is a rather dull instrument - and therefore hurts theCuban people - i.e. it punishes the innocent along with the "guilty". Indeed, to use the embargoto foment a popular uprising against the government of Cuba - which hasn't happened in 40

56

years - is immoral. It seems to say that the ends (regime change) justify the means. We cannotuse evil means - indiscriminately hurting the general population of Cuba - to justify a good end- needed changes in the regime that controls Cuban society.

Engagement, dialog (which does not imply agreement with or approval of ill-advised policiesof the Cuban regime) is a much better course than the failed policy of economic isolation ofCuba.

DONNA HICKS, PH.D.WEATHERHEAD CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY

“The most important point that I want to make is that when deep connections are fractured, theway we’ve seen them time and time again, it takes a special kind of process to rebuild thoserelationships and heal relationships.” What I want to share with you today are some general reflections about the patterns we haveobserved in terms of the relationships between conflicting parties. I would like to share withyou another type of lens that we use in addition to political analysis of the causes of theseconflicts. We use another lens which focuses on the psychological underpinnings on theseconflicts.

The easy part of my job is the political aspect of it, in the sense that we can put together apolitical analysis, looking at the issues that divide the two parties. But, the really difficult partis trying to understand the deep and enduring psychological obstacles that face these parties inconflict. Frankly, I’m at a point now, after twenty years of doing this work, of saying that thispsychological dimension is not only what maintains the conflict, but exacerbates it.

Until this human dimension is addressed in these intractable conflicts, there is not going to bereconciliation. If it is reconciliation that we’re looking for, particularly in communities thatneed to be living together, we have to go deeper. The emotional issues just cannot be ignored.What we have found, time and time again, is that underlying some of the most inflexible, rigidpolicies are profound and tragic human suffering and human tragedies, not unlike what weknow to be the case in Cuba, with families both in Cuba and Miami Cuban communities, howthe families have been ravaged. This matters. The most important point that I want to make isthat when deep connections are fractured, the way we’ve seen them time and time again, ittakes a special kind of process to rebuild those relationships and heal relationships.

Now, you might imagine that in the hallowed halls of Harvard, the word “healing” isn’t exactlywelcomed. But my colleagues and I have persevered. Because as I said, the easy part is tolook at the political, historical, economic issues—the more objective factors keeping peopleapart. But, what we believe is that until we can develop a process that gets at these deeperissues, and I want to discuss more about what these emotional issues are because we havefound a pattern there too; and the pattern is that when these relationships break down, the firstthing to go is human dignity.

People do treat each other when they have been threatened in a way that would be appalling tothem under circumstances of non-threat. So, the big question then is: why do people resort tosuch aggressive, hostile, dehumanizing behaviors toward one another during times of threat?

57

What we have found is that there is an ever-growing list of what people need to maintain theirdignity. I just want to run through these quickly, because you will see why this seems to applyto the Cuba issue.

First of all, people need a sense of identity and when that identity is trashed or diminished inany way, by either side, there is often a breakdown in that relationship. People needrecognition of that identity. People need a sense of inclusion and when for political reasons orotherwise, people are excluded, that is a violation of human dignity. People need a sense ofsecurity, both psychological and physical security. People also need to be understood. Howoften does it happen in these conflicts that there is no forum for understanding the other side’sperspective, oftentimes, even one’s own?

People need to be responded to. There is nothing worse then being in a conflict relationshipwhere you are crying out for recognition and nobody responds. So, what we have done mostrecently with a few of my colleagues who have taken the risk of acknowledging these deepemotional issues that have to be recognized, is to create opportunities for deeper reflection. Iapplaud young Cubans who have done this sort of thing. I applaud Puentes Cubanos which hasfacilitated this. I want to add that this has to be done on a higher level. I think the leadershipneeds to have these kinds of discussions because it is not until these issues are addressed thattrue reconciliation and reconnection in these communities can take place. Thank you for theopportunity to speak about these issues.

PETER G. BOURNE, M.A., M.D.CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL EDUCATION COOPERATION WITH CUBA (MEDICC)

“Significant investment in sophisticated medical research has resulted in Cuba leading theworld in some areas. Its development of a vaccine against meningitis B caused anembarrassing situation for the U.S. Americans, because of the embargo, could not get access tothe vaccine even though several hundred die from the disease every year.”

In the mid-1990’s the American Association for World Health (AAWH) conducted, withsupport from four foundations, a year long-study on the impact which the inclusion of food andmedicine in the embargo against Cuba had on the Cuban people.

No other U.S. embargo, not even those against Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Vietnam or Iranincluded these items. Their inclusion directly violated the 4th Geneva Convention and Article12 of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Including food and medicine couldhave had no other goal than to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on the Cuban people andin ignoring these international conventions, put the U.S. government in the position of grosslyviolating, for 40 years, the human rights of the country’s population.

There had long been a movement in Congress to remove food and medicine from the embargobut those efforts were always hampered by a lack of concrete data. The publication of the 300-page study, whose methodology had been verified by a panel of U.S. medical experts fromacross the political spectrum, gave new momentum to the Congressional efforts, galvanizingthe efforts of NGO’s and, in particular, spawning the creation of Americans For HumanitarianTrade With Cuba.

58

The study demonstrated that during the early decades of the embargo, with assistance from theSoviet block and Western European pharmaceutical companies, Cuba had been able toameliorate the impact of their inability to access U.S. pharmaceutical products and foodstuffs.However, in the 1990’s the situation was severely aggravated by a series of events:

The collapse of the Soviet Union meant Cuba no longer had access to drugs and medicalequipment from the Eastern Bloc. In addition a shortage of hard currency, which hit the entireeconomy, meant it was difficult or impossible to purchase on world markets many of theproducts to which they had previously had access.

The passage of the Torricelli bill prohibiting foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations fromdoing business with Cuba hit the health of the Cuban people hard. It meant that companies likeSweden’s Pharmacia, which had long provided critical drugs to Cuba, could no longer do soafter it had been taken over by the U.S. company Upjohn. Indeed, the situation was aggravatedin the 1980’s by the acquisition of many small European and Japanese pharmaceuticalcompanies for whom Cuba suddenly ceased to be a market. The subsequent passage of theHelms-Burton bill made matters worse, specifically the provision restricting shipping fromdocking in U.S. ports within six-months of delivering a cargo in Cuba. This hit hard at theshipment of food.

The study detailed the impact that the shortages brought about by the embargo had in everyarea of health care and nutrition. The study is available at the website www.medicc.org.

The study received intense worldwide attention, being translated into six languages. It wascrucial in allowing various groups to mobilize political support for legislative changes in theembargo. It was not traditional progressive opponents of the embargo who were critical in thisdevelopment, but the agro-industry that saw an economic opportunity they were missing outon. The changes in the embargo that allowed the sale of food to Cuba (although only for cash)were brought about largely by conservative legislators from farm states. It is sad that financialgreed, rather than moral outrage or a desire to comply with international conventions, shouldhave brought about this change. But regardless, the Cuba people were still substantialbeneficiaries.

There has been no similar modification as far as medicine is concerned. This is in part becausethere has been no corporate groundswell from America’s pharmaceutical industry to open upwhat for them would be a relatively small new market. Including medicine in the embargo has,over the years had an unanticipated side effect, which is the opposite of what its architectsintended.

Denied access to U.S. markets, Cuba began its own pharmaceutical industry which now notonly meets much of its own domestic need but has created a significant export industry inmedicine and vaccines. Cuba, for instance, now produces antiretroviral drugs for the treatmentof HIV/AIDS within the country and has offered them to African countries either free or at afraction of the normal cost.

The embargo, however, still prevents access to the most sophisticated drugs and those that arestill under patent. Medical equipment such as pacemakers, most of which are made in the U.S.,

59

are largely unobtainable. Significant investment in sophisticated medical research has resultedin Cuba leading the world in some areas. Its development of a vaccine against meningitis Bcaused an embarrassing situation for the U.S. Americans, because of the embargo, could notget access to the vaccine even though several hundred die from the disease every year.

To avoid serious domestic repercussions the Treasury Department eventually agreed to alicensing arrangement through which the British-based multinational corporation, Glaxo-SmithKlein-Beacham was allowed to produce the vaccine under a license from the Cubans andmarket it worldwide including in the U.S. There is now a vaccine against a form of lungcancer and several veterinary vaccines that the U.S. is denying its people access to by virtue ofthe embargo. (Editors note: a California company, Cancervax, finally obtained the right tobegin trials on the Cuban produced lung cancer vaccine in July 2004 but has allowed thecompany to pay Cuba in foodstuffs not cash)

Spurred in part by an effort to thwart the impact of the embargo, the Cuban government has,since the revolution, been determined to provide the highest standard of health for thepopulation. With the best ratio of doctors to population in the world a system has evolved thatis now viewed as the gold standard for improving health in the developing world.

Since 1963, more than 150,000 Cuban health professionals have spent time in 83 developingcountries. At present more than 5,000 Cuban doctors are serving around the world (700 inSouth Africa and 2,000 in Central America). Students from many nations have been welcomedto train as doctors in the last four years. This was ratcheted up several notches in 1990 with thecreation, in the wake of hurricane Mitch, of the School of Medical Sciences of Latin America,which has medical students from every country in the hemisphere as well as Nigeria, Mali,Equatorial Guinea and South Africa. The enrollment will be more than 12,000 when theschool is at full strength.

Because there is a limit to the number of students who can be brought to Cuba, not to mentionthe limit on suitable clinical material for teaching, the government is now establishing medicalschools staffed by Cuban faculty in several developing countries including Guyana, Paraguay,Bolivia, Yemen, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Uganda, and Ghana.

Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC), the organization I chair, was created asan outgrowth of the AAWH study on the embargo to build bridges between the Cuban and U.S.medical communities and specifically to enable U.S. medical students to gain experience fromthe Cuban system of healthcare.

Since 1998 we have enabled more than 700 students from more a hundred schools of medicineand public health in the U.S. to spend elective time, for which they receive academic credit,with family physicians in Cuba. In particular, they benefit from seeing how much can beaccomplished with limited resources, how the delivery of care can be successfully combinedwith public health to improve overall health status, how effectively health professionals canwork with community groups to enhance health status and how the health of an entirepopulation can be elevated by focusing, not just on the care of an individual once they are sick,but rather upon prevention and early diagnosis, asking always “what interventions can I makethat will benefit the health of the largest number of people.”

60

JAMES EARLY, PH.D.DIRECTOR OF CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

“When you listen to Jim Wolfensohn, the President of the World Bank, say to the worldleaders that you should go to Cuba if you want to see some of the highest social and culturalinterstices, he is not endorsing a particular socio-economic political system. But, he is beingbalanced and honest about the fact that there is something within the arts and culture andeducation policy of the government of Cuba, vis-à-vis the citizens of Cuba, that has producedextraordinary results on the stage of math and science.”

I’m particularly pleased to be back in my home state of Florida. I’m also particularly pleasedto hear the voices of democracy and freedom of expression going on in this area as we enterour electoral season. I say that not as a light-hearted matter, but I say it in regard to acomment made earlier this morning by Alvaro Fernandez, when he talked about thedemographics of the Miami area and Southern Florida area. When you look at this topic—thehuman dimensions of U.S. policy toward Cuba, one of the considerations while I lookedaround this room, while I am very pleased to be back in my home state of Florida—it does notreally look as fully diverse as the state of Florida is.

The relevance of that observation is not to be critical, but to hopefully be instructive—that is,that we have got to build a broader coalition of people, races, and cultures who have objectiveinterests in Cuba, not simply around a home and heritage, notwithstanding the importance ofthe relationship between the Cuban-American community and the Cuban resident communityhere in Florida and the nation of Cuba. Otherwise, we will not get those elected officials whowill have more forward-thinking policies. One of the human effects of U.S. policy towardCuba is that it has further isolated us here in the Southern Florida area. Therefore, we must goforward and do something about that.

I have been traveling to Cuba for 28 years. I’ve lost count on how many times, somewhereeither just under or over 30 times. In the last 20 years, in my former role as AssistantSecretary for Education and Public Service at the Smithsonian and my present role as theDirector of Cultural Heritage Policy at the Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage, I havebeen involved in numerous programs in the arts, humanities and more broadly speakingculture with hundreds of Cuban artists, visual artists, performers, dancers, traditional artisans,as well as working with Cuban officials in the Ministry of Culture on issues of culture. I’veworked with literally thousands of people across the United States from all kinds of politicaland ideological backgrounds, who have found common focus and collaboration in looking atthe significance of culture, which I have been asked to address with regard to the humanaspects of U.S. policy toward Cuba.

As has been heard throughout the day, those of us who claim to be experts, we feel that ourarea of expertise is the most important and very urgent about that. I certainly feel the same. Iwould argue that the arena of culture is the most common currency between the people ofCuba and the people of the United States, barring any other disciplinary or economic issue thathas been mentioned in this room today. I think that is something we should consider veryseriously.

I would also argue for your consideration, that the exchanges in art and culture between theCuban people and the people of the United States is the most unfettered, the most unfiltered,

61

the most direct exchange and it is the basis on which we inform and influence one another. Idon’t think any other area at a level of scale can be suggested to have that same impact.It brings into question the lack of level-headedness of a policy that would prevent this kind ofexchange that would violate the natural right of inquiry of United States citizens with thewonderful educational system here that is supposed to give us the basis to be independent andcritical thinkers, to engage the Cuban people and to make our own decisions about that. Thisis an area that we must address and we must open up more avenues for the literally thousandsof people across this country calling and asking how they can go to Cuba. They want to findout what is happening in Cuba in regard to art, culture, education and science. They are tryingto express their democratic rights. If you will, they are trying to overcome a blockade of apolicy against our right to freedom of expression. This is something that we should giveattention to.

Now, it has been suggested any flexibility beyond a hard-line position and a hard-line positioncan have two broad dimensions to it—it can be an ultra conservative line, or it can be an ultraleft line. The ultra conservative line is that Cuba is the land of the devil Fidel Castro andnothing else can be considered until that is dealt with. The ideological position of the left isthat Cuba is a paradise and all is well.

Let me suggest to you from my own direct experiences through Fundación Amistad, where Iserve on their Board of Directors, or my work with the Smithsonian Institution, and theNational Performing Arts Center, that when you enter the arena of culture in Cuba, you enter afield of discussion, debate, political criticism and political forward-thinking.

If you examine the work of the Union of Writers and Artists in Cuba they are talking abouttourism, and national identity today, notwithstanding the policies emanating from the tourismdepartment in Cuba. If you talk to the Union of Writers and Artists of all hues and colors inCuba, they are talking about the issues of continuing racial discrimination in Cuba today andhave opened up a public forum policy debate which goes on television and there is a strugglein Cuba national television now about the wholesome presentation of the dissidence ofAfricans in Cuba.

Notwithstanding elements of human rights that must definitely be addressed with regard tofreedom of expression and the like, we must be a bit more honest in our presentations aboutthe dynamics going on in Cuba and how there is a negotiation going on between the people ofCuba and the government of Cuba and figure out how to situate ourselves in that.

U.S. policy towards Cuba prohibits us from taking advantage of not only the extraordinaryhealth issues that Dr. Peter Bourne has mentioned, and I’ve spent a lot of time in Botswana,South Africa where I see a lot of Cuban doctors, but that policy also prohibits us from takingadvantage of the developments in Cuba with regard to education and pedagogy.

When you listen to Jim Wolfensohn, the President of the World Bank, say to the world leadersthat you should go to Cuba if you want to see some of the highest social and culturalinterstices; he is not endorsing a particular socio-economic political system. But, he is beingbalanced and honest about the fact that there is something within the arts and culture andeducation policy of the government of Cuba, vis-à-vis the citizens of Cuba, that has producedextraordinary results on the stage of math and science.

62

We all know about the areas of arts and culture. Some of the most compelling popularpresentations on this globe today come from this tiny Caribbean republic of 11-12 millionpeople. Why is that? Is it in the genes of the Cuban people? Or is there something in theirnegotiated policy and struggle with their government that feeds this achievement? We arebeing prohibited from taking advantage and learning about that, as our schools are fallingdown at the level of student achievement, particularly in math and sciences. Our system ofpedagogy is in question all over the world. You have not but to look at the comparison oftests from around the world.

I want to close my remarks by suggesting that none of us give up our political perspectivesabout Cuba. But I think that we must all struggle to engage the Cuban people. I ask you tolook at the context of culture at a moment in which the Organization of American States hasan agenda for cultural diversity throughout the Americas. The absence of Cuba in thatdialogue does not benefit the citizens of Cuba and rest of the citizens of the Americas.I’ve just come back from Paris, from the opening of the General Assembly of UNESCO,where the United States has just reentered UNESCO, and the reigning discussion in UNESCOtoday and it has been since the conference in Mexico in 1982, is that culture is the milieu—itis the context in which we should look at the issues of diversity.

We should try to use culture as a means of mediating the antagonistic differences we have, notof eradicating them, but finding ways to find common ground while we continue to debate theagenda on which we do not have common ground. So, I would urge that you stand against thepolicies that restrict our engagement with Cuba and that we be more creative and moredemocratic about how we are going to engage with both the people of Cuba as well as thediverse elements within the Cuban government structure. Thank you.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question: Two questions for Dr. Bach: How should the Cuban government feel about U.S.decisions to transform low-key migration issues into issues affecting U.S. national security?Do you see the possibility of the Cuban Adjustment law coming to an end any time soon?

Bach: First of all, the issue of migration to the United States from the Cuban point of view hasalways been an issue of national security. The United States has often responded in that way.If you remember during the Mariel boat lift, President Carter admitting that after a high-levelreview, he had two options: invade or let people come to South Florida. The conclusion putsthis debate in the current context of post-9/11 national security, which raises the stakesconsiderably on what a boat lift or crisis would do. So, it puts another tool in the hands of theCuban government. The emergency plan that the United States has for the Florida Straitsrequires the use of the Guantanamo Bay and Guantanamo is full right now. There is no option.That is not a good strategic position for anyone to be in. Also, the Cuban Adjustment Act, forall kinds of reasons, is one of those sticking points. We tried to change it (we, being those inthe Clinton Administration). In the law, the Attorney General has the power to change it, if sheor he so desires. Congress warned us that we “wouldn’t be able to get away with it.” Thesignificance again in my paper is that the Cuban Adjustment Act, for the Cubans, is anincentive to come to the United States. That is a debate. There is no evidence one way oranother clearly, so let’s lay that out in all honesty. The Cuban Adjustment Act 40 years agowas designed to help resettle people in the United States. This is before the 1980 Refugee Act

63

and the whole history of U.S. refugee resettlement policy. We have better mechanisms now.We could promote resettlement of Cuban asylum seekers in South Florida with more money,more help, more support. If the Cuban Adjustment Act is this incentive to pull, we would doaway with it. There is no reason to maintain the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.

Question: Bishop Wenski, is the Catholic Church in Cuba and the Miami Cuban CatholicChurch - regarding the human dimensions of U.S. policy - acting with conflicting points ofview?

Bishop Wenski: For the past several years, there has been an effort to increasecommunication and dialogue between Catholics in the Archdiocese of Miami and with activistsin the Catholic Church inside of Cuba. Last month, there was a meeting between certainleaders in Cuba and lay leaders here in the United States. This has been going on for the pastcouple of years. It was preceded by periodic meetings between priests in Cuba and Cuban-American priests in Miami and Puerto Rico as well as other places in the United States. It is aprocess of mutual understanding, mutual growth and a space to discuss those deep pains thatboth sides feel, as my colleague mentioned earlier. We as Catholics in South Florida andCuban-American Catholics and Catholics of whatever nationality, want to be in solidarity withthe Church in Cuba. I think we’ve made some great strides in that in the past several years.

Question: Mr. Vivanco, today five Cubans languish in U.S. prisons. Could you pleasecomment on what your organization is doing to secure their release or see to it that they receivea fair trial?

José Miguel Vivanco: On the case of the five Cubans who have been prosecuted in the UnitedStates, we have criticized the conditions of confinement. We have produced reports, not forthis particular case, but in general, criticizing the use of super maximum isolation of prisoners.We believe that the conditions where these Cubans, as well as foreigners or Americans in fullisolation are abusive and inconsistent with international standards.

Question: Drs. Early and Ackerman, there is a preservation movement now which tries todevelop preservation projects in order to maintain and preserve collections on site where theybelong. Can you tell us about any such preservation projects being done in Cuba now?

James Early: There are a lot of preservations projects going on. There is the UNESCO-funded project on the renovation and stabilization of the old city under the guidance of EusebioLeal, which is developing a pace, and from my vantage point, not without some much neededcriticism. He in particular, is interested in photographic collections from the Smithsonian ofthe earlier part of the century to show what went on in Cuba. Fundación Amistad has beeninvolved with the preservation of documents with a network of institutions across the U.S.including Duke University and another university in California. There are publication projectsgoing on with the preservation of literature with many universities on major work over the lastten years. There is a beautiful hardback bilingual piece that has come out of the University ofMichigan on the work of Nancy Morejon, the most recent literary winner in Cuba. There are anumber of such collaborative projects in film on the documentation of archival film, whichFundación Amistad is also involved. I could go and on…

64

IMPETUS FOR AND IMPLICATIONS OF OPEN TRAVEL TO CUBA

MODERATOR: ANTONIO ZAMORATHE TIME IS NOW COALITION AND U.S. CUBA LEGAL FORUM, BAY OF PIGS VETERANAND FORMER COUNSEL TO THE CUBAN AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION

The Time is Now Coalition is a non-profit organization that has two essential purposes. One isto work for the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba. The secondlyis to work towards the reconciliation of the Cuban people. It seems that we have a thirdunofficial purpose, which is to challenge the Cuban-American establishment, particularly thecontrolling right-wing Cuban-American establishment in Miami.

One of the ways that we did this last year is by organizing a conference that some of youparticipated in March in this same hotel. That conference was called The Time is Now to ChangePolicy Toward Cuba. That is in fact, how we got our name. That conference was in effect achallenge to the traditional Cuban-American position on the embargo and U.S.-Cuba relations.This second conference is more of the same. We are trying to challenge and establish a debateand an area to exercise free opinion and democracy in Miami, which is hard to do.

In that vein, I sent a letter three days ago to Jaime Suchliki, the organizer of the otherconference held this morning. In the letter, I complimented Jaime, who is an old friend, abouttheir idea to have a competing conference with us. I thought it was great for us. I alsochallenged him to a debate. I suggested that it was nice to have competing conferences in thesame hotel, but since we actually never meet why not get together sometime after today andhold a debate between members of The Time is Now and Cuban-Americans who participatedin his conference. He did accept the offer and so I would like to announce that we will behaving a real debate in the same room sometime in the near future.

When I ended the Biltmore Conference in March of last year, I ended basically be saying thatwe were not going to go away—that we were here to stay. The organizers of that conferenceare here to stay and we’re going to continue to challenge the power structure in Miami andwe’re going to fight to establish a position and an honest debate on U.S. policy toward Cuba.My presence today and the presence of many others The Time is Now directors is proofpositive that we are not going to go away. We are going to continue this. I know that PuentesCubanos, the Cuban Committee for Democracy and Cambio Cubano are not going away either.We are going to continue our fight because we realize that most of what holds the presentpolicy together is the situation in Miami and the perception that Cuban-Americans in Miamisupport the present policy and that somehow they dictate that policy. It is not going to be easy,but we are going to demonstrate that this is not the case.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM DELAHUNT (D-MA)

“Don’t tell me as an American that you are going to use my constitutional right to travel as abargaining chip. No, no, no! Too many Americans have died, have spilt blood to defend thosecore constitutional rights! Don’t use it Mr. President! It’s not a bargaining chip. That’s myright, your right and every American’s right whether they be from California, Massachusettsor from Miami.”

Thank you very much Tony. You mentioned Rep. Jeff Flake and I know that he has sent aletter expressing his regrets that he was unable to attend. But on behalf of Jeff and the other 52members of the House Cuba Working Group that is working to remove the embargo and lift

65

the travel ban, let me say that it is a pleasure to be here once more and to encourage you tocontinue to work with us because Tony, you’re not going away, a lot of folks here aren’t goingaway, and we’re not going away either until we achieve results.

The subject of this hour is the implications of an open travel policy, and I would like to break itdown into how it impacts Cuba and what it means for the United States. A friend of mineseveral years ago made this statement: Experience demonstrates that isolation breaths life intototalitarianism. On the other hand, contacts between people, free individuals from falsehoodsand the lives without dignity that they are forced to lead. How well said.

That friend, his name is Oscar Chepe. I’m sure many of you in this room know Oscar Chepe.He is now in prison in Cuba for speaking his mind. But, he got it right. He continues, I knowto support the removal of restrictions of the travel ban on American citizens because he knowsthat if you will the winds of democracy, if they are to blow across that island where so many ofyou have special relationships, then the first step is to allow Americans to come andcommunicate their ideas and their concepts to the Cuban people.

I remember having a conversation with Fidel Castro. In fact, I think that a colleague of mineon the panel, Phil Peters was present. I said to him, “Mr. President, the next time that weinvade we are going to win.” He looked at me somewhat perplexed and said, “What do youmean?” I said, “We’re going to invade with thousands of tourists and we have a specialvanguard.” He said, “What is that special vanguard?” I said, “It is the kids on spring break.’He raised his hands to surrender.

He thought I was kidding, but we’re serious. If there is going to be change in Cuba, the bestway for that change to occur is to allow Americans to exercise their constitutional rights. So, Idon’t think that there is any doubt in this room and I dare say anywhere in this countryincluding Miami, that lifting the travel ban would bring about change in Cuba. So if that is thepurpose of those who held that conference earlier this morning, let them come and join us tochange Cuba by supporting the removal of the travel restrictions.

The significance of travel is embraced in the Helsinki accords. It speaks about human rightsand the goal of facilitating free movement and exchange of ideas if we are going to deal withhumanitarian problems. So, this just isn’t a civil liberty enjoyed in most cases by Americans,but a universally recognized human right.

How ironic it is that while the Cuban government has eliminated the visa restriction recently, Iheard Silvia Wilhelm speak to that today, our government is going backwards in eliminatingthe category of people to people travel. That is embarrassing. America goes backward andCuba goes forward—that is not our America, I dare say.

In the past, the debate in Washington did not exist because there was deference, if you will, tolegislators from South Florida whom you know have a particular hard-line perspective. Butmy folks, that has changed. That has changed with the advent of the Cuba Working Group.There is now a debate.

In addition to that, not only are members of the House and Senate asking questions, but thosewho have traveled—farmers from Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri who have gone to Cuba andhave experienced the bureaucratic maze necessary to get there. Then, they’ve started to reflect.What do you mean we have a travel police in America? Well, they had a travel police in the

66

old Soviet Union but a travel police here in the cradle of democracy? So, those questions arebeing asked all over this country, not just in Washington, Miami, New York, and Boston but allover this country today.

Now, you’ve heard about the inconsistencies as they relate to normal trade relationships withChina and Vietnam, but not Cuba. But what about some of our allies? Let’s take a look atEgypt for a moment. Free and fair elections? Our own State Department Human Rightsreports states the following: Citizens do not have a meaningful ability to change theirgovernment.

What about freedom of association or the right to organize political parties? This is what theAmerican State Department reports on Egypt: The Law empowers the government to bringfelony charges against those who form a party without a license. A license? That soundsfamiliar doesn’t it folks? And that recognition of political parties can be withdrawn…That isEgypt. They get $2 billion per year from all of us who pay taxes. They are the second largestrecipient of American-foreign assistance in this world.

Now, what about Saudi Arabia where there are political prisoners? The State Department hasto acknowledge that they don’t know how many because the Saudi government prohibitshuman rights organizations from even visiting their prisons. As for permitting labor unions toexist outside of government control, the State Department says that the Saudi governmentprohibits the establishment of all labor unions, even government labor unions. Then of course,if you practice a religion other than Islam, you cannot do it in public.

Well, let me tell you something, I have been to mass in Havana and I have seen women driveautomobiles in Cuba. They can’t do that in Saudi Arabia. I would suggest to you in terms ofhuman rights abuses, go for yourselves and examine the Department of State review of thehuman rights record of Saudi Arabia. They are without a doubt the most repressive regime onEarth. But, they are our partners. By the way, while 15 Saudi nationals were on those planesthat attacked our country on September 11th, there was not a single Cuban.

Let me digress for a moment, I think this fact is so fascinating, back in 1982 when Cuba wenton the terrorist list, the Reagan and Bush administration was taking Saddam Hussein off it.What a mistake. This is a policy that is angering the American people because they realizenow that it is a policy that is an anachronism. We did win the cold war and it is time to moveon. What I find particularly offensive are those that say to me, “Well if he has free elections, ifhe allows freedom of the press…” If, if if…Those are worthy goals and everyone in this roomshares them. But, not just for Cuba, for Saudi Arabia, Egypt and a long list of countries. Weought be working in that regard and listening to the call of true leaders like President JimmyCarter. That is who we should be listening to.

Don’t tell me as an American that you are going to use my constitutional right to travel as abargaining chip. No, no, no! Too many Americans have died, have spilt blood to defend thosecore constitutional rights! Don’t use it Mr. President! It’s not a bargaining chip. That’s myright, your right and every American’s right whether they be from California, Massachusetts orfrom Miami.

I read the op-ed piece in the Washington Post by Mikhail Gorbachev entitled “The Last Wall”.Well, to paraphrase and plagiarize a bit from former President Reagan, Mr. President it is timeto tear down the wall that prevents Americans from going anywhere they damn well please!Tear it down!

67

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ)Representative Flake was unable to attend and contributed written remarks read by SylviaWilhelm.

“The crackdown (on dissidents in Cuba) provides all the more reason to change our policynow. A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives understands this. For the fourth year ina row, and in spite of the crackdown, the House approved an amendment to allow travel toCuba.”

Silvia Wilhelm: I am deeply honored to read a letter from one of our staunchest allies inCongress, Representative Jeff Flake from Arizona.

Thank you to the organizers and to the contributors to this event. I regret that I am not able toattend because this Summit demonstrates again the growing sentiment in the Cuban-Americancommunity that it is time to change United States policy towards Cuba. The involvement andenthusiasm of so many Cuban Americans on this issue is courageous, appreciated andnecessary.

Early this year, I joined my colleagues in the House of Representatives, from all sides of theCuba policy debate, in condemning the Castro government’s crackdown on human rights anddemocracy activists, journalists, librarians and the dissidents. This crackdown was another sadrepeat of a cycle that has been going on for forty-three years. As long as we continue ourcurrent policy, the cycle will continue, the Cuban people will suffer, American freedoms willbe limited, and Castro will remain comfortably in control.

The dissidents imprisoned in the crackdown were trafficking in ideas. The sentencingdocuments of the dissidents cite possession of things like Time magazine, Miami Heraldarticles, and the text of President Bush speeches as threats to Cuban national security. Clearly,Castro is afraid of ideas. If magazines and newspapers are so threatening as to warrant amassive crackdown, how could the Castro government handle the subscribers traveling toCuba!

The crackdown provides all the more reason to change our policy now. A majority of the U.S.House of Representatives understands this. For the fourth year in a row, and in spite of thecrackdown, the House approved an amendment to allow travel to Cuba. One positivedevelopment this year is that Senators are prepared to offer the same language in their versionof the bill. With identical language, House rules state that the amendment must remain in thebill. (Editor’s note: although identical language was approved by the Senate and inserted inthe Treasury Appropriations bill, Congressional leaders subverted established practice overloud protestations within both chambers and summarily removed the Cuba language from thefinal bill.)

We need to increase the flow of ideas from ordinary Americans to ordinary Cubans. The U.S.government’s policy of distributing materials to dissidents is too limited, and has evenbackfired in some instances. We need a much broader effort in distributing ideas in Cuba.What better way than to allow ordinary Americans to travel to Cuba and share their ideas andvalues with ordinary Cubans.

Thank you again for your work and willingness to speak up for a new approach.

68

PHIL PETERSVICE PRESIDENT, LEXINGTON INSTITUTEFORMER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICIAL UNDER PRESIDENT REAGAN

“The transition is already underway in Cuba. The economy there is unrecognizable from theeconomy that functioned there ten years ago. Post-Castro Cuba is also there right now. Youdon’t have to study it here; you can go there and engage with Post-Castro Cuba.”

I am very proud to be with you all today once again at this Summit. I want to thank theorganizers for putting it together. I am asked to talk about the implications of travel to Cuba.I, like General Sheehan, went to the other room this morning to hear Roger Noriega speak.There you hear many things. Among them, you hear that if we allow travel to Cuba it willprovide dollars that will prolong the dictatorship there. If you allow travel to Cuba, none of thebenefits of travel will reach the Cuban people.

Now, I don’t need to go on at any length at all to you here because those of us who have beento Cuba—within an hour of getting off of the plane— can see how Cubans mix with tourists.You can see how Cubans benefit economically—the entrepreneurs who rent their homes, theartists who sell to tourists, the taxi drivers, the people with paladares, and the tourist industryworkers themselves. If it were not beneficial to the Cuban people that foreigners travel toCuba, why is that jobs in the travel industry are among the most coveted jobs in the Cubanlabor force?

There is also the argument of how supposedly the dollars that travelers bring would prolong thedictatorship and increase the resources to the repressive apparatus. To be sure, it is arepressive country. To be sure, there is an oppressive apparatus in that government of greatefficiency and effectiveness, I’m sad to say. But, it’s not the case that money at the marginfrom travel has anything to do with that.

Cuba ten years ago was in the worst conceivable economic shape. Those in the police andsecurity services weren’t lacking money or resources, nor was Cuba then on the brink of anykind of revolt. So the idea of saying that somehow at the margin this is going to tip the scalesin favor of the government and the police power in Cuba, is really one more sad indication ofthe distance and remove that our friends in the other room think about the situation in Cuba.There are a lot of regulatory and legal issues involved with travel and the debate thatCongressmen Delahunt and Congressman Flake talk about and we all fight about all the time.But I want to talk about this issue on a larger plane. In foreign policy, there is the nitty grittyof things like NAFTA and arms control, etc. But there is also something that some of us referto as the music behind them.

When both Democrats and Republicans over the course of several administrations, decided toembrace NAFTA with the Mexicans, it wasn’t just because of tariffs and trade and the differentindustries that would benefit. It was because our leaders sensed that there was somethinggoing on in Mexico, that we as a nation had the ability to play into a set of historicalcircumstances that could move things for the better in Mexico—towards openness of a societythat had been closed and although you didn’t see it on the surface, dictatorial. We did that andit’s had a good impact.

When President Reagan decided to change our policy toward the Soviet Union, he was dealing witharms control and verification and a lot of lawyerly and technical issues, but what President Reagansensed was that there was something else going on in the minds of Mr. Gorbachev and others, that

69

gave us a chance to play into some greater forces of history and to move the Soviet Union and theworld towards greater security and greater peace by betting on our hopes and not on our fears.

So what is the music in Cuba now? I think you’ll find it by thinking for a minute about what is onthe minds of the people in Cuba who are thinking about their future—the people who are going togovern Cuba in the future or aspire to govern Cuba. They are thinking, “What it is going to be likewhen the generations change here and I am left holding the bag?” What do they have in mind?

They know that things aren’t working well right now and that they want a better life, asGeneral Sheehan pointed out. They know that when the generations change, the hard-linefaction inside the Cuban government is going to be weakened because their maximum leaderhas moved along. So, there will be a new political equation at play. They know that they aregoing to have to create some new kind of decision-making within their system.

It is like a series of spokes going to one hub and that hub will have disappeared. They are going tohave to invent politics where they actually mediate among different factions and reach decisions ina different way. They know that the next government in Cuba is going to face a situation of risingexpectations. The next government of Cuba doesn’t have the option of assuring security and thenstepping out saying to the Cuban people that the economic policies for the next forty years aregoing to be exactly the same as they have been for the past forty years. That option doesn’t exist.

They know that they will have to resolve some very serious issues. Not just relations with theUnited States, but in creating an economy that provides growth—an economy that ends the sadsituation there now where so many kids want to leave their country permanently to have adecent life. They have to deal with that. They also have to deal with this other idea rattlingaround in that country—the idea of political freedom. They know that new doses of socialismare not going to work. It doesn’t solve any of these challenges that they face.

So what are we doing now? In the face of this situation, with so much on their minds downthere, we, the beacon of freedom ,are saying: “No, we’re going to keep you at arm’s length.”“Don’t call us, we’ll call you.” “When it’s over, you let us know. In the mean time, we don’twant contact with you.” “Sure we’ll let family visits take place, but the exchanges and contactthat we could promote between our societies—no we’re not going to do that.”“Tell us when it’s over and then we’ll talk.”

As we saw this morning, the vision that our friends in the administration have is that we’re notjust going to wait until it is over, but at that time when the generations change, we’re going toapply maximum pressure and the U.S. government is going to step in and say how it is going tobe. I am not against advocating democracy or holding up those standards at any time, anyplace or level of volume. But think to yourself about the history between our country and Cubaand think how that is going to work. Obviously, we should build contacts now.

Congressman Delahunt mentioned the Helsinki accords—think back to that moment. It is avery appropriate thing to mention. We didn’t enter into the Helsinki accords where wedemanded the freedom to travel in both directions across those countries because they were ledby nice people, quite the contrary. Those countries were led by a bunch of sell-outs, thugs andSoviet stooges. There was nothing nice at all about them.

The point is that it was in our interest to promote that contact because that is how we thoughtwe could move the course of history in those countries. So, we don’t need to reinventanything. We don’t need any new theories. We need to start having exchanges, especiallyconferences.

70

A Bishop in Havana told me two weeks ago how valuable U.S.-Cuba conferences are. Weneed to have scholarships, not the odd program that Administration devised, which seemeddesigned to fail, but a real scholarship program that brings Cuban and American students backand forth in large numbers.

Our governments should dialogue about the security issues General Sheehan mentioned and theenvironmental issues that Ken Lindeman mentioned. Of course, we need to have free travel ofour citizens. We spend millions of dollars planning for the transition and devising studiesabout post-Castro Cuba. I think that as taxpayers, we probably spent some of that money in theother room this morning. That’s fine, because I am the last person who is against studies.

I think we ought to whisper to our friends in the other room that the transition is alreadyunderway in Cuba. The economy there is unrecognizable from the economy that functionedthere ten years ago. Post-Castro Cuba is also there right now. You don’t have to study it here;you can go there and engage with Post-Castro Cuba. With whom? With the tourism workerwho has just figured out that if he (or she) learns customer service, they can make a little moremoney.

Post-Castro Cuba is in the 10,000 people in Old Havana who are restoring that city—thoselearning how to restore frescos, work iron, and repair tile and plaster. They are bringing backthe glory of that place. The 10,000 people doing that noble work are doing it for the future oftheir country and to preserve it for all of us.

Post-Castro Cuba is in the young Cuban doctors trying to figure out how they can better carefor their patients. It is in the Cuban scientists working on vaccines in collaboration withCornell, Harvard and Yale, trying to figure out how they can go about these programs withoutbeing treated like terrorists by the U.S. government.

Post-Castro Cuba is in the Vice-Minister in his forties, trying to figure out how he can createmore jobs within the terrible constraints of the current policies they have there. It is in the stateenterprise managers thinking about how they can turn these white elephants they govern intoenterprises that are going to make money. We should reach out to all of these people rightnow.

Whether you’re Cuban-American who wants to do this because it repairs some of the damageyou’ve all suffered over the past forty years or for those of us who don’t have Cuban ancestry,it is the right thing to do. Contact with Cuba is not a concession to Castro or anybody. It’s anexpression of our confidence and our own values and the basis of our country’s influence. Weshould start exercising it right now. I’m so proud to be with all of you who are on the sametrack. It gives all of us who work for this issue in Washington so much heart.

BRADLEY BELTEXECUTIVE DIRECTORASSOCIATION OF TRAVEL RELATED INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS

“Some members of Congress believe very strongly in matters of principle, most I would arguedo. Some believe very strongly in the power of campaign contributions. I would like to thinkthat is a small number, but it does matter. Others believe very powerfully in ideology. But theone common thread through all members of Congress that I’ve worked with is constituency.They all listen to the people of in their districts, particularly those who come from the businesscommunity who employ people—that’s jobs, that’s votes.”

71

It’s truly a privilege and an honor to be here with you today and to witness first-hand thecommitment and passion that you and your colleagues bring to the issue.

Indeed I think that Secretary Noriega was unfairly criticized for his seemingly pejorativecomments about newcomers. I was standing in the back of the room when he said that nearanother colleague who is also a newcomer to this issue, and I think that he saw us. I don’tthink that he intended ill toward anyone in this room.

Indeed, I am a newcomer to this issue from a substantive policy standpoint. ATRIP is arelative newcomer as well and I want to come back to issues related to ATRIP in a moment. Idon’t however come into issues of economic development, international trade and finance coldturkey. I have a long history with those. I have a long history with promoting internationaltrade, finance and economic engagements in other markets around the world.

Also, I have a long history working on issues related to economic sanctions and one of theorganizations with which I’m affiliated, the Center for Strategic and International Studies inWashington, came out with a fairly comprehensive study demonstrating quite compellinglythat unilateral economic sanctions do not work to achieve their political aims and that they alsohave a detrimental effect economically on the sanctioning entity. I certainly bring thatbackground to the issue.

But I can’t offer any particular insights and I don’t want to insult your intelligence in trying todo so, about what’s happening politically in South Florida or ninety miles south. But, what Ican offer is some insight and analysis on what is happening in Washington. For better orworse, I have been a creature of Washington politics, legislative and regulatory battles, for thepast two plus decades. I have a considerable experience in titling against windmills, fightingbattles that had long-time horizons associated with them, and putting in place strategies toactually achieve certain objectives.

The fact that I don’t know you all very well, and I do hope to correct that over time, not verymuch time at that, I will be perhaps less plain-spoken and blunt. From my perspective, whatneeds to happen is a change in the political dynamic. That is occurring, but we’re not there yet.There are a two or three points I would make in the outset. One is that we have to broaden therange of issues brought to bear on this debate. Number two, I don’t think that it is particularlyfruitful or productive to go out of one’s way to criticize the Administration, particularly thisAdministration, in large measure because as Secretary Rogers noted, this has been a policyespoused by both Republican and Democratic administrations for the past 40 years. I think wehave to recognize and empathize with where they are coming from in that the perception inWashington is that it is a vote-counting exercise. Until the dynamic in South Florida changes,you’re not going to get any meaningful change at the level of Presidential politics. What youneed to do is elect Democratic and Republican members of Congress and Senate who supportlifting the sanctions or at least engaging Cuba first and foremost, before you’re going to changethe dynamic at the Presidential level.

But there are achievable wins at the Congressional level. From Congressman Delahunt’sleadership in the House and with the House Cuba Working Group, we’ve made tremendousprogress in obtaining some very favorable votes. We’re building upon that progress, but weneed to do more. We need to do the same kind of thing in the Senate. We’re putting in placethe same kind framework and structures to do that with the Cuba Working Group in the Senatethat was more recently formed.

72

We have to also understand that simply couching this as a human rights tragedy, no matter howprofound it is, is not sufficient in my view to carry the day. It is not because members ofCongress are insensitive or unfeeling, although it may often seem that way. It is becausethey’ve been reviled with so many human rights crisis around the world; it is often anabstraction for them. What we need to do for them, is bring this home. I again refer to whatSecretary Rogers said, “heretofore the debate about Cuba has been a no win proposition—therehas been no upside for members of Congress.” We have to change that and we are starting tochange that.

What really catalyzed action in the House side and to a lesser extent in the Senate side isgetting the agricultural community behind us. We’ve got to add the economic analysis to thehuman rights arguments and to the freedom to travel arguments. We need to get each andevery one of you and the organizations you work with, to engage directly with members ofCongress, wherever they are found. That is particularly in Washington and in their homedistricts.

Some members of Congress believe very strongly in matters of principle; most I would arguedo. Some believe very strongly in the power of campaign contributions; I would like to thinkthat is a small number, but it does matter. Others believe very powerfully in ideology. But theone common thread through all members of Congress that I’ve worked with, is constituency.They all listen to the people of in their districts, particularly those who come from the businesscommunity who employ people—that’s jobs, that’s votes.

What I do not believe is that there has been an adequate job thus far in bringing together thedifferent constituencies that have a stake in this debate and mobilizing them as effectively aswe could. What we need to do in a much more structured and organized fashion to match thefirepower of those who want to maintain the sanctions, is to reach out aggressively andcontinually in a concerted fashion to members of Congress in their districts.

If you own a small business, go see your member of Congress and let them know how youthink. Go visit them in their office. Bring employees with you. They will meet with you.That is what’s going to get traction. We’ve got to change the nature of the debate so that it’sno longer a losing proposition, but a winning proposition for them.

Enough of the proselytizing. I can’t resist the temptation, now as I close, for a bit of crasscommercialism. As Mr. Zamora mentioned, what we’re trying to do at ATRIP is mobilize thetravel-related industry around this endeavor—the airline companies, cruise operators, travelagents, charter companies and others— to put together this kind of business constituency tomatch up against the NGO community and others that have done such an effective job up untilthis point. What we are going to be doing in two to three weeks in Cancun is carrying on aconference to try to bring together some of these constituencies. It is October 17-18th inCancun. We very much invite you to join us down there to continue this fight. I look forwardto engaging with many of you in the weeks and months to come.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Question: The first question I have is for Congressman Delahunt concerning the statementsome months ago by Under Secretary of State John Bolton about weapons of mass destruction.This morning General Sheehan said that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Cuba andthis person would like to hear Congressman Delahunt’s opinion on this.

73

Rep. Delahunt: I agree with General Sheehan. I think that what is particularly interesting isthat a few months before Under Secretary Bolton made that statement, he was giving a speechto the conference of the parties to the convention on bioweapons. He cited many countries thatwere of concern to the United States. He did not mention Cuba.

The next day after he made that particular assertion, Secretary Rumsfeld, who certainly wouldnot be categorized as a dove, made the statement, “I have not seen intelligence that led Mr.Bolton to make those remarks.” That comes from the Secretary of Defense. What I think wasparticularly noteworthy was when President Bush made speeches around May 20th, onlyseveral weeks later than the allegation by the Under Secretary, at no time did he referencebioweapons and Cuba in the same sentence.

Mr. Bolton’s boss, Secretary Powell said, “Well, we didn’t say that he actually had weapons,but he does have the capacity.” Well, I guess if you have a biotech industry, you have thecapacity. Another military leader, General Gary Spear who happened to be the head of SouthCom, which includes the Caribbean area, said that he had seen no evidence that Cuba isproducing bioweapons from its biomedical research program. Simply said, in my judgment,that is an assertion that was made for a political purpose. It has been refuted by theAdministration.

It was interesting that just recently, an individual in the Department of State, by the name ofChristian Westermann, when he testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee,indicated that he had felt pressure from Mr. Bolton. That pressure had dated from a clash thetwo had over his public assertions that Cuba had a biological weapons program. Mr.Westermann, who should know since he was the State Department official in charge of lookingafter the issue of weapons of mass destruction, said that those assertions were not supported byintelligence. So, I think that it corroborates what General Sheehan said. Let’s get the facts outand the truth. Simply because you repeat it, and I don’t care who you are—whether you are amember of Congress or a newspaper reporter—repetition sometimes give you comfort becauseyou start to believe your own boloney.

Question: What are the chances of getting the Administration and OFAC to reverse thedecision to eliminate people to people travel to Cuba?

Bradley Belt: It’s an issue I touched upon earlier; changing anything through theAdministration without a Congressional mandate is going to be exceedingly difficult. I willtake this opportunity to mention where we are in the Senate right now. As you know, wepassed forward-moving language in the House that doesn’t end the travel ban, but it would de-fund enforcement. Our hope is to do the same thing in the Senate before the Congress goesout. There is still a distinct possibility of that. We’ve done a preliminary WHIP count anddepending upon the strategies employed by the opponents, we think the votes are there. Butit’s going to be a fight. If anyone is interested, we can tell you where your member ofCongress is on the spectrum—who needs to be bolstered and who needs to be turned. So, ifyou have any interest in getting that kind of information and actually helping out in getting afavorable vote, please contact us at www.atrip.org.

74

THE U.S., CUBA AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY:A MULTILATERAL PERSPECTIVE

MODERATOR: PATRICIA GUTIÉRREZ MENOYOCAMBIO CUBANO

Patricia Gutiérrez Menoyo: Miami is changing and today is living proof of that newmentality. Earlier today, a gentleman who used to be an assistant to Senator Jesse Helms—Iam referring of course to the Honorable Roger Noriega—came to preserve, as a museumcurator, a policy enshrined in its ineffectiveness. I am privileged to moderate this panel inwhich we will try to add to today’s program in finding new alternatives and new horizons thatwill extricate the United States from a misguided path of failed policies. It is important that weare here—no longer alone, every day stronger. I also would like to acknowledge the presenceof two dear friends of peace and international development. I would like everyone toacknowledge the Ambassador to Cuba of Sweden and the Ambassador to Cuba of Norway herein our audience today.

A little over two hours ago, I was on the phone with my father Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo,President of Cambio Cubano or Cuban Change in English. From his new/old home in Havana,he told me to have faith and to keep on the struggle. He told me to tell the world that the onething that Cubans do not need more of is embargoes; for their past, present and future havealready been embargoed for much too long. Tell them that lifting the embargo is good enough,even if it saves the life of one more Cuban child. Tell them that if they want to help a processof democratization, they have to respect the struggle of these people, their sense of pride andtheir rejection of more impositions.

I am proud to introduce the members of my panel. We will be speaking about the UnitedStates, Cuba and the international community—trying to seek a multilateral perspective.“Multilateral” is the key word. Can the U.S. seek the consensus through a unilateral policy thatirritates the rest of the world? Can it in fact serve the best interest of the United States whenthe first thing that it does is negatively affects the best interest of the United States?

Before we start, let me loosely quote José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch afterhaving seen him last Thursday on CSPAN during the hearings (Editors note: A Senate ForeignRelations Committee hearing was held the week prior to the Summit convened by ChairRichard Lugar), “U.S. policy behavior sucks up so much energy around it that at in the end itleaves everyone around it trying to come up for air.” Isn’t it time to rescue U.S. policy fromthe hands that for so long have kidnapped it? I will not go on any further, but will move to thepanelists.

I will begin by presenting Professor Joaquín Roy, a writer and political analyst who is the JeanMonnet Professor and Director of the European Union Center at the University of Miami.Professor Roy is a law graduate from the University of Barcelona, his native country and is theauthor of twenty-five books among them The Reconstruction of Central America: the Role ofthe European Community and Cuba and the U.S.: The Helms-Burton Doctrine. I also welcomehim as an avid reader of his columns published in Spain, Latin America, and the United States.I leave you with Professor Joaquin Roy.

75

JOAQUÍN ROY PH.D.JEAN MONNET PROFESSORDIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

“That attitude (of engagement while pushing for improved human rights) summarizes that theEuropean Union as a whole and most of the member states have an attitude not of regimechange but of constant presence to be able to help, especially during the transition period thataccording to most European views has already started.”

I am speaking on my own, as an individual not as a professor of the University of Miami or asan officer of the European Union, although I will be sharing with you some of the things thatDr. Buck was going to say (Editor’s note: Karl Buck of the European Union Council ofMinisters was scheduled to appear but had to cancel last minute due to a personal injury). Thethird thing that I would like to say is that I am for the embargo and the Helms-Burton law; theyhelped me a lot in writing my books. In the preface of my books on the Helms-Burton, I leftout two people to whom I’m really grateful—Senator Helms and Fidel Castro. One is gone,but I still have the other.

I could subdivide my presentation into three small parts; one about the European Union,second about what some of the member states do with the Cuba and the United States, andthird - one specific country. I could do this in a more elaborate way and try to go through thedozens of declarations and actions decided by the Council of the European Union, also knownas the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, and the European UnionParliament—not to be confused with the Council of Europe.

The amazing thing, in spite of what you are reading in the press; that the European Union isdivided or is being divided sometimes by the United States—old Europe, new Europe—it’samazingly united on the issue of Cuba. Attitudes and perceptions of that whole body called theEuropean Union on the relationship between the United States and Cuba, or only on Cuba, aresignificantly coherent and solid.

I have here materials that you can pick up for your inspection. But I will summarize them intothree parts. First, I quote, “the United States has enacted laws that purport to regulate activitiesof persons under the jurisdiction of the member states of the European Union. This

extraterritorial application violates international law and has adverse effects on the interests ofthe European Union.” This is not today. That was said in 1996 and it is a Council regulationequal to a federal law of the United States.

Second, if Cuba wishes to receive a favorable treatment through a cooperation agreement itmust show progress in the democratic process. It was not said after Fidel Castro did what hedid in April (Editor’s note: the Cuban political crackdown in 2003), but it belongs to theCommon Position of the European Union approved in 1996 that conditions any kind ofcooperation agreements to issues of human rights and democracy.

“The European Union condemns the repeated violations of human rights in Cuba, in particularin the political field. The EU believes that the U.S. embargo against Cuba is primarily a matterthat has to be resolved bilaterally.” That was not said yesterday, not in April, but in 1994 andbelongs to the explanation of votes in the United Nations before the approval of the Helms-Burton law.

76

In summary, the European Union is collectively against the embargo and, of course, the lawscodifying the embargo. Second, there is a solid record of putting pressure on Cuba in the fieldof human rights through several measures like freezing a cooperation agreement since 1996,putting conditions on membership of Cuba in the ACP countries and the benefits of Lomé andthe successor of the Cotonou Agreement.

Third, a constant solid record of criticizing Cuba at the United Nations Human RightsCommission at Geneva—in contrast to the constant contradiction and ambivalence record ofthe Latin American countries that sometimes abstain and at other times vote in favor. Thefifteen members of the European Union vote in unison and the ten candidate members,although there is no law that forces them to do this, do exactly the same.

Finally, there is a constant record of engagement with Cuba, but that has been passing throughan evolution from a period of constant persuasion of Cuba into a state of frustration becausethere is no change, leading into a final stage, which probably describes the attitude today, ofirritation. But this never ceases the policy which is called constructive engagement with Cuba.

All this can be seen in all those measures, declarations and actions that can be reviewed invarious documents. That attitude summarizes that the European Union as a whole and most ofthe member states have an attitude not of regime change but of constant presence to be able tohelp, especially during the transition period, that according to most European views, hasalready started. If we analyze some of the member states individually then we would see thatsome of them take a more active attitude either in trade or in pressuring human rights, etc, thanothers. But in general, they are in tune with the common policy.

Finally, the specific case of Spain, the country I know best, would require more study. Therehas been enough talk today about newcomers. Of course, we would never accept Spaniards tobe called newcomers on a Cuban issue. By the way, we were there first—not only in Florida,but in Cuba too. I always said here in Miami, that the problem with Cuba today is that theydecided too early to leave Spain. I think that two or three decades under the crown of Spainwould have been a lot of help.

For Spain, Cuba is not a normal country. Cuba under Batista was not a typical dictatorship andthe Castro regime now is not a Caribbean Bulgaria. All this goes back many years. You canfind this in normal popular language. In Spain, when someone has a loss in the family or a lossin business, Spaniards say, “no te preucupes, más se perdió en Cuba” which means “This isnothing to compare with what we lost in Cuba.”

This goes back to the era of what was supposed to be the end of the colonial linkage. Yearsago when I came to this country, I discovered what in Spain is called “the Guerra Cuba” inwhich my grandfather was sent to fight (and fortunately survived), is called the “Spanish-American War” in the United States. How arrogant! It was a quarrel between Spaniards inCuba and Cubans in Cuba. Later on, I discovered that in Spanish historiography it is alsocalled “el disaster,” which I think fits much better.

Cuba, for Spain over the century is not a colonial nostalgia, it is a human relationship. I willshare two facts with you. The first is that 250,000 soldiers were sent to Cuba five years beforethe end of the colonial linkage. Historians today managed to unearth records and theydiscovered that they were not accounted as killed, injured or deserted—more than 100,000

77

stayed in Cuba. Some of you are laughing, but you may be descendants of them. This is whatis called constructive engagement through the century.

The second fact: there is no other example in the history of mankind and especially in moderntimes, that after a colonial dispute when the metropolis was kicked out and later more peoplefrom the former metropolis go to the former colony. It never happened except in the case ofSpain and Cuba.

That was even encouraged by the Cuban government by an official policy called “blancaamiento.” In other words, someone thought that there were too many blacks and mulattos, sothat the remedio was to encourage the immigration of more Spaniards. The problem is thatmost of them were gallegos. That probably explains the relationship between Franco andCastro.

In 1960, as some of you might recall, the Spanish Ambassador Lojendio incensed becauseFidel Castro on live television insulted Spain by claiming that Spain was doing somethingagainst the regime, went on TV and called Fidel Castro un mentiroso. This is the only case inhistory that Fidel Castro had to endure live on TV, en vivo y en directo, being called unmentiroso. Of course the result was that he was expelled.

Lojendio thought that he was going to arrive in Madrid as a hero, and guess what happened:Franco sent him to a bureaucratic position for a year and a half and told him indirectly “mire,digale a Lojendio que con Cuba, todo, excepto romper.” This is rather a strange relationshipthat explains a lot of things in the sense that the relationship between Cuba and Spain is not asthose with the United States and other countries.

More recently we see quarrels between Spain and the Cuban government, which can also besummarized by another popular Spanish expression that some of you know that is reduced to asimple “follón.” It’s a follón de baja intensidad, a low intensity quarrel. In more recent times,that has been simultaneously done with a política de inversión: investment, and this is exactlywhere we are, and of course irritating the United States, in recent years, after the subsidies ofthe Soviet Union disappeared.

The situation we are in is a repeat of more of the same in the sense that the insults given byFidel Castro against the Prime Minister of Spain, who was called first cabellerito, then littleführer with bigotito (mustache), and that’s not a novelty because some years ago Fidel Castroreferred to the 12th of October as “ una fecha infausta inefausta.” He called the president of theCongress of deputies of Spain “un facista inpresentable,” he called the Foreign Minister ofSpain more of the same with of course the result confirming the policy of constant engagement.The response from Spain has been to keep it cool and not be provoked.

The polemic between a portion of the exiles and the Cuban government, etc., talking about theFranco times reminds me a little bit, it could be illustrated a little bit by an expression usedvery often in the first times of the transition in Spain, the political transition. At that time, theultra-right said, “With Franco, we used to live better.” Con Franco, vivíamos mejor. Somemonths later, in the first real elections, the Communists started saying, “Against Franco, weused to live better.” In other words they had more power clandestinely than in real elections.

I think that today, there are a lot of sectors in Miami that say they fear the time that they aregoing to say “Against Castro, we used to live better.” And I think that in Cuba, there is a

78

person that is fearing the time that he or his successor will say, “Against the U.S. embargo, weused to live better.” This is my opinion, and I would say, let’s help them both to say this verysoon. Thank you very much.

JOHN MCAULIFFEXECUTIVE DIRECTORFUND FOR RECONCILIATION AND DEVELOPMENT

“Even at the point the U.S. ended its embargo, Vietnam was still largely a command economy,dominated by state enterprises and centralized bureaucratic controls.”

Immediately before coming to this Summit, I participated in a two-day conference inWashington on the “Future of Relations Between Vietnam and the United States.” It wasopened by Vietnam’s Foreign Minister Nguyen Dy Nien and closed by Assistant Secretary ofState for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly.

Vietnamese participants included the vice chair of the External Relations Committee of theNational Assembly; and representatives of the Ministries of Trade, Foreign Affairs, PublicSecurity, and Defense, as well as of the ruling Communist Party. On the American side werepresent the U.S. Ambassador to Hanoi, Congressional staff, and representatives of the DefenseDepartment, the business community, non-governmental organizations, foundations, andeducational institutions.

Today, the U.S. is the largest purchaser of Vietnamese exports, totaling $4 billion this year;and the largest source of tourists except for China, an immediate neighbor. The goal of theconference, in the words of Vietnam’s Foreign Minister, was to “put in place a practical andstrategic foundation for our partnership in many years to come.”

Twenty-eight years ago a war ended that took the lives of 56,000 Americans and more than2,000,000 Vietnamese. It left the U.S. deeply divided after the most profound fracture of ourbody politic since the Civil War.

Until nine years ago the U.S. enforced a rigid economic embargo against Vietnam,implemented zealously by some of the same people who lead OFAC (The Department ofTreasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control) today. The U.S. and Vietnam did not havediplomatic relations until eight years ago. We did not exchange ambassadors until six yearsago when Floridian, former Congressman, and former prisoner of war Pete Peterson tookoffice.

What happened? Has Vietnam stopped being Communist? Has it become a multipartydemocracy? Does it allow public opposition to its political system, in person, in the press or onthe internet? No, none of the above. What happened was that during the first Bushadministration the two governments began to see the futility and mutual disadvantage of non-communication and non-cooperation. President Bush was blocked from making much concreteprogress by Republicans, still embittered by the loss of the war (such as Henry Kissinger), buthe did end travel restrictions in 1991 and laid the bipartisan foundation on which PresidentClinton built the structures of normalization.

79

The process required compromise on both sides, and a lowering of the rhetorical temperature,but it did not require a change in the political or economic system of either country or dodamage to their self-perceived national interests. Vietnam had to cooperate with theemotionally charged task of the resolution of some 2,600 cases of American military missing inaction (MIA) even while it had little ability to accommodate domestic demands for theaccounting of at least ten times that number of Vietnamese MIAs. (While Americans carestrongly about securing our war dead, the treatment of remains within Vietnamese culture haseven greater significance because of religious reverence for ancestors.)

MIA identification and retrieval was accomplished through the permanent stationing of U.S.military teams in Hanoi and exhaustive joint searches of crash sights for remains and secretmilitary archives for information. The Vietnamese received more than adequate compensationfor the use of their helicopters and labor force. More importantly, they obtained official U.S.acknowledgement that Vietnam too had humanitarian needs created by the war andsubsequently some financial assistance for children and other victims.

Vietnam was also required by the “road map” to normalization to withdraw its remainingmilitary forces from Cambodia. However, that posed no problem because Vietnam hadaccomplished its goal of eliminating the threat posed by the Khmer Rouge and was in theprocess of reaching an accommodation with the Khmer Rouge’s primary ally China.

What did the U.S. give up? Fundamentally American leaders lost the emotional and politicalsatisfaction of punishing Vietnam for winning the war through a largely unilateral economicembargo (does that sound familiar?) and partial political isolation. U.S. officials also had to bewilling, based on Vietnamese cooperation on the real issue of MIA remains, to walk away fromthe fervent belief among some veterans and conservatives that Hanoi still held living prisonersof war (POWs).

This process of mutual accommodation was assisted by a change in the international politicalsituation. The transformation of the Soviet Union into the weakened Russian Federation meantthat the U.S. no longer received strategic advantage from using Cambodia and Vietnam toinflame the conflict between the Soviets and Chinese. Moreover, the withdrawal ofVietnamese forces from Cambodia in 1998 and the subsequent Paris Agreement were alreadyopening the door to trade, investment and stronger political ties of Vietnam with Europe,Japan, and its neighbors in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Vietnam had also made a fundamental internal decision at the Sixth Party Congress in 1986, ayear before the end of the Soviet Union, to move away from a command economy and to enterthe capitalist world market. It carefully introduced small-scale private enterprise at the familylevel, in both urban and rural settings. The most dramatic result was that in a year or twoVietnam went from a country with food shortages and pockets of starvation to the third largestrice exporter in the world.

It should be noted that at no point did the Communist Party contemplate giving up itsmonopoly on political power and leadership, although it did strive with some success throughthe economic reforms and a process of “doi moi,” or renovation, to restore its credentials andpopularity with the people and party members. It is also important to recognize that in theinitial years of reform strenuous and sometimes paradoxical efforts were made to fit changesinto the official ideological rhetoric of Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh thought.

80

The process of change in the U.S. owes much to the election of the first President who hadbeen part of the anti-war movement, although he had not been a leader or even a prominentactivist. Bill Clinton moved quickly through the stages of normalization of relations beginningwith the end of the embargo soon after taking office, and ending with the signing of a bilateraltrade agreement and official visit to Vietnam shortly before the end of his second term. In thisprocess, he received indispensable assistance from Vietnam War veterans in the Congress.

Some like Senator John Kerry had been part of the veterans’ movement against the war; otherslike Senator McCain had not. But for a variety of reasons, they wanted the kind of closure ontheir war time experience that could only come from ending the hostile atmosphere that stillexisted between the U.S. and Vietnam.

Only a few veterans in Congress opposed normalization, although some supporters justifiedtheir position on the familiar grounds that opening the door would inevitably lead to a freemarket and political change within Vietnam and in that sense a kind of victory for the U.S.While some leaders in Vietnam echoed China’s warning of an American plot to achievepeaceful evolution, others saw normalization as an affirmation of their success in achieving HoChi Minh’s dictum that, “Nothing is more precious than independence and freedom.”

The process of normalization received important support from U.S. based multinationalcorporations that did not wish to be closed out of the thirteenth largest country in the world.U.S. NGOs also played a noteworthy role with public opinion in both countries. Their style ofwork allayed suspicion within Vietnam as they carried out a growing number of programs ofhumanitarian and development assistance and helped to humanize the Vietnamese to skepticalAmericans.

Vietnamese-Americans were divided about normalization. The official position of theirnewspapers and political and social organizations was largely against reconciliation betweentheir adopted and native countries, but in practice many Vietnamese were already coming toterms with separation from their homeland.

During the first two decades after the refugee arrival in the U.S., violence had been directedagainst members of the community who advocated normalization. However, that largelydissipated as more and more Vietnamese visited home and Vietnam’s government madegreater efforts to establish positive contact with them. Today Vietnamese Americans form thelargest segment of the stream of U.S. tourists. They are investing in small and largebusinesses.Vietnamese Americans are moving home after retirement. Their children and grandchildrenare rediscovering their roots and finding jobs with foreign companies where bilingual biculturalskills are very welcome.

The process of normalization between Vietnam and the U.S. has been multidimensional. Inaddition to diplomatic ties that included an exchange of trade offices and military attachés, theU.S. has had a very active Fulbright scholarship program that predated full establishment ofrelations. Many American educational institutions have links with Vietnamese counterpartsand there are some 2,500 Vietnamese studying in the U.S. today.

Economic evolution in Vietnam was gradual and saw both advances and retreats. The politicaland economic atmosphere outside the country played a role in the process, but more significantwas Vietnam’s commitment to remain in control of the process of change. Having paid such ahigh price to achieve national independence and freedom, they were not about to see theircountry dominated by foreign investors and corporations.

81

The late 80’s were a period of experimentation, learning by doing, and gradual broadening ofthe realm of market economics. Even at the point the U.S. ended its embargo, Vietnam wasstill largely a command economy, dominated by state enterprises and centralized bureaucraticcontrols. While the foreign investment code was in theory quite liberal, practice lagged farbehind. Foreign companies could only enter the Vietnamese market in cumbersome jointventure arrangements. Many individual entrepreneurs from the U.S. as well as largecompanies jumped into Vietnam only to find their expectations frustrated by cultural andinstitutional barriers. Some withdrew in the late 90’s. Others stayed and eventually prospered.The Vietnamese learned from both failures and successes, responded to criticisms frominternational business, and extended to indigenous companies the same legal rights afforded toforeigners.

Vietnam only completed a law providing an adequate legal framework for local business in theyear 2000, but the National Assembly enacted it in close consultation with the emergingprivate sector. Today Vietnam has over 30,000 private companies and they are acknowledgedby the government as the primary source of economic growth and job creation. Inefficientstate enterprises are being shut down or liquidated. Vietnam’s economy is growing at a steadyand impressive rate, and it is seen as the success story of Southeast Asia.

There are also substantial changes within Vietnam’s civil society and political institutions thatparallel and may be responsive to changes in political and economic relationships with othercountries. Domestic NGOs, the press, personal freedom, election reform, and the role of thenational assembly are all evolving positively in a Vietnamese way. This is not to say thatVietnam is without problems domestically or in its bilateral relations with the U.S.. The twocountries have obvious disagreements about political systems and concepts of human rights.

The U.S. House of Representatives has adopted “human rights” legislation that Vietnam findsan unacceptable interference in its internal affairs. While the practice of religion is completelyfree in Vietnam, the social and political role of religious institutions and leadership is regulatedand supervised. This prompts harsh criticism from conservatives and evangelicals in the U.S.Vietnam has more Catholic bishops today than at any time in its history, but is angry at theVatican for appointing a cardinal without prior consultation.

However both sides at the conference I attended in Washington expressed amazement at howfar and how fast the relationship between the U.S. and Vietnam had progressed. Whilegovernment to government partnership today is more aspiration than reality, it is notimpossible to envision. Needless to say the whole process offers intriguing hints of what coulddevelop between the U.S. and Cuba if the current irrationality, fear, distrust, and bone-headedness on both sides were put to rest.

Last but not least the Honorable Mark Entwistle who was the former Canadian Ambassador toCuba from 1993 to 1997, and is currently finishing a major book on Cuba for Penguin Books.Ambassador Entwistle was the key negotiator for the bilateral relationship that put humanrights, transparent government, and law reform on the agenda for the first time between hiscountry and Cuba. Ambassador Entwistle guided all elements of the delicate relationship withCuba under the observant eye of Washington, including political, commercial and securityrelations. Described as a tireless negotiator, he is currently Vice President of International andGovernment Affairs at ExecAdvice Corporation. I leave you with Ambassador Entwistle.

82

THE HON. MARK ENTWISTLEFORMER CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO CUBA

“If Canada was to withdraw in reaction to those aspects of authoritarianism on the island wedid not like, we would also repudiate what there is to support in Cuban society. The fact thatCastro's Cuba as a developing country even survives without any access to the many billions ofdonor dollars from international financial institutions, nor to large-scale credit fromcommercial lenders, defies the odds and demands some respect.”

History and geography have made Canada's policy toward Fidel Castro's Cuba a particularconstruction quite unlike that of the United States, Spain or the Latin Americans. Canada hasits own two-century old relationship with Cuba, where, for example, Canadian banks helpedfinance the sugar industry and had scores of branches across the island before 1959. Thehistoric presence provides current legitimacy.

Yet, at the same time, Canada has no former colonial relationship - economically, politically orculturally. It is not Spanish speaking and is a North American culture. In this sense, it isnaturally more neutral.

In terms of objectives, the contemporary Canadian approach to Cuba is not dissimilar to thebasic goals of most other friends and allies - to pursue better protection for human and politicalrights in Cuba and to facilitate its successful integration in the world economy whilerecognizing its sovereignty.

Where Canada differs fundamentally from the policy and attitude of successive U.S.governments is that it views the Castro government as legitimate under international law untilsuch time as the Cuban people themselves decide to change it. According legal legitimacy isnot synonymous with support or agreement, but trumps it. Canada's focus is not on FidelCastro but rather the safe and successful transition after Castro - the future, not the past.

Four principal features characterize, in my view, the complexion of Canadian Cuba policy.

Firstly, it is an expression of interests, but at several different levels. In the internationalrelations sense, Canada has an abiding national interest in the stability of Cuba and, in morepractical and immediate terms, in ensuring the best possible prospects for a peaceful andorderly transition to a post-Castro life for the country.

A collapse scenario accompanied by violence would create a crisis for global security and,especially in the event of any military intervention by the United States, wreak havoc on hard-fought progress in hemispheric cooperation and integration in the Americas. The best way tohelp stabilize transition is to be there, to know the political players, both real and potential, tounderstand the dynamics of the situation with a clear eye.

In the arena of politics, every Canadian government of the day has an abiding domesticpolitical interest in demonstrating to the Canadian public its willingness to protect sovereigntyand the independence of its foreign policy, especially in the often over-sensitive atmosphere ofthe relationship with the United States. Cuba policy allows the Canadian government of theday to claim when required that it walks the walk. Canada's Cuba policy is, therefore, in alimited but real way also a function and aspect of its U.S. policy.

Partly for this reason, there are no formal bilateral consultations between the United States andCanada on Cuba, as there are with a number of other interested countries; the Government of

83

Canada is quite content to keep distance from the U.S. on Cuba. The other part of the reasonfor no bilateral consultations on Cuba is who in their right mind , would of their own free will,ask to be lectured and chastised? The more formal the circumstance, the more aggressive themessage from the State Department.

This is a shame because there is much of value both countries could contribute constructivelytoward an approach to a Cuban future that puts first the interests of the Cuban people.

The second feature of the Canadian approach lies in recognition of the complexity of theCuban reality. For those who know contemporary Cuba, everything and nothing is possiblesimultaneously. Contradiction exists without questioning and is even celebrated as furtherproof of cubanía to a degree that baffles more linear-thinking foreigners.

The good, the bad and the ugly all cohabit. Violations of basic civil and political rights existalongside universal literacy and recognized world leadership in family medicine. There arepolitical prisoners, but there is also a Cuban-style political correctness among the leadershipclass that keeps them in blue jeans and Ladas and as connected with their communities as anypolitician in Canada.

If Canada was to withdraw in reaction to those aspects of authoritarianism on the island we didnot like, we would also repudiate what there is to support in Cuban society. The fact thatCastro's Cuba as a developing country even survives without any access to the many billions ofdonor dollars from international financial institutions, nor to large-scale credit fromcommercial lenders, defies the odds and demands some respect.

Thirdly, Canadian policy reflects an assumption of consistency. There are numerousgovernments with which Canada disagrees on issues or does not share values, but maintains arelationship because we recognize the state itself and have an investment in its people. Forexample, Canada is having a difficult spat with Iran right now but keeps its lines ofcommunication open as a matter of principle. If the default position were not to withdraw fromother countries, why would we do so in Cuba? The Canadian people have shown noinclination to abandon their relationship with Cubans on the island.

One of the few exceptions to Canada's instinct to stay on the ground was apartheid SouthAfrica, but, in that case, the black South African community -- the victims themselves -- askedus to impose sanctions because of the egregious degree of the moral evil. This is certainly notthe case in Cuba, and in fact Cubans on the island - from the leadership of the Cuban CatholicChurch to most political opponents of Fidel Castro - have asked Canada explicitly to stay thecourse and not isolate them.

Lastly, the Canadian approach is characterized by a much lower "emotionality quotient" on thequestion of Castro's Cuba. Certain Cuban actions, such as the harsh imprisonment of the 75dissidents in March, offend Canadian values and cause government-to-government relations tocool in response.

For example also, the failure of the 1998 visit to Havana by the Canadian Prime Ministerchilled the official relationship for four years until recently. But these decisions are takenprimarily on policy grounds and after quite cold-eyed assessments of national interest, and farfrom the hurly-burly of daily partisan politics. This is quite different from the case in theUnited States, or in Spain, or even in Mexico, where family connection and history, domestic

84

politics, sentiments of Latin fraternity and even leftover ideological dreams combine in asometimes volatile but always emotional mix. The net result for Canada is a naturally andcomparatively a more neutralist perspective.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question: Does the European Union’s political conflict with Cuba have any repercussions ontrade investment with Cuba? The media interpreted recent Italian and Spanish actions withinthe European Union as a call for a European embargo against Cuba. Is that correct? Whatchances does it have to succeed?

Joaquín Roy: I don’t think there’s going to be an effect on trade. There is an effect ondiplomatic relations.

Question: Can you elaborate on any examples of political or economic reforms resulting fromconcrete European Union policy of constructive engagement?

Joaquín Roy: You would have to ask the people in Cuba. I think this is one problem we have;there are no surveys as to how the people in Cuba have been affected by this constructiveengagement.

Question: For many years Canada over-charged Cuba for goods sold to the island. Now that amore competitive market exists, why hasn’t Canada contributed humanitarian aid?

Ambassador Entwistle: That’s an interesting one. I have no idea what the questioner isasking about “overcharged.” Trade is done under market conditions and the price is paid. I’lltell you one thing, the Cubans are extremely astute commercial businessmen. They’re price-driven as well because of the cash flow. The Cubans don’t over-pay for anything, and in fact ifanything, they would nickel and dime a supplier to death to get the best deal, so I wouldchallenge the premise on that. And in terms of humanitarian aid, we of course have a largeprogram of our international development agency which works in Cuba that was reestablisheda number of years ago after a 20-year absence. We do a heck of a lot of work in Cuba and puta fair amount of work in there as well as the non-state players, the churches and Canadians arevery involved there on humanitarian grounds.

Patricia Gutiérrez Menoyo: We still have six questions but we are pressed for time so we aregoing to have to cut it here.

John McAuliff: Could I say one more thing on a parallel? As significant as problems may bein Vietnam having to do with human rights, or in China, no U.S. ambassador would havebehaved the way James Cason did in Cuba in the last year. And as much as I think the ultimateand principal responsibility for what happened with the arrests, either Cason was incrediblynaïve, incredibly stupid, or deliberately provocative, and there are 75 people sitting in prisonbecause of what he did.

85

CLOSING REMARKS

DR. WILLIAM LEOGRANDE, PH.D.DEAN, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRSAMERICAN UNIVERSITY

“A policy originally designed to isolate Cuba from the international system now isolates the United States.”

I’d like the thank all of the organizations and people who put this conference together. Therole of the closing speaker is to recap the highlights of the conference and to draw conclusionsfrom the wealth of information that we’ve heard over the course of the day and to do it quicklysince people have been sitting for a very long time listening to all of our panels.

It seems to me there were two recurrent themes that we could really see throughout every panelthat we’ve heard today. The first was why U.S. policy ought to change and the second washow that change could be brought about. That is to say we’ve talked about both policy and thepolicy debate and we’ve talked about politics and the nitty-gritty of how one brings about apolitical shift.

The reasons the policy ought to change are manifest and well-known and all I’m going to do isrun through a quick catalog of them because I suspect that all of you could do this just as easilyand quickly as I.

Cuba no longer poses a significant national security threat to the United States as GeneralSheehan explained to us this morning.

The embargo has been an ineffective instrument of U.S. policy in terms of bringing aboutchange in the Cuban government even though we’ve had it in place now for forty-five years.No U.S. ally supports the current policy of hostility.

A policy originally designed to isolate Cuba from the international system now isolates theUnited States.

And finally, the policy harms ordinary people in both countries; it impinges on the right ofAmericans to travel and do business in Cuba; it suppresses the standard of living of ordinaryCubans by hurting the economy; and it divides, as it has for forty-five years, Cuban families onboth sides of the straits.

These are compelling arguments for change in policy, so compelling in fact that we’re calledupon to ask, “why hasn’t the policy changed in forty-five years?” And the answer, of course,we know, is that second theme that we’ve talked about today: it’s the politics of this issue.And in particular it’s the ability of the most conservative wing of the Cuban-Americancommunity to monopolize the policy debate until recently.

For years, they convinced official Washington that they alone spoke for Cuban-Americans.It’s no wonder that they don’t want any newcomers to this debate. But times change.

Today, thanks to the hard work of many of the people who have spoken today and many of thepeople in this audience, the political diversity of the Cuban-American community has becomeclear.

We know from the polls that have been taken that a majority of Cuban-Americans favor freetravel to Cuba. We know that a majority of Cuban-Americans favor the right to sendremittances to family members on the island. We know that most Cuban-Americans now

86

would prefer to see some sort of process of dialogue leading to peaceful change on the island,rather than a continuation of U.S. policy of hostility that denies economic resources not just tothe Cuban government, but to every single Cuban on the island.

Changing the politics of this issue and in particular, changing official Washington’s view of thepolitical status of the Cuban-American community is a political precondition for changing U.S.policy.

We can have the very best policy arguments in the world, but as several people have said overthe course of the day, if the politics of this issue are bad for members of Congress or forPresidents of the United States, the policy is not going to change. The political work thatpeople in this community do is absolutely essential to changing U.S. policy towards Cuba.

There are two other important political dynamics at work besides the politics of Cuban-Americans, and we’ve heard about those today as well. First, there’s a growing interest indoing business with Cuba. That’s why Congress lifted the embargo on the sales of food andmedicine, and that’s why Congress has voted repeatedly to lift the ban on travel, and that ofcourse is due to the very good work of Congressman Delahunt and the Cuba Working Group.

Second, there has been an enormous growth in people-to-people contact, and I believe that thatcontact has created a political constituency in the United States that favors a change in U.S.policy on humanitarian and on human grounds, as James Early described to us earlier today.

I think it’s an irony that a policy put in place in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of theSoviet Union, a policy put in place with the hope that it would create a constituency in Cubafor change, has in fact created a constituency in the United States for a change in policy.That’s why the Bush administration is working today to make it harder for Americans to travelto Cuba, and I think that’s a shame, because, as José Latour said this morning, there is no betterambassador we could send to Cuba than the American people.

So in short, the policy arguments favor a change in U.S. policy, and the politics of the issue arerealigning in a positive way.

I’d like to end on a personal note. Unlike many of you, I don’t have family in Cuba, but instudying and writing about Cuba over the past thirty years, I’ve come to know many Cubans,and I know the hardship that they’ve endured, especially in recent years.

The purpose of the United States embargo is to damage the Cuban economy, to retard itsrecovery from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of the socialist camp. Itis to make life more difficult for ordinary Cubans in the hope that this will feed the end of FidelCastro’s rule. I think that is a morally reprehensible policy. It’s a policy unworthy of a greatnation and it’s a policy that has to be changed.

It’s been a great pleasure for me to participate in this conference today, a conference which hasbrought together so many people, both old-timers and newcomers, determined to forge a newpolicy toward Cuba, a better relationship between not just our two governments, but moreimportantly, between our two peoples.

Thank you all very much for coming.

87

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV KEYNOTE ADDRESS

INTRODUCTION: MICHAEL PUTNEYABC TELEVISION NETWORK NEWS ANCHOR, MIAMI

Good evening. Let me take a moment, if I may, to salute Silvia Wilhelm and Puentes Cubanos,Cambio Cubano, and all the groups that are cosponsors of the second National Summit on Cuba.I know, and my colleagues standing across from me in the media know that most, if not all of youattending this, are not newcomers to the issue of Cuba. (applause)

On a piece that appeared a short time ago on Channel 10 General Sheehan responded to that infact as he had eloquently this morning and I know, as indeed my brothers and sisters in the pressknow, that your discussion here this second year is an important, I would even say, a critical partof the dialogue that is going to help formulate U.S. Cuba policy in the future.

First let me say, on each of the tables there are pads of paper and pencils and I know that everyone of you has a question for President Gorbachev. I know that as we had dinner we all hadquestions and our conversation was fascinating. It is a privilege for me to introduce MikhailGorbachcv this evening.

We are all affected by history. Very few of us change history. Mikhail Gorbachev changedhistory. (applause) Without him the Cold War would not have been ended I think. He put ahuman face on Communism. He taught the west and entered into our lexicon Perestroika andGlasnost. And I’d like to say this conference is a welcome blast of Glasnost in our community.

One of my memorable conversations with one of my heroes, the late congressman Dante Fasselof Miami, was about Mikhail Gorbachev. When he was the chairman of the house ForeignRelations Committee he returned from I think his first visit to Moscow to meet with Mr.Gorbachev. And Dante, if you knew him, in his own exuberant way he said, “Mike, this is a greatguy, a great guy. I said to Gorby one time, I said Gorby, you’re’ just doing the right thing.” Andthe seal of approval from Dante Fassel, Mr. President, was good enough for me.

When Mr. Gorbachev resigned in 1991 he said in his resignation speech this: “The countryreceived freedom, was liberated politically and spiritually and that’s the most importantachievement.” Perhaps this evening, Mr. President you can give us, Washington and Havana andour community a blueprint for Cuba to achieve its freedom. Please welcome Mikhail Gorbachev.

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV

I have to be sure whether my assistant, my advisor, Pavel Palazhchenko is here for thetranslation. I have a number of people always with me who speak English and that is in orderto be sure like President Reagan said, “Trust but verify.”

Good evening, the National Summit on Cuba is an extremely interesting and unique event.The fact that this Summit is taking place for a second time indicates that it is generating ideas,that it is raising issues that it is inviting for consultation and discussion on these veryimportant, urgent issues various people. I think the fact that it is happening at all is anothersign of change, of change in the world and, as was said at the beginning, this Summit may bean example of Glasnost in America.

88

Well, I always thought that in America there was a lot of Glasnost. I have recently written anarticle that was published in an Italian Newspaper and that article was about America and itsaid America needs its own Perestroika. And this is something I believe; the emphasis is itsown not just Perestroika. Not our Perestroika. It’s your Perestroika. That is to say respondingto change - change in the world.-The world is changing and we too must change. The biggest contradiction is that thedevelopments in the world are out-pacing politics. Politics is lagging behind the events. Toomany mistakes are being made and we have to pay the price for those mistakes.

That is why, recently, together with a number of political leaders last May, I created the WorldPolitical Forum. The World Political Forum whose goal is to discuss global developments andthe role of politics and policy makers in a global world in which we are living, in which we arelearning to live and in which we are learning to manage. And of course we have to.

We cannot ignore those problems those issues, those conflicts that we inherited from the past,that we inherited from the Cold War, that we inherited from the confrontation in which welived for decades. Among those issues are issues of particular importance today. I would inparticular mention the situation in the Middle East. That conflict, which despite the peaceprocess that President Bush and I inaugurated in Madrid in 1991, this peace process which aftersome initial steps, after developing its first successes, is now stalling and the results of thatslow down are a lot of tragedies in that region and beyond it.

One of the conflicts that is the legacy of the past or, let us put it this way, a conflict situationthat we inherited from the past, is all that relates to the Cuban embargo, all that related to theblockade of Cuba. This is not an easy issue. I would like first to talk about the historicalbackground. I would like to recall some discussions that I as the Soviet leader and the UnitedStates leader had on this problem. Here in this city of Miami, which I have visited on severaloccasions, I was often asked what I thought of Cuban-U.S. relations.

So let me first go to the historical background, and that is 1989, December 1989, when I firsthad a meeting in Malta with President George Bush. It was on that occasion that we shookhands and announced that we no longer regarded our countries as enemies. This was thestatement that ended the Cold War. It was the symbolic end of the Cold War.

Before the beginning of our negotiations, the President asked me to have a one-on-one talk. Sowe went to a separate room and we talked in the presence of just two persons, GeneralScowcroft and my international affairs advisor. At that time the civil war in Nicaragua and inEl Salvador was still on and we supported different sides. At that time we agreed that wewould stop arms supplies because our own Cold War had ended.

In that same conversation George Bush talked to me of Cuba. He asked me: What do youneed Cuba for? You are spending six billion dollars a year for Cuba. You need that money forreforms in your own country. And Fidel Castro is actually criticizing you. He is criticizingPerestroika. Your assistance, your position on Cuba are irritants for the American people, anirritant in the attitude of the American People toward the Soviet Union.

I answered that, first of all, we helped Cuba. We continued to help Cuba because of theembargo. I said people need to survive there so that is why we are helping.

89

Secondly, I said Cuba is making-up for our assistance by the supplies of products such assugar, citrus, fruit, nickel and some other raw materials. Of course this is less than what wespend, but that’s why we call it assistance, that’s why we call it aid.

Thirdly, I said, we have begun to reconsider our economic relations with Cuba and also withthe countries of Eastern Europe and with the Third World. We are gradually putting them on aregular commerce basis.

And finally the most important thing I said was, “George, you are misinterpreting our politicalrelationship with Cuba.” I said, “Fidel Castro is not our puppet. He never was a puppet. He isa sovereign and independent political figure. He has never asked for any directions from me ormy predecessors and he would reject any directions from us. Our relationship and hisdependence on us is purely economic as a result of the embargo. People do not have enough toeat. Therefore Castro takes it from where he can. And of course,” I said, “our relationship wasmostly dictated by the logic of the Cold War.”

George Bush agreed that Castro was no longer a puppet. After all, he refused to accept thesame course as the USSR.

I also shared with the President impressions from my visit to Cuba a few months before. Myimpression was that Fidel was inclined to look for a way to normalize relations with the UnitedStates. He understood that the world was changing and that he too had to change.

President Bush said that he would think about it, but again he said and I quote: “There is agreat emotional rejection of this dictator on the part of the Cuban community in southernFlorida.”

So my signal after all was not pursued. But it is very important to recall the context in whichthat conversation between me and the U.S. president took place. The context was the end of theCold War and of course the United States had normalized its relationship with China withVietnam, with the Eastern European countries, with all of those who were involved in thatgreat confrontation. But Cuba remained a problem for the United States.

I understand that Cuba, for the United States, is a special case. But certainly the time has comeafter more than 40 years to change things. I cannot accept that Cuba today would be a threat toU.S. national security. And actually the U.S. Department of Defense recognized in 1991 thatCuba was no threat to the United States. The Cuban problem as an international problem was aresult of the Cold War. But unlike other countries involved in the U.S.-Soviet confrontation,Cuba was a special case.

We did not incorporate Cuba into the Soviet block by force. The revolution there happenedwithout us. It was not led by communists. Initially they rejected any alliance with thecommunist party of Cuba.

It was a revolution of young members of the intelligencia who were able to fire-up the peoplewho were resentful of one of the worst dictatorships of that time. And the revolution wonrelatively easily because the grapes of wrath against Batista were ripe among the people.

Some people in America did not like it. Let us not go into the details. The diplomatic relationwas broken off and the Bay of Pigs invasion happened. That invasion was defeated, but the

90

hostility that emerged after the revolution became permanent after the Bay of Pigs. Bysupporting that action, the Unites States of America took a certain stand. And although wehave seen nine presidents of the United States pass, the situation remains and the attituderemains the same as at the height of the Cold War.

There was a real threat to the independence of the country and therefore the Cuban governmentstarted to look for support. And that was natural because it was facing a superpower; a smallisland republic was facing a superpower. With the Cold War raging, the choice was obvious.And as soon as that choice was made Cuba became part of a global confrontation.

I would say that it was caught in a global confrontation of the Cold War and during the CubanMissile Crisis Cuba came close to becoming a trigger for nuclear war. As part of the blockadesituation and ideologically belonging to the Socialist camp, it was inevitable that Cuba chosethat particular economic and political path.

In order to solidify political links to the USSR, Fidel Castro became a communist. He createdthe Communist Party. He announced his commitment to Marxist Leninist ideology. But letme say, we knew very well that he never became an orthodox communist. Let me remind youof one example; the attitude of the Cuban government toward the Catholic Church and towardreligion.

The U.S. isolation of Cuba was the main reason for the whole thing developing according tothe logic of revolution, according to the logic of endless irreconcilable struggle in the contextof hostility and mutual intolerance. A number of things happened. A lot of cruelty happenedand I have to say that both sides did certain things. We in the Soviet Union understood that.But this is all history, recent history, with all its mistakes and injustices and absurd things andbitterness, expulsions and jails.

Let me say, as an ordinary Russian citizen who is not familiar with behind-the- scenes politicaldealings, I cannot understand why Americans had a tolerant attitude toward people likeSamosa, the so-called “Our son of a bitch” as Franklin Roosevelt called him, or Pinochet, orthe Paraguayan dictator Stroessner, and why they so much dislike (to put it mildly) FidelCastro as a person, as a leader.

I never knew Pinochet. I cannot regret that I never knew him. But I have spoken with Castromany times. I would say that our relationship was quite active and friendly. Let me assure youhe doesn’t at all resemble the kind of monster he is depicted as by the propaganda.

Recently, I was told about an international conference that took place recently in Havana, Cubato discuss the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The conference was attended bymany Americans, by former military people and by former officials who were involved in thatdangerous episode. In a very friendly way, they participated in that conference, shared theirexperiences and had a very good exchange with Russian and Cuban participants, they spenttime together.

This meeting is another proof that one can leave behind conflicts; that one can leave conflictsbehind in history. The world has changed so much.

Fidel Castro spent three days with the participants in that conference. He spoke many times.He was open to all kinds of contacts. He behaved as an ordinary participant in that conference

91

with no prejudice against the Americans. This is just a detail to characterize that person. Ihave many other such details.

So let me tell you that there is something that is even more important. First of all this is aperson with a lot of pride and self esteem and he never, ever allows himself not to keep hisword. He was always a reliable partner in international affairs. I can confirm that whatever hepromised, whatever we agreed, specifically and precisely he always did.

He always followed through, This I saw when we worked together on the international aspectsof the situation in El Salvador, in Nicaragua and in Angola. Our negotiations were with theUnited States but because Cuba was involved, we also were talking to the Cubans. FidelCastro supported all commitments and he kept those promises.

Also bear in mind that of all the European leaders, Asian leaders and Latin American leaders,most of them regard him as an interlocutor and a political partner with whom they can deal.The European countries who have the same values of democracy as the United States have acomprehensive political and economic relationship with Cuba. Recent worsening of thoserelations does not change that fact in principle.

It has becoming increasingly clear today that the time has come to change the relationshipbetween Cuba and the United States. I am saying this because I am the person who wasinvolved in the dialogue; who was involved in developing a new relationship between mycountry and the United States.

This new relationship has affected the world. We have been able to close the book onpractically all old conflicts. Those discussions that we had with the President of the UnitedStates did encompass Cuba and I always said what I am saying today.

I do not want to interfere either in Cuban affairs or American affairs. But I have the moral rightto say what I am saying and particularly to say this to you at this very important gatheringwhere you are discussing this problem, which is of such importance for the United States andfor international politics.

I believe that the relationship, the current relationship between Cuba and the United States, istotally anachronistic. The changes that have occurred in the world in the past twenty years aretruly remarkable. We have left behind the Cold War and the confrontation between twoirreconcilable ideological systems.

The symbol of divided Europe, the Berlin Wall, which Ronald Reagan famously urged me totear down in 1987, has long since been destroyed. But one relic of the Cold War remains thewall of the economic embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba 43 years ago.

The lack of relations between the U.S. and the Cuban Government, enshrined as it is theunilateral U.S. policy of economic and diplomatic isolation of Cuba, has not allowed for anunderstanding that can benefit the citizens of both countries; the citizens of the United Statesand the citizens of Cuba.

The burden of isolation of Cuba has been borne by ordinary citizens on both sides of theFlorida straights - the divided Cuban family.

92

Very often I had to respond to the various appeals of the President of the United States to helpthe unification of divided families when a part of that family lived in America and another partof that family lived in the Soviet Union. I received piles of letters from the president, fromcongressman etc., and we always helped.

Here again we have a divided family we want to help. To help at a time when the Cold Warhas ended, at a time when the world is changing. We recognize that this current situation isabnormal and that the embargo policy is counter productive and increasingly recognized assuch throughout the world and within the United States. That is my impression.

In this context, I would like to like to recall the visit to Cuba of Pope John Paul II. This visitsymbolized the willingness of the international community to open to Cuba and of Cuba toopen to the world.

Former President Jimmy Carter’s trip to that country was also a significant development.

Many other U.S. political leaders have spoken in favor of normalizing relations and I think thatthe only way to get out of this anachronism – out of this time warp -- is to replace the currentU.S. policy with a policy of constructive engagement similar to the one being pursued towardother so called communist countries.

This view is shared not only by most members of the international community, it has supportby those most effected by the U.S. policy, namely the Cuban people and Cuban Americans inthe United States.

I think that the continuation of the current policy is quite damaging to the United States. If youlook at it from the standpoint of real political leadership, this policy should have been lifted along time ago.

I believe that the Cubans and Cuban Americans would benefit most if the United States were toliberalize its policy starting by opening the door to travel to Cuba.

Let us remember the expanded contacts and exchange agreed to by President Reagan and me atour 1985 summit in Geneva. The very first meeting in Geneva did very much to increasemutual understanding between our two countries. So you look at this issue from whatever sideand you see that it’s amazing that this issue still exists. It’s not right – it’s not normal.

Many Cuban-Americans who traditionally backed punitive measures against Cuba areincreasingly calling for dialogue between the two nations. Polls show that most CubanAmericans would like to take the first steps to heal the wounds of the past 43 years.

I think the leaders of both states should recognize that true courage is demonstrated by awillingness to engage in a difficult but honest dialogue, to admit mistakes, and to seek commonground for the good of future generations.

I believe that certain encouraging signs have emerged recently. You know for example thatCuba is cooperating on issues related to the jailing of Taliban in Guantánamo. You know thiswas a very constructive step that made Cuba a member of the coalition against internationalterrorism. I have not heard that the United States has expressed its appreciation to Cuba forthis decision of the Cuban government, but this is very important.

93

Also a contract has been concluded to sell food from the United States to Cuba and meat isbeing delivered to Cuba and that is a good thing. Tourism to Cuba is becoming a veryprosperous industry and the American Society of Travel Agents is very involved in thisprocess. Congress in fact has recently voted in favor of free travel to Cuba.

If the president supports free travel we know from surveys that during the very first year onemillion Americans could visit Cuba and soon that number would reach five million people ayear. That would be a tremendously important development.

The American National Council of Churches of Christ is working to increase exchanges inculture and education. And I’ve of course already mentioned Jimmy Carter’s visit. I have readhis letter to your Summit. I believe this is a wonderful letter. It is a very honest, candid andconstructive letter and I believe that it contains a number of important suggestions that yourSummit should bear in mind in trying to build a new relation with Cuba.

I am also familiar, and you of course are also familiar, with the initiative of President Bush fora New Cuba. Generally, we cannot yet speak about a breakthrough, but we can say some thingsare being done; that there is movement in the right direction. When I read of that new initiativeby President Bush - one can see that, even though the political tone of that initiative is totallyunacceptable to the Cuban leadership, there are some positive aspects in that initiative and thatmeans that the efforts of the Cuban people and the efforts of the Cuban Americans have bornesome fruit.

Let me now mention another aspect. I know from my own experience that incomplete andselective and particularly distorted information is extremely damaging and dangerous. I amsaying this because it is my impression, from what I know from the U.S. media, that theAmerican public is not really well informed about what is happening in Cuba.

In the Russian Academy of Sciences we have the Institute of Latin American Studies. Thescholars in that institute are studying Latin America as a whole and also specific countries suchas Cuba. When I was preparing for this trip, when I was preparing for this talk I asked them togive me information about what’s happening in Cuba today. Cuba has a steady growth ofgross domestic product - at one year eight percent. The factories that were built by Sovietengineers or with the help of the help of Soviet Union are again working at full scale, includingin areas such as petrochemicals, mining industry, metals, pharmaceuticals, textile, sugarprocessing energy, and also the production of agricultural equipment.

It is very important that the Cuban economy is open to the world market, that there are noobstacles to international trade on the part of Cuba. The Euro will soon become a free floatingcurrency in Cuba. Companies and banks from Canada, Japan, Germany, Spain, Italy, China,France, Holland, Mexico and Brazil have formed joint ventures and they invest substantialamounts of money in different parts of the Cuban economy.

The Cubans are also expanding investments in traditional and new products. In managing theireconomy the Cubans are obviously using the experience of China. Again the amazing thing isthat the United States has a tremendously active intensive relationship with China but not withCuba. That is a double standard - that’s what I call it - double standard.

I don’t know whether Americans are aware of this growth in the Cuban economy. Youprobably know it, you who are sitting here in this room. But I think that this should be borne in

94

mind by the policy makers when you discuss the prospects of relations between the UnitedStates and Cuba.

I can see there is a growing desire in America to change U.S.-Cuban relations for the better.The fact that you are meeting here for the second time at this Summit conference I believeshows that there is this willingness to work for improvement.

I believe that the time has come to develop a policy that would reflect new realities. A policyof constructive engagement with Cuba would make it possible not only to normalize relationsbetween two neighbors but also improve chances for an evolution in the domestic situation inCuba, including creating a different set of conditions for raising human rights issues.

I believe that the embargo makes it possible for those who would like to preserve theauthoritarian regime in Cuba to solidify their position. Imagine yourselves in Fidel Castro’sshoes. When your close neighbor is so very much against you, you have to mobilize becauseyou never know what the northern neighbor will one day do or might one day do.

I believe that the Cuban people are the least to blame for this current situation. Their vigor andtenacity and ability to overcome difficulty and hardships really deserve respect and admiration.I have a lot of admiration and respect for the Cubans. I believe that the Cuban revolution was apeople’s revolution. It was not imported from anywhere.

The first step is necessary, the first step that would start building a new relationship. Arelationship that would be totally different from the one now. I believe that this first stepshould be made by the United States, a great country that can afford to act with respect, to actwith understanding. It should make that first step.

I urge President Bush to take that first step. I am urging President Bush to break the wall of theembargo, to tear down that wall, to lay the foundation for a new relationship with Cuba, tomake it possible for Cubans on both sides of the straights to extend a hand of friendship to eachother. I believe that should happen. I believe the time for it is now. Thank you.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question: Many people would like to know your view on President George W. Bush and hisadministration, on how can we take a first step towards normalizing relations just a few monthsafter the Castro government has jailed 75 journalists, independent librarians, and politicaldissidents, simply for speaking out against the regime?

Mikhail Gorbachev: Well, I believe that this step could have been taken sometime withinthese 43 years. Now that this happened a couple of months ago, does that mean that theembargo should continue forever? I believe that an end to the embargo could well result in therelease of those people. And the Cuban government, I think, could do a number of things,once the United States takes that first step and lifts the embargo. Actually, I am convinced thatthe first step—the lifting of the embargo—should be taken by the powerful nation—by theUnited States of America. Perhaps this step should be prepared in a certain way anddiscussed, but that is something that I will not go into the detail of because it is up to the

95

Americans and the Cubans to see how this could be best done. The time is good—the time isright to do it.

Question: With your close understanding of the thinking of President Castro, do you believethat a Perestroika can begin in Cuba?

Gorbachev: I am convinced that if the embargo is lifted and if Cuba becomes open to relationswith all other countries of the world, then developments in Cuba will go along the path that isnow generally being followed in the world. In the world, generally there is a process ofdemocratization and I believe that Cuba will be in that mainstream. It has to be a transition—itcannot be any easy transition. It hasn’t been an easy transition for my country; it hasn’t beenan easy transition for dozens of other countries. And so, any kind of ultimatum saying that wedo something today and tomorrow Cuba should be a totally different kind of country, will notwork. It will not work anywhere, not just in Cuba.

Question: Do you agree that it should be easier for United States citizens to travel to Cuba andshould Cubans be able to travel more freely out of Cuba?

Gorbachev: I believe this is exactly right. I believe that freer travel should have been done along time ago. I believe that there is no doubt that this is probably the step that should be takeneven before the most important step. I have no doubt about that.

Question: How much does Russia today correspond to your vision of it in 1991 and had youbeen elected President in 1996, what would have been the most important initiative that youwould have undertaken?

Gorbachev: After I stepped down as the President of the Soviet Union, and the Union brokeup, what happened was very different from the gradual step-by-step evolutionary approach thatI believed was good for our country. Instead of that approach, a rather reckless approach waschosen—shock therapy was chosen as our economic policy. As a result of that, even though itwas not prepared for total openness to the international market, the Russian market was openedand because most of our industries were not competitive in those markets, they collapsed as aresult of that reckless policy. Today Russia must act, recognizing the realities that we aredealing with. You cannot rewrite history. But, the goals remain the same—those are the goalsof freedom, democracy, market economy, and openness. The important immediate goal was toovercome the chaos that resulted from the 10 years of the rule of Boris Yeltsin. That has nowbeen mostly done by President Putin during his first Presidential term. And now our next taskis modernization of our economy. The educational, scientific and cultural potential of Russia isstill quite high and quite sufficient to address the task of modernizing our economy and wehave tremendous natural resources. I believe that the coming four years, after theparliamentary election this fall, and after the presidential election will be decisive in shapingthe future of Russia.

Question: Mr. President, what do you think of U.S. efforts to increase funding to dissidents inCuba?

Gorbachev: I think that what would really work best, is not only lifting the embargo, but alsostimulating U.S. investment in Cuba. That would work very well. If however, the emphasis ison funding and stimulating dissidents, this might throw into question the best intentions thatthe U.S. might have. I really do not want to offend those people in Cuba who are trying to do

96

something for democracy in that country in the current situation. But, we should make surethat they are not seen as a kind of fifth column.

Question: The lack of compensation for confiscated properties in Cuba is a sticking point inthe negotiations that might lead to lifting the embargo. Based on your experiences in Europe,particularly in East Germany, do you have any suggestions on how this issue could beresolved?

Gorbachev: I believe that this is something that should be negotiated by the governments—theU.S. administration and Cuba. They should sit down and compute and make calculations. Idon’t know who owes what to whom and who owes more. It’s a little hard now to know whatthe balance is going to be. Because if you look at the disadvantages and the damage caused bythe embargo, you don’t know how that will balance out the other aspects. This is to benegotiated by the two governments. And the Congress will be involved for sure.

Question: What overriding interest should the Bush administration consider regarding Cuba?Many people in the United States argue that we can afford to continue this current policytoward Cuba because there is no overriding interest to change it.

Gorbachev: I believe there is an interest and I cannot really agree that there is no overridinginterest in changing this policy. I think that the very fact that this Summit is takingplace—that you have gathered here, that you are concerned, shows that there is a real intereston the part of the people in ending this current situation. This interest on the part of the peopleshould not be ignored. Also, if such a great power as the United States is treating a smallneighboring country like this, can this country be a world leader? That is what I am asking. Ofcourse, on issues like this, there are no simple recipes, no simple prescriptions.

Question: How much money in dollars did the Soviet Union give to Cuba between 1969 and1989. If it hadn’t given Cuba the money, would it have hastened democracy?

Gorbachev: There is no doubt that saving that money and using that money for our ownpurposes would have been useful for us. But let us ask another question: and that is how muchmoney was used during the Cold War by the Soviet Union and by the United States for thearms race? The answer is $10 trillion each. And we are now using tens of billions of dollars asGeneral Sheehan knows, in order to destroy those weapons that we built during the Cold War.So that is the legacy of the Cold War. Those are the consequences of the Cold War. We couldhave done a lot of good things, a lot of useful things had we not had a Cold War afterWWII—had we continued the cooperation that Russia and the U.S. had during the SecondWorld War. Instead, we started a conflict, a confrontation that was extremely damaging to allof us. By the way, Congress is looking for $87 billion and has to do it quickly. I believe thatthis whole issue will look very differently once we understand that we live together in adifferent world and that we have to work together to build a better world a world that is morejust. His Holiness, the Pope, was once asked whether he believes in a new world order andwhat kind of world order he believes in. His answer was very succinct and very important. Hesaid, “We need a new world order—a world order that would be more secure, more just andmore humane.” I believe that this is the agenda for us—for all political and business leaders. Ibelieve that this is a great agenda. Thank you.

97

EXCERPTS FROM MIKHAIL GORBACHEV’S PRESS CONFERENCE

Mikhail Gorbachev: I very much appreciate the fact that the National Summit on Cuba isbeing held and is supported by Cuban-Americans. I believe Cuban-Americans, the people whoare divided from the Cuban family, are raising these issues and have invited me to be here.That is why I am here. I am here to speak out. I believe that steps should be taken that meetthe aspirations of the Cubans that are here and Cubans in Cuba. Certain steps have been takenby the U.S. government. Certain steps have also been taken by the Cuban government. I thinkthat the process is very slow, but that the process has been taken. I believe that if we couldhold the promise of ending the embargo in the near future that it would change the perspectiveof the people in Cuba and the perspective of the government of Cuba. I believe that those whohave a moral right to make suggestions to Cubans and to Americans should do so. That is whyI supported the mission of President Jimmy Carter to Cuba and therefore, I support what Haveland Walesa are recommending as well (Editor’s Note: Vaclev Havel and Lech Walesa in anopen letter in 2003 praised dissidents in Cuba and asked for the end of the U.S. embargo).

Financial Times: I would like to ask about your personal experience in transition--particularlyabout international broadcasting. As you know the U.S. spent a lot of money broadcasting tothe Soviet Union during the Cold War. Do you think that this is useful in transition or a wasteof money and time?

Gorbachev: That’s an interesting story. As you know, America broadcasts throughout theworld and has been broadcasting to Russia and continues to broadcast to our country. But Idon’t think that the United States wants to really hear from Cubans. There was a time in thepast, when the Soviet Union wanted to put up a radio station in Cuba to broadcast to the UnitedStates and the Americans were quite concerned. I do believe that the media play atremendously important role. I do believe that information is very important and it’s veryimportant that there be free information, there should be free media. But, sometimes themedia play a role that is not just informational, rather an inciting role.

There was a time, when in the Soviet Union, whenever a dissident opinion accidentally foundits way into a newspaper and discussed, this was cause for tremendous concern and there was alot of fuss and the bureau would discuss how this type of thing could happen. Now we havehundreds of thousands of media both nationally and regionally and you can read a lot of things,true or not true, but certainly it’s free. In Russia today, people listen to the voice ofAmerica—to the Dutch, French, and the BBC. Radio Liberty is an American radio stationwhich is financed by the U.S., but has a bureau in Moscow and they travel throughout Russia.I believe that without free media, it is not possible to address the challenges that we are facing.

When we started reform in the Soviet Union, as one of our first steps, we declared Glasnostand our press became free. If all the media says that the regime in Cuba is terrible, then I saythat this is wrong, that is not true because I know the real achievements of Cuba in education,medical science and technology. And I’m sure that if the embargo is lifted or even eased, thatthis will give an impetus to Cuba and the Cuban people. I am here to ask the question: why isit that so many years after the Cold War, so many years after the Berlin Wall crumbled in 1989,this wall of the embargo against Cuba is still there?

98

Cuba Trade and Investment: Mr. President, there is no wall of between Russia and Cubatoday, but there is a slump of unresolved issues; first and foremost the pending debts issues.Could you comment on why these issues are not resolved?

Gorbachev: Overall the developing countries owed the Soviet Union up to $150 billion andonly a very few of these countries have been in a position to pay those debts. This is the legacyof the Cold War. These are the kind of expenditures that were made during the Cold War.

Miami New Times: Thinking strategically, does the continuance of the embargo enhanceFidel Castro’s power?

Gorbachev: I would agree with you. Certainly, while the embargo is still there—that is anargument rather in favor of authoritarian methods. When the country is being besieged, underan embargo, any political leader is entitled to use all kinds of methods. I believe that if theembargo were lifted, the situation would be quite different and then of course, there would beno need for this Summit. Let me also add, that you should not demonize Fidel Castro. Let usnot think that the Cubans in Cuba reject what’s happened in the forty plus years because theyhave been able to achieve and accomplish a great deal. We are working together to resolve theMiddle East crisis. The parties of the Middle East, their leaders are all people who used to bemilitant fighters, they used to be combatants. By the way, they are also Nobel Peace Prizewinners.

U.S.-Cuba Policy Report: Do you believe that at this time, the Cuban government shouldadopt policies of Perestroika and Glasnost?

Gorbachev: When I came to Cuba on a state visit in 1989, the Cuban leadership at that timeand also the leadership in some other countries were concerned about what was happening inour country and particularly concerned about the results of our first free elections. But in myvery first meeting with the Cuban leaders, I told them that what we are doing we are doing forourselves. We need Perestroika for ourselves. It is for you to decide what Cuba needs. I said,“We fully trust you to make those decisions and that we have no intentions to interfere in youraffairs.” This is what I also said to all the leaders of the countries of Central and EasternEurope on my very first day in office—on the day my predecessor was buried. When theycame to Moscow on that day, I said to them we fully trust you to decide and to be responsibleto your countries—you are absolutely free to act, we will not interfere. And nowhere did weinterfere when the process of velvet revolution started in those countries—nowhere, even whenapproached, even when asked, we did not interfere. Believe me, we certainly could haveinterfered, if we had, perhaps we could have stopped that process, or have put a break on thatvelvet revolution. But of course, that could have resulted in a terrible danger for the world.

Even today, I am sometimes asked both in my country and on my trips abroad: Why did I giveaway Poland? Why did I give away Czechoslovakia or the GDR or Hungary?” My answer is,if I did, who did I give it to? Who did I give Poland, Czechoslovakia or Hungary? I think Igave those countries to the Poles, to the Czechs, and to the Hungarians, and to all those wholive in those countries and to those to whom those countries belong. Similarly, we neverintervened, never interfered, in the government of Cuba. We started at a certain point, tochange our economic relationship with Cuba, along the lines of regular commerce rather thansupplies of aid.

99

El Nuevo Herald: Do you think it’s possible for Cuba to transition from the currentgovernment to a government that is more democratic?

Gorbachev: Certainly it is possible, but not overnight—not by using some cavalier methods.It has to be a step-by-step method, not by what I call cowboy methods. We know from ourexperience from the past decade that today dozens of countries in our part of the world and inLatin American, and other parts of the world, are making that transition from an authoritarianregime to a more democratic regime, from a centralized command economy to toward a freermarket economy. We know that this is a difficult process. We have seen that this cannot bedone overnight. This is a process that will be continuing for years.

Question: Do have a message for those imprisoned in Cuba about human rights, freedom ofspeech, freedom of assembly freedom of press?

Mikhail Gorbachev: My message for both the Americans and the Cubans is that there shouldbe cooperation between the two countries and they should respect one another. Yes, I am infavor of democracy and democratic institutions and I believe in respect for the rights ofcitizens. I believe that it would be a great thing if this great country—the United States ofAmerica, the only remaining superpower, were take the first step to lift the embargo. Thatwould have far-reaching consequences—far-reaching consequences for the Cuban people. Iwould be the first to salute the liberation of America from fear of Cuba. When I say that it isup to the United States to take the first step in the right direction, let me again reiterate what Imean; lift the embargo, lift the blockade.

Question: Do you think that the exile community should have any role at all in the transitionin Cuba?

Gorbachev: I believe that the Cuban community in this country is already playing a role. Iknow that the Cuban government has recently decided to ease certain restrictions on Cubanswho live in this country—they will be able to more easily visit Cuba. I think this is a goodstep. I think that this will make it possible for the Cuban community here to play a greater rolein developing links between this country and Cuba. I believe that this will be good forbusiness, all kinds of exchanges, cultural exchanges. This holds out a very good prospect.Unfortunately, as I know, it is the government of the United States that allows its citizens tovisit Cuba only once a year. Allowing more travel would be a very positive step that wouldhelp the people.

100

INFORMATION ON NATIONAL SUMMIT ON CUBA: FLORIDA 2003

COSPONSORS

THE WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE

The World Policy Institute at New School University in New York City is a research andeducation policy center that seeks innovative solutions to critical problems facing the UnitedStates and the world. WPI has been a source of informed policy leadership for close to 40years. It is renowned for its cutting-edge analysis on managing the global market economy,constructing a workable system for collective security, and fostering civil society.

The Institute focuses broadly on the preservation of democratic values, the protection of civilrights, the advancement of tolerance, fairness, and the rule of law, and the support of acapitalism tempered by social justice. A roster of more than thirty senior fellows and programsstaff, who are among the nation's most accomplished analysts, journalists, and writers in thepublic policy field, ensures the Institute a distinctive voice in national and international affairs.

In addition to its policy research, the Institute publishes World Policy Journal, a leadingquarterly devoted to international affairs, and conducts an extensive program of lectures andother policy forums to broaden understanding of our complex geopolitical and geoeconomiclandscape.

WPI was founded in 1948 in Washington D.C. as the Association for Education in WorldGovernment. In 1952 it changed its name to the Institute for International Government. In1954 it was named the Institute for International Order which set up the World Law Fund. TheWorld Law Fund was later reconstituted in 1973 as the Institute for World Order, anindependent non-profit educational organization focusing on global affairs. In 1982, it becamethe World Policy Institute. A part of New School University since 1991, it is the university'spremier policy and research center for international affairs.

WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE: CUBA PROJECT

The Cuba Project at the Institute is at the cutting-edge of educational outreach on thedomestic and international repercussions of the unilateral U.S. embargo on Cuba. Theproject, initiated by Project Director Lissa Weinmann in 1997, examines the impact of U.S.policy on state and society in Cuba and the United States.

On Sept. 17, 2002, the World Policy Institute co-sponsored the first National Summit onCuba at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The National Summit brought togethermore than 380 national leaders and 48 speakers to explore how changes in U.S. policytoward Cuba could better serve our national interests. Bush administration representativesattended and spoke at the conference. On day two of the summit, 500 Cuban-Americansparticipated in a day-long educational effort to share their views on U.S. policy withmembers of Congress, the administration and the media in the form of a large Capitol Hillrally and press conference.

The Cuba Project was a primary source of information regarding the impact of food and medicalrestrictions on the health and wellbeing of Cubans as well as American agricultural producers.

101

The project sponsored a major Capitol Hill conference in June 2000, "The DomesticEconomic Impact of U.S. Unilateral Food and Medical Sanctions: Case Study Cuba." Morethan 120 members of Congress, staff and representatives from corporations, labor and themedia attended the conference in the Longworth House Office Building in Washington, D.C.The conference was hosted by then U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO), who was a leader inthe successful legislative effort to ease the embargo on sales of U.S. food and medicalproducts.

For that conference, the project commissioned the first study of the domestic economic impactthat lifting the food and medicine embargo would have on specific regions, states and actors inthe U.S. economy. “The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Lifting the Food and MedicalEmbargo on Cuba,” carried out by former International Trade Commission chair and respectedeconomist Dr. Paula Stern, found that allowing unrestricted sales of food and medical productsalone would bring $1.6 billion and 20,000 jobs to the U.S. economy. The study also found thatthese economic gains would primarily benefit the Gulf Coast and Mississippi Basin areas, someof the most economically depressed regions of the United States.

The study and conference provided the information and analysis that ultimately led topassage of the 2000 law that greatly liberalized the sale of U.S. foodstuffs to Cuba. The lawrepresented the first legislative victory to roll back the U.S. embargo on Cuba since it wasinstituted in 1962.

The project has developed close ties with the Cuban-American community. Research andoutreach within that community has enabled the project to carry out one of the World PolicyInstitute’s central missions: allowing the voices of all Americans to be heard when it comesto the making of foreign policy.

Working with a U.S. Department of Treasury license to travel to Cuba, The Cuba Project hasperiodically arranged fact-finding trips for a variety of organizations, corporate heads,medical professionals and local, state, and federal government officials. Newspapers andradio programs across the United States and abroad have also interviewed and quoted projectpersonnel on numerous occasions. Project staff are currently engaged in identifying the U.S.and international actors contributing to the debate on policy change toward Cuba and howCuba and the U.S. influence Latin American politics. Another project focuses on increasingexchanges between U.S. and Cuban women leaders to explore the value differences in ourrespective societies.

BIOGRAPHIES OF CUBA PROJECT STAFF

Lissa Weinmann, Project DirectorAs director of The Cuba Project at the World Policy Institute since 1997, Ms. Weinmann hasled an educational campaign on the impact of the embargo in Cuba and the U.S. Prior to herwork with Cuba, Ms. Weinmann was Vice President in charge of advising Latin Americangovernmental and private sector clients on media and public policy strategies at theAbernathy MacGregor Group in New York. She has worked as a reporter for various NewYork City newspapers and as a media and legislative staffer at the New York City Council.She is a founder and board member of Americans For Humanitarian Trade With Cuba(AHTC), the first national coalition seeking to end restrictions on sales of food and medicineto Cuba and the free travel necessary for such trade to occur. Ms. Weinmann has a MastersDegree in International Affairs from Columbia University’s School of International andPublic Affairs and a Bachelors Degree in Journalism from the Newhouse School of Publicommunications at Syracuse University. She speaks Spanish and has two wonderful children.

102

John Loggia, Assistant Project Director, Communications DirectorMr. Loggia has worked with the Cuba Project since it’s inception in 1997, researching,framing messages and designing our systems. He is primarily responsible for carrying outcommunications support, with a focus on web-site design and the Voices on Cuba video, aswell as logistical support on every phase of the Project’s work. Mr. Loggia has a BFA fromSarah Lawrence College and has produced / directed / written various films and videos. He isan accomplished musician and speaks French.

Michelle Wojcik, Assistant Project DirectorMs. Wojcik has been working with the Project since January 2001 and was the AssistantCoordinator of the first National Summit on Cuba in 2002. She has provided research oninternational investment in Cuba as well as the international human rights implications of theU.S. embargo and organized a delegation of former U.S. surgeon generals and other medicalleaders to Cuba in 2001. She has a Bachelors Degree in Sociology from Providence College,a Masters Degree from American University in Applied Anthropology and is currently aPh.D. candidate in Anthropology at New School University with a focus on Cuba.

Emily Myers, Florida National Summit InternMs. Myers has provided valuable assistance on the preparation and follow up for the FloridaNational Summit on Cuba from June through December, 2003. She is pursuing a BachelorsDegree at New York University’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study, studyingInternational Politics and Economics with a regional focus on Latin America and theCaribbean. She speaks Spanish and French.

PUENTES CUBANOS, INC.Puentes Cubanos was incorporated as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization in the State ofFlorida in June of 1999. Its mission is to improve the lives of the Cuban people and topromote knowledge, understanding, trust and reconciliation by creating links between thepeople of the United States, Cuba and the Cuban diaspora. Puentes Cubanos recognizes theneed for Cuban Americans to take an active role in this endeavor and focuses on developingprograms that are of mutual benefit to the peoples of Cuba and the United States.

Projects that have been sponsored by Puentes Cubanos since its creation in 1999:

The Young Cubans Professional Exchange, now in its fourth year of operation, continues tofoster dialogue between young Cuban American professionals and their Cuban counterparts.This Exchange is conducted in cooperation with the Center for Migratory Studies (CEMI) atthe University of Havana. The dialogue focuses on identity issues and helps to empower theyoung generation on both sides of the Florida straits. The program has helped to bring youngCubans and Cuban Americans closer together through respectful dialogue and engagement.

A medical project was set up linking The Foundation for Women’s Health of the UnitedStates with the Asociacion Nacional de Medicos de Familia de Cuba in order to establishcollaborative, women-centered, educational health care programs which would explore waysto share knowledge and approaches to primary care for women in Cuba and the U.S.,redevelop the curriculum used for women’s health education, and identify variables that mayaffect Cuban women’s perception and use of health care services. As a result of theseworkshops a gender focused symposium, the first of its kind, was sponsored in Santiago deCuba in September 2001.

103

Puentes Cubanos, in cooperation with the University of Havana and Cuba’s Bufete deAbogados Independientes, took eight American attorneys to Cuba in January of 2003 forthree-day workshops that focused on topics like Family Law, International Business Law,Immigration Law, Property Law, etc. This was the second encounter between this group andits Cuban counterpart.

Puentes Cubanos cosponsored the first theater production bringing together artists, directorsand playwrights from both sides of the Florida Straits. The production of Parece Blancaplayed to a packed audience at the Teatro Nacional in Havana last September. Thisexchange was a first step toward much-needed reconciliation between Cubans and CubanAmericans in the arts community.

Puentes Cubanos, in collaboration with the Boca Raton Museum of Art, sponsored a studytour on Cuban art in collaboration with the Ludwig Foundation and Casa de las Americas.The participants engaged in workshops at different museums and artists’ studios in Cuba. Along-term collaboration with the museum and artists in Cuba is planned.

Cuban Committee for Democracy (CCD)

The Cuban Committee for Democracy (CCD) is an organization founded in 1993 by the moderateCuban-American community in the United States.

The CCD was created to facilitate the necessary environment for a peaceful transition in Cuba to asociety that unequivocally favors political pluralism and respect for civil, social, and political rights. Indoing so, the Cuban Committee for Democracy will (1) promote and protect the sovereignty of theCuban nation, (2) encourage the reconciliation of Cuban society, and (3) promote the moderate andprogressive sector of the Cuban-American population.

The CCD focuses its work on the importance of dialogue and mutual respect, and applies theseprinciples to its work with Cuba as well as within the Cuban-American community in the United States.Working within the Cuban-American community, the CCD encourages political tolerance for all opinionswithin the community, a basic tenet that has been missing for many years.

Since the end of the Cold War, many Cuba analysts have agreed that U.S. policy towards Cuba is notdriven by international concerns, but rather by domestic ones. Those domestic concerns reflect thesuccess of conservative Cuban-Americans in mobilizing political support for an agenda that favors theisolation and punishment of the Cuban people because of their government.

For many years, there has been a general impression throughout the U.S., and especially withpolicymakers, that the Cuban-American community is a monolithic, uniformly conservative one thatopposes all change to current U.S. policy towards its homeland. While a large number of Cuban-Americans support this position, there are numerous and diverse opinions within the community.

Recognizing that U.S. policy reflects the perceived opinion of this diverse community, the CCD wasestablished to demonstrate to the Cuban-American community, to policymakers, and to Cuba that thereis growing support for a reevaluation of U.S.-Cuban relations.

104

What We Stand For

The CCD believes in the sovereignty of the Cuban nation, and works to eliminate all threats to theisland’s sovereignty. In the United States, these threats include official government positions andrhetoric from the Cuban-American community that condition our relationship with Cuba on specificgovernmental reforms. The CCD believes the Cuban people have the right to decide their future,independent of threats from other nations and communities.

The CCD believes in the reconciliation of the Cuban nation. Cubans who live on the island and Cubans wholeft Cuba must begin to forge a common agenda based on the future of Cuba rather than focus on differencesif the nation is to progress. To do so, the CCD encourages Cuban-Americans and Cubans to forgive pastwrongs, to respect political differences, and to celebrate the common links of our history and culture.

The CCD believes in promoting a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. Though the CCD will notmake proposals for this transition, as we feel that Cubans must make such decisions, we advocate for asystem that respects political, civil, and social rights. The CCD works to promote these same criteria inmaking democracy among the Cuban-American community a reality as well.

CCD's Principles

The right of any person to hold or express opinions on any subject without fear of intimidation.

• The right of every person to associate freely and peacefully with others to advance opinions on anypublic matter.

• The right of every person to equal treatment before the law without regard for race, gender, orsexual preference.

• The right of any person to worship without governmental interference.

• The right of every group to gather peacefully in public to manifest opinions on any civic matter.

• The right to resolve political conflicts through peaceful debates and democratic procedures: thatis, with respect for the will of the majority as expressed in free and secret ballots cast by legallyqualified citizens, and with safeguards for the rights of minorities.

Like many Cuban-Americans, CCD members have had to confront the issue of the U.S. economicembargo. Our position is that the goal of promoting a democratic Cuba would be better served byconstructive engagement rather than by fruitless isolation that contributes to the misery of the Cubanpeople. We strongly believe that an end to the embargo would deprive the Cuban government of ascapegoat for its many failures. Finally, we believe that relations between Cuba and the United Statesshould be based on mutual respect for the sovereignty and security of each country.

The CCD is Committed to:

• Expanding the public space for expression and discussion of alternative proposals concerningthe future of Cuban and the Cuban-Americans.

• Promoting an end to all forms of terrorism and contributing to the creation of a climate of publicopinion that categorically rejects these acts.

• Encouraging fair media coverage for all points of view as well as fair access to the media byrepresentatives of varying points of view.

• Collaborating with other organizations within and outside the Cuban-American Community tofurther our goals and principles.

105

FUNDACIÓN AMISTADFundación Amistad is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization that promotes mutual understanding andrespect between the peoples of the United States and Cuba. We achieve this mission by sponsoringand organizing educational exchanges, research projects, and community outreach initiatives in the artsand culture, the environment, and human development. Fundación Amistad performs this unique workon a collaborative basis with a variety of cultural, academic and non-governmental institutions in the U.S.and Cuba, and within the appropriate travel and operating regulations of both countries.

María de Lourdes “Luly” Duke, President and Founder

Luly, a Cuban-American, also serves as Executive Vice President of Boys Harbor, Inc., a multi-serviceeducational organization for inner city children in East Harlem, New York. In addition, she forms part ofthe Board of Directors for the Child Study Center at New York University, Americans for HumanitarianTrade with Cuba, and the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. Luly is on theAdvisory Board of Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC), and she is a member of theCouncil on Foreign Relations Cuba Task Force and the International Rescue Committee Cuba TaskForce. Luly holds a bachelor’s degree in Art History from C.W. Post College, Long Island University.

Matt Sholler, Administrative Director

Matt has broad, interdisciplinary project experience in community and regional planning in the U.S., LatinAmerica and Europe. He has provided consulting services in watershed management, transportationsystems planning and stakeholder participation to the Barcelona Development Authority, the HighwayConcessions Control Administration of Argentina, and the Chicago Transit Authority. Matt is also aReturned Peace Corps Volunteer, having served as coordinator of a Bolivian pilot program fordecentralized water resources management and municipal development. He holds a master’s degree inUrban Policy and Planning from MIT with an emphasis on International Development and RegionalPlanning, and a bachelor’s degree in Spanish Literature from the University of Michigan.

Celene Valcárcel, Project Director

Celene, a Cuban-American, has considerable experience in urban revitalization and historic preservationinitiatives in Havana. She has a bachelor’s degree in Psychology with a specialization in Education andChild Psychology, and a master’s degree in Historical Areas Management and Community Planning. Celenehas designed, directed and coordinated several projects that have improved the living conditions and vitalityof Havana’s historic center.

THE TIME IS NOW COALITION

The Time is Now Coalition had its origins in the group of organizations and individuals that put together"TheTime is Now to Reassess U.S. Policy Toward Cuba Conference" on March 28, 2002 at the BiltmoreHotel, Coral Gables, Florida. On November 25, 2002, the fifteen individuals who organized the March 28thConference entered into an agreement creating The Time is Now Coalition as a Florida unincorporatedassociation.

The Coalition is comprised of Cuban American civic leaders from the South Florida area, including manyleaders of other Cuban American organizations such as the Cuban American Defense League, US/CubaPeople for Friendship and US/Cuba Legal Forum. The Time is Now Coalition is in the process ofincorporating as a Florida Not-For-Profit corporation.

106

CAMBIO CUBANO

Cambio Cubano (Cuban Change) is a political organization that seeks change in Cuba through peacefulmeans. It was created ten years ago by its founder, Eloy Gutiérrez-Menoyo, and a group that includedmany other Cuban American leaders. The announcement of its creation was made at Washington’sNational Press Club on January 20, 1993.

During its first years the organization developed a work agenda intended to bring a process ofdemocratization to the island and molded itself as a social democratic institution with commitment andactivism on international issues such as world peace, a planet environment, women and gay rights, thefight against racism and discrimination, and an array of progressive and humanitarian efforts that spanfrom international solidarity in favor of the disenfranchise to campaigns against war, land mines and theevils of globalization.

In 1995, its founder, Mr. Gutiérrez-Menoyo, became the first and only opposition leader and formerpolitical prisoner of 22 years to be received by Cuban President Fidel Castro. In this meeting, CambioCubano asked the Cuban government for a legal space for the independent opposition. By the end ofthe year 1995, observers of the Cuban situation began to see the possibility of Cambio Cubano beingpermitted a legal space by the Cuban government. However, the downing of the planes in February ofthe following years brought a halt to negotiations that had taken place.

While being extremely critical of the Cuban government and the one party system, Cambio Cubano hasbeen equally severe in its denouncement of U.S. policy towards Cuba and has lobbied in Washingtonand around the world for change in favor of a new approach that would do away with the remnants of theCold War. For it’s courageous activity in the sometimes hostile ambiance of Miami, the organization andMr. Gutiérrez-Menoyo were recognized with the American Civil Liberties Union, Freedom of ExpressionAward. Working along with other moderate groups, however, the Miami political climate has becomeless asphyxiating. The message of openness was equally brought to Havana by several members ofCambio Cubano who have consistently and openly engaged Cuban officials, artists, intellectuals, anddissidents in a campaign for national reconciliation. Perhaps the strongest evidence of Cambio Cubano’smessage of transparency was given by Comandante Menoyo himself when he, once again, surprisedthe foreign press and participants of the Nation and Migration Conference held in Havana where he reada speech asking for liberties that have long been denied and for a general amnesty of all politicalprisoners and a call to new constitutional assembly. Even though the speech caused an uproar at theHavana event and was deemed by some Cuban officials as irritating and controversial, ceasing theopportunity to deliver it was not only a shrewd act of political timing and an act of courage in itself, butalso served to give credence and optimism to the possibility of a new chapter in Cuba’s political life.

The organization has risked its prestige by insisting and carrying the banner of the need for totalindependence of the Cuban opposition movement. Even after a recent injury that further affected Mr.Menoyo’s eyesight (the eyesight in his other eye had already been damaged during an incident whileimprisoned in Cuba), thus nearly blind, the leader of Cambio Cubano decided to move his place ofresidence from Florida to Havana. Not content with the way the talks with the Cuban government havegone in recent years, he announced his decision to stay in Cuba, to continue working for a legal spacefor Cambio Cubano and determined to seek and find, by peaceful means, new ways and alternatives toa process of democratization. Invoking the revolution that had brought faith to Cubans in 1959, and inthe spirit of the same struggle for peace, development and tranquility that the island had sought sincethe beginning, Eloy’s document on behalf of Cambio Cubano, called on all Cubans of good faith to travela conciliatory road towards a better future.

107

Americans For Humanitarian Trade With Cuba

MISSION STATEMENT

We are proud of the historic tradition of Americans meeting the needs of hungry and sickpeople wherever they are found. The cause of the suffering has never mattered,Americans are recognized – with reason – for being generous and giving. Few peoplehave stronger historic, cultural and particularly family ties to Americans than the peopleof Cuba. For humanitarian reasons alone, they deserve our support.

In this spirit, we are concerned that the unilateral embargo on providing food andmedicines to the people of Cuba – the only such embargo existing – runs counter to ourhistoric tradition. First-hand documentation by medical, religious, humanitarian andCuban-American leaders confirms that ordinary Cubans are paying a bitter price for thesevere restrictions on the sale of U.S. food and medical products.

For our country to continue to deny this one group of people the food and medicines thatare needed to sustain life achieves nothing. Forty years of the strongest embargo in ourhistory has resulted in increased misery for the people of Cuba while making no changewhatsoever in the political makeup of the Cuban government. We can no longer supporta policy carried out in our name which causes suffering of the most vulnerable – women,children and the elderly.

We call upon the President of the United States and the U.S. Congress to lift allrestrictions on the sale of agricultural products and medicines to Cuba includingrestrictions on travel to Cuba, which hinder the ability to meet with Cuban counterparts,block efforts to achieve humanitarian trade and violate Americans’ fundamental right tofreedom of movement. These changes would be totally consistent with current U.S.policy as expressed by the Department of State and spelled-out in the Cuban DemocracyAct and the Helms-Burton laws to “support the Cuban people.”

108

BIOGRAPHIES OF SPEAKERS

Holly Ackerman, Ph.D.- Amnesty International

Holly Ackerman is a faculty member and librarian at the University of Miami in Coral Gables,FL. She has written extensively on Cuban national Reconciliation, the Cuban Diaspora, post-1980 Cuban immigration and moderate politics in Cuba and the Cuban exile. She is currentlycompleting an annotated bibliography on Moderate Politics in Cuba: 1952-1965. Since 1965,Dr. Ackerman has been an advocate both for domestic and international social justice workingfor improved prison conditions, children's rights and human rights.

Robert Bach, Ph.D.- former INS Official and Inter-American Dialogue

Dr. Robert Bach is currently a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, thepremier Washington-based think tank focusing on U.S.-Latin American relations, and aResearch Professor at the School for International Service, American University, Washington,D.C. He is also working with the Global Equity Initiative, of the John F. Kennedy School ofGovernment, Harvard University.

From 2000 to 2002, Dr. Bach was Director of the Global Inclusion Division of the RockefellerFoundation, where he focused on poverty and social exclusion in transnational and globalissues, including migration, trade, intellectual property rights, international labor, anddemocratic participation. He helped develop the Foundation’s new North Americantransnational initiative. He also served as Deputy Director of the Foundation’s WorkingCommunities Division.

From 1994 to 2000, Dr. Bach served in the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the U.S.Department of Justice as Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning andPrograms. He worked extensively on border and international issues, especially with Mexico,Canada, and the Caribbean including work along the borders to facilitate economicdevelopment while increasing security. He is currently writing a book on these experiencesand their lessons for future North American integration.

Dr. Bach’s scholarship concentrates on employment, immigration and public policy bothinside the United States and around the world. He has published widely on Mexican andCaribbean migration, refugees, and labor policies, and has conducted fieldwork throughoutNorth American, Cuba, China and Vietnam. Bach was a professor at the State University ofNew York at Binghamton, earned his doctorate from Duke University, and graduated summacum laude from the University of Pennsylvania.

Cynthia C. Barrera - University of Miami

Born in Cienfuegos, Cuba in 1973. Cynthia attended the University of Havana and received herMaster's degree in Urban Studies from the Colegio de Mexico (COLMEX). She is the recipientof the Heinrich Bell, North-South Dante Fascell and several University of Miami Scholarships.She is currently a PhD candidate in International Studies at the University of Miami. Herresearch centers around Latin American migratory and political issues. In the past year, Barrerahas been a producer for America Te Ve Channel 41's Spanish-language news analysis shows"Maria Elvira Confronta" and "A Mano Limpia." In addition, she is the host of Transición, apopular radio program in Miami sponsored by the Cuban Committee for Democracy.

109

Bradley D. Belt - Association of Travel-Related Industry Professionals (ATRIP)

Mr. Belt serves as executive director of the Association of Travel-Related IndustryProfessionals (ATRIP), a trade group committed to protecting the right of all Americans tofree, safe, and secure travel. He also is President the Washington Capital Group, Inc., aconsulting firm to corporations, financial institutions, and non-profit organizations on policymatters and business strategy.

Mr. Belt has had a distinguished career in both the public and private sectors. His priorprivate sector roles include serving as a member of the executive management team ofFOLIOfn, a financial services and technology company that was named by Red Herring as oneof the 50 private companies “most likely to change the world,” and Managing Director of TheCommonwealth Group, a government relations consulting firm. Mr. Belt also has held anumber of senior government posts with the U.S. Congress and the Securities and ExchangeCommission (SEC). Mr. Belt also served as Senior Vice President for Policy at the Center forStrategic and International Studies (CSIS), a prominent Washington-based think tank wherehe was responsible for program management, policy planning, and corporate development.

While at CSIS, Mr. Belt oversaw the International Finance and Economic Policy program,working closely with international financial leaders to develop private-public partnerships toaddress a broad range of business initiatives and policy matters. He also served as executivedirector of the National Commission on Retirement Policy (co-chaired by Senators Gregg andBreaux and Reps. Kolbe and Stenholm).

He remains as a Senior Adviser to CSIS, serves on the boards of directors of Neptune.com andadvisory board of Human Resource Services, Inc., is vice-chairman of the American BarAssociation’s SEC subcommittee, and recently was nominated by President Bush to serve onthe Social Security Advisory Board.

He has written and lectured extensively on financial services and national policy issues, andhas appeared as a commentator on CSPAN, CNBC, and CNNfn. Recipient of an EisenhowerFellowship, Mr. Belt completed the senior executive fellows program at the Kennedy Schoolof Government at Harvard University, received his law degree from the GeorgetownUniversity Law Center, and obtained his undergraduate degree in business administrationfrom the University of Nebraska. Mr. Belt is a member of the New York State, District ofColumbia, and U.S. Supreme Court bars.

Representative Annie Betancourt - Former Florida State Representative

Former member of the Florida House of Representatives (1994-2002) and Democraticnominee for Florida’s 25th Congressional District, Ms. Betancourt epitomizes the consummatechange agent. Her astute strategic planning skills, leadership talent and consensus-buildingsavvy have enabled her to transfer her experience across diverse political, social, cultural andeconomic lines.

She has been both a catalyst and a strong voice for education reform, economic developmentand environmental protection. Her years in the Florida Legislature were highly productivewhere she championed laws that foster job opportunities and economic development,promoted changes that facilitate access to higher education through scholarships and foughtpublic corruption in several fronts along with law enforcement agencies.

110

Last year, as the Democratic nominee for the new 25th Congressional District in Florida, Anniewas not afraid to address thorny issues that have far reaching impact at the national andinternational level, including a revision to current U.S. policy on Cuba.

Ms. Betancourt is a graduate of the University of Miami, and attended the Senior Executive Programin State and Local Government at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. On a personal note,Ms. Betancourt is a widow and breast cancer survivor who enjoys risk taking and outdoor activities.

Peter G. Bourne, M.D.- Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC)

Peter Bourne is currently a Visiting Scholar at Green College, Oxford, England, and ViceChancellor Emeritus of St. George’s University, Grenada, West Indies. He is also chairman ofMedical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC), a program which, over the last fiveyears, has sent more than 500 medical and public health students from over 100 U.S.universities to Cuba for electives. It has also sent a number of residents in pediatrics, familypractice, and emergency medicine to Cuba for the same purpose.

Peter Bourne was special assistant to the President for health issues in the Carter White House.Subsequently he served as an Assistant Secretary General at the United Nations. As chairman ofthe American Association for World Health, he directed, in the mid-1990s, a foundation-supported study entitled “Denial of Food and Medicine: The Effect of the U.S. Embargo onHealth and Nutrition in Cuba.” The study drew worldwide attention, being translated into severallanguages, and was the catalyst for subsequent legislation in this area in the U.S. Congress andthe creation of such organizations as Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba.

Dr. Bourne, who has an M.D. from Emory University and an M.A. in anthropology fromStanford, has published more than 100 papers and is the author of widely recognizedbiographies on Fidel Castro and Jimmy Carter. At present he is working on a book dealingwith the Cuban health system and its global impact as a model for developing nations as wellas a documentary film on the same topic.

Karl Buck, Ph.D.- European Union Council of Ministers

Dr. Karl Buck, Head of Division for Latin America, EU Council of Ministers. German,Studied Political Science and Languages in Tuebingen (Germany), Lyon (France), Santiago deChile, post-graduate studies 1970-71 at the University of Florida, Gainesville; Dr.rer.soc. 1973"The Socialist Party of Chile"; Assistant Prof. in Political Science, Univ. of Tuebingen 1973-78; since 1978 European official at the General Secretariat of the EU Council of Ministers(relations with the European Parliament 1978- 84,Budget 1984-87, Mediterranean countries1987-91,Latin America 1991-99, ACP 1999-2002, since 2002 HoD Latin America andCaribbean); various publications on development aspects, the accession of Greece to the EC,Eurocommunism, European institutions and political parties,

President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.), thirty-ninth president of the United States, was bornOctober 1, 1924, in the small farming town of Plains, Georgia, and grew up in the nearbycommunity of Archery. His father, James Earl Carter, Sr., was a farmer and businessman; hismother, Lillian Gordy, a registered nurse.

He was educated in the Plains public schools, attended Georgia Southwestern College and theGeorgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval

111

Academy in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic andPacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for thenuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, N.Y., where he took graduatework at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officerof the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf.

On July 7, 1946, he married Rosalynn Smith. When his father died in 1953, he resigned hisnaval commission and took his family back to Plains. He took over the Carter farms, and heand Rosalynn operated Carter's Warehouse, a general-purpose seed and farm supply company.He quickly became a leader of the community, serving on county boards supervisingeducation, the hospital authority, and the library. In 1962 he won election to the GeorgiaSenate. He lost his first gubernatorial campaign in 1966,but won the next election, becoming Georgia's 76th governor on January 12, 1971. He wasthe Democratic National Committee campaign chairman for the 1974 congressional elections.On December 12, 1974, he announced his candidacy for president of the United States. Hewon his party's nomination on the first ballot at the 1976 Democratic National Convention,and was elected president on November 2, 1976.

Jimmy Carter served as president from January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981. Significant foreignpolicy accomplishments of his administration included the Panama Canal treaties, the CampDavid Accords, the treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II treaty with the SovietUnion, and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China.He championed human rights throughout the world. On the domestic side, the administration'sachievements included a comprehensive energy program conducted by a new Department ofEnergy; deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and finance; major educationalprograms under a new Department of Education; and major environmental protection legislation,including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Mr. Carter is the author of fifteen books, many of which are now in revised editions: Why Notthe Best?, 1975, 1996; A Government as Good as Its People, 1977, 1996; Keeping Faith:Memoirs of a President, 1982, 1995; Negotiation: The Alternative to Hostility, 1984; TheBlood of Abraham, 1985, 1993; Everything to Gain: Making the Most of the Rest of YourLife, written with Rosalynn Carter, 1987, 1995; An Outdoor Journal, 1988, 1994; TurningPoint: A Candidate, a State, and a Nation Come of Age, 1992, Talking Peace: A Vision forthe Next Generation, 1993, 1995; Always a Reckoning, 1995; The Little Baby Snoogle-Fleejer, illustrated by Amy Carter, 1995; Living Faith, 1996; Sources of Strength:Meditations on Scripture for a Living Faith, 1997; The Virtues of Aging, 1998; and An Hourbefore Daylight: Memoirs of a Rural Boyhood, 2001.

In 1982, he became University Distinguished Professor at Emory University in Atlanta,Georgia, and founded The Carter Center. Actively guided by President Carter, the nonpartisanand nonprofit Center addresses national and international issues of public policy. CarterCenter fellows, associates, and staff join with President Carter in efforts to resolve conflict,promote democracy, protect human rights, and prevent disease and other afflictions. Throughthe Global 2000 program, the Center advances agriculture in the developing world.

Elizabeth Cerejido - Florida International University Art Museum

Elizabeth Cerejido was born in Cuba in 1969 and raised in Miami, FL. since 1970. Upongraduating from junior college, Elizabeth immersed herself in photography – developing herown artistic vocabulary while initially also working for commercial agencies and publications.

112

She has exhibited in New York at the Throckmorton Gallery and is represented in Chicago bySchneider Gallery. In addition, she has had numerous national and international solo andgroup exhibitions which include Galeria Pancho Fierro en la Municipalidad MetropolitanaCentro Cultural, Lima, Peru, Bologne Art Fair, Italy, Lehigh University Art Galleries,Bethlehem, PA., Museum of Art, Fort Lauderdale, FL., among others. In 2000, Elizabeth wasa recipient of the Florida Consortium for Visual and Media Artists Fellowship.

She is currently assistant curator at The Art Museum at Florida International University andhas worked as an independent curator for the Centro Cultural Español where she organized theexhibition titled The Parallax Effect featuring the work of 6 photographers of Cuban heritage– living and working on either side of the Florida Straits.

Elizabeth’s current work also includes photographs that are at times combined with video andSuper 8mm film loops. Untitled (Today My Father Dropped His Body) is a personal responseto the passing of her father in 2001. The photographic images that accompany the video arerelated to Elizabeth’s absorption by her mother’s life. Presently she continues to develop abody of work titled Absence – combining color photographs, text and video projections, whichcontinue to be informed by personal experiences involving her mother’s Alzheimer’scondition. That experience has made her revisit her own sense of identity - both personally,and in a larger sense culturally - and view familiar people and places with a renewedsensibility.

U.S. Representative William D. Delahunt - (D-MA, 10th District)

William D. Delahunt represents the Tenth Congressional District of Massachusetts -- whichincludes Cape Cod, the Islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, and Boston's SouthShore, from Quincy to Plymouth.

Rep. Delahunt came to Congress in 1996 with a distinguished career in public service and lawenforcement, and as a pioneer in combating the crimes of domestic violence and sexualassault. He has since been reelected twice with more than 70 percent of the vote.

Congressman Delahunt serves on two House committees, each with important ties toMassachusetts. On the International Relations Committee, Mr. Delahunt draws on his longinterest in international trade and human rights, global fisheries and overseas businessopportunities. Delahunt serves on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, where he hasbecome a leading advocate for promoting democracy and the rule of law in Latin America;and on the Europe Subcommittee, which has focused on the evolving relationship between theUnited States and the European Union.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Delahunt brings two decades ofexperience as a District Attorney -- and lifelong commitment to safeguarding civil rights -- tothe federal arena. As District Attorney, he established the first prosecutorial unit on domesticviolence in the United States. He also pioneered work in the area of violence against women,launching programs that became models for prosecutors nationally and abroad.

Mr. Delahunt now serves on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, whichshepherds a wide range of new technologies, from the Internet to marine-biotech -- areas of

Elizabeth ‘s artistic work initially began as portraiture. She also developed a black and white serieson the body titled Escucho (I Listen) and in 2000 began an ongoing series, The Persistent Image,working with the idea of the multiplicity of the photographic image, as opposed to a single, fixed

113

enormous commercial potential. The Subcommittee oversees the federal court system, aswell as patent, copyright and trademark law. In addition, Representative Delahunt serves onthe Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, to which he brings first-hand knowledge of lawenforcement.

Rep. Delahunt co-chairs the bipartisan Coast Guard Caucus, and also co-chairs the HouseOlder Americans Caucus. He also serves on the Democratic Steering Committee, whichmakes appointments to House committees.

As former Assistant Majority Leader of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Mr.Delahunt sponsored the first Civil Rights Act in the Commonwealth. He represented the Cityof Quincy in the State House from 1973 to 1975, when he became District Attorney. In 1971,Mr. Delahunt was elected to the Quincy City Council. During the preceding two years, heserved as Assistant Clerk of the Norfolk Superior Court, and as Legal Counsel to the QuincyPolice Department. He was in private practice from 1971 to 1975.

A 1963 graduate of Middlebury College in Vermont, Mr. Delahunt later went on to earn alaw degree from Boston College in 1967. He served from 1963 to 1971 in the Coast GuardReserves.

The Congressman is the son of the late Ruth and Bill Delahunt Sr., a sales manager. He is alifelong resident of Quincy, and the exceedingly proud father of Kirstin and Kara.

Mayor Michael Dow - Mobile, AL

Mayor Dow is a three-tour Vietnam veteran having served as a helicopter door gunner in the173rd Airborne Brigade from 1966-1968. He is a recipient of the GI Bill and a graduate of theUniversity of South Alabama with a BS degree in Economics and a Master's Degree inBusiness Administration and Accounting. Prior to his election, Mayor Dow was a co-founder,director and senior vice-president of sales and marketing for QMS, Inc., a 1977 high-tech,start-up electronics manufacturing company listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1985and purchased by Minolta, Inc. in 1999.

Dow, first elected to office in 1989, has served as Mobile's mayor for over a decade and wasrecently elected to serve a fourth four-year term. His major accomplishments to date includeorganizing and implementing a successful downtown revitalization and tourism effort referredto as "The String of Pearls," upgrading and modernizing the City's technology, businessmanagement and training systems, and implementing total quality management and in-housestrategic planning functions in City government. His administrations have reorganizedstreamlined and strengthened City departments and operations making them stronger, moreresponsive and customer-service oriented.

Under Dow’s administration, the City has greatly expanded in the areas of sports, recreation,entertainment, arts and culture, to include new and renovated stadiums, recreation centers andparks. During the past decade, the City has recruited the GMAC-sponsored NCAA bowlgame and the following Mobile teams BayBears AA baseball, Mysticks ice hockey, RevelersNDBL basketball and Wizards indoor football. The City has also created a 50-court tennistournament site, a Robert Trent Jones 54-hole golf course, a fishing tournament infrastructureand many other quality venues.

114

Mayor Dow actively participates and contributes to the area's economic development efforts toattract foreign and domestic investment and to create jobs in the Mobile area. He serves as amember of the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce and serves on the State of AlabamaCommerce Commission as chairman of its Subcommittee on Trade. He also serves as amember of the Alabama State Port Authority, the Alabama World Trade Association andnumerous other state and local boards.Mayor Dow is married to the former Patsy Busby andthey have three children: Shawn, Steele and Anna. Mobile, Alabama and Havana, Cuba havemaintained a Sister City relationship since 1993.

María de Lourdes “Luly” Duke - Fundación Amistad

Luly, a Cuban-American, is President and Founder of Fundación Amistad. She also serves asExecutive Vice President of Boys Harbor, Inc., a multi-service educational organization forinner city children in East Harlem, New York. In addition, she forms part of the Board ofDirectors for the Child Study Center at New York University, Americans for HumanitarianTrade with Cuba, and the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. Luly ison the Advisory Board of Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC), and she is amember of the Council on Foreign Relations Cuba Task Force and the International RescueCommittee Cuba Task Force. Luly holds a bachelor’s degree in Art History from C.W. PostCollege, Long Island University.

Alfredo G. Duran - Cuban Committee for Democracy

Alfredo G. Duran is a lawyer practicing law in Miami, Florida. Mr. Duran has a long standingrecord of participation in Democratic party politics including chairmanship of the FloridaDemocratic Party, 1976-1980 and membership in various DNC party committees andcommissions. He has also served as member of the Dade County School Board, chairman ofthe Community Relations Board, member of the Board of Directors of Mercy HospitalFoundation, Inc., NAFTA and Beyond Commission and other civic and communityorganizations. He is a former member of the Bay of Pigs Invasion; a prisoner of war in Cubafor 18 months; former president of the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association and is presentlysecretary of the Cuban Committee for Democracy (CCD).

James Counts Early - Director Cultural Heritage Policy Smithsonian InstitutionCenter for Folklife and Cultural Heritage

A long-time advocate and supporter of cultural diversity and equity issues in the nation'spublic cultural and educational institutions and cultural democracy in global affairs, JamesEarly is the Director of Cultural Heritage Policy at the Center for Folklife and CulturalHeritage at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Since 1984, Mr. Early has served inmany positions at the Smithsonian Institution including Assistant Provost for Educational andCultural Programs and Assistant Secretary for Education and Public Service. Over the courseof a nearly 30-year professional career, Mr. Early has consistently recognized the integrity ofhistorically evolved values and cultures of African-American, Latino, Native American, andAsian-Pacific American communities, and investigated and participated in mediated culturalencounters which inform national and global policies.

Mark Entwistle - Former Canadian Ambassador to Cuba

Mark Entwistle was Ambassador of Canada to Cuba for four years from 1993 to 1997 and iscurrently finishing a major book on Cuba for Penquin Books. He is Director of several

115

Canadian and British companies with interests in Cuba, advises others and travels to the islandfrequently.

Mark Entwistle guided all elements of the delicate relationship with Fidel Castro's Cuba underthe vigilant eye of the United States, including political, commercial and security relations. Henegotiated an action plan for the bilateral relationship that put human rights, transparentgovernment and law reform on the agenda for the first time, and was the architect of adynamic trade development strategy. Canada's trade with Cuba increased markedly, doublingyear-over-year for two years in a row and, during his tenure, Canada became Cuba's largesttrade and investment partner.

In a 1997 book on the Canada-Cuba relationship, Mr. Entwistle's tenure as Ambassador isdescribed in the following words: "Of particular importance is Mark Entwistle ...A tireless andextremely talented negotiator, he is undoubtedly the most dynamic and successfulAmbassador to Cuba during the revolutionary period."

After sixteen years in the professional Canadian diplomatic service, he is now Vice-President,International and Government Affairs with ExecAdvice Corporation (www.execadvice.ca)and special counsel on international trade to Murphy, Frazer & Selfridge in Washington, D.C.(www.murphyfrazer.com).

Patricia Gutiérrez-Menoyo - Cambio Cubano

Patricia Gutiérrez-Menoyo was thrown into the political arena at the very early age of 15when she joined an international campaign on behalf of her father Eloy Gutiérrez-Menoyowho was at the time a political prisoner in Cuban jails.

Born in Miami, Florida, on September 6, 1962, she gained prominence in 1994 when she,along with her husband, Sergio Sanjenís, met privately with President Fidel Castro whilepresiding Cambio Cubano’s (Cuban Change) delegation during the First Cuban and theMigration Conference held in Havana.

Ms. Gutiérrez-Menoyo studied Business Administration at the Univerisity of Puerto Rico andlater went on to study Hotel Administration at Cornell. Upon completing her studies she heldmanagement positions at various hotels in Puerto Rico and later entered the book publishingbusiness. In 1990 she became owner/president of Editorial Plaza Mayor, a leading bookpublishing company in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

She is a founding member of Cambio Cubano and occupies a seat on the organization’s Boardof Directors. During her various trips to Cuba she has obtained a space for he opposing views,according to her “through frankness, total transparency, independence and respect.” Patricialives in San Juan with her husband of 17 years and her two children, Fernando (age 13 ) andManuel (age 10 ). Her most recent encounter with Cuban officials took place in New York lastSaturday when she met with Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Felipe Pérez Roque.

Alvaro F. Fernández - Southwest Voter Registration Education Project

Alvaro Fernández is the Florida director of the Southwest Voter Registration EducationProject. Since 2000 he has instituted the Latino Vote Project in the state, which has includedget out the vote efforts in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach Counties and areas of CentralFlorida. Fernández was also involved in the most recent redistricting efforts in severalcounties in Florida. These were followed by voter registration drives and GOTV campaigns

116

for a number of crucial local races as part of the Latino Vote 2001 and 2002 Projects. AsSVREP director, he also appeared as plaintiff in several lawsuits against the state of Floridaand Miami-Dade County in search of better future political possibilities for many of the newminority communities throughout Florida.

Fernández was also president and founder of Citizens’ Accountability Network (CAN): a non-profit organization with a government reform agenda, which dealt with voter apathy andaccountability in local South Florida governments. Since 1998 he has espoused several reformplatforms that have now been adopted or are being debated in the City of Miami Beach andMiami-Dade County. A community activist, he served as volunteer director of Miami BeachSecond Thursdays, a monthly celebration of the arts he founded as former vice chair of theCity of Miami Beach Cultural Arts Council. During that period he was instrumental in thesuccessful fight to eliminate a non-constitutional law that prohibited Cuban musical groupsand artists from appearing in county-owned venues. Through his efforts, the Council becamethe first public organization to condemn – with a unanimous vote – the Miami-Dadeordinance. Months later it was removed from the books.

His experience with how local government works is extensive. Not only is he a criticalobserver, but he also served as key advisor and assistant to Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinezduring the 1980s. At that time the city grew to become the fifth largest in Florida and one ofthe most important industrial areas in the state. In the year 2000, he ran an unsuccessfulcampaign for Miami-Dade County Commissioner.

He is a graduate of the University of Florida with a degree in Journalism. During the secondhalf of the decade of the ‘70s he served as reporter and then managing editor of a small daily,The Miami Beach Sun Reporter. He has written many freelance articles on a host of issues andis also editor and columnist for Progreso Weekly, a weekly bilingual Internet magazine.

U.S. Representative Jeff Flake - (R-AZ, 6th District)

Jeff Flake, presently serving his second term in Congress, represents the SixthCongressional District of Arizona. This district includes parts of Mesa and Chandlerand all of Gilbert, Queen Creek, and Apache Junction. Jeff serves on threecommittees in the House of Representatives: the Committee on the Judiciary,including the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee and theImmigration, Claims, and Border Security subcommittee; the Committee onInternational Relations, including the Asia and the Pacific subcommittee and theAfrica subcommittee; and the Committee on Resources, including the Forest andForest Health Subcommittee.

Since taking office, Jeff has been active on a number of issues. One of his toppriorities has been tax relief. Consequently, several of his first pieces of legislationwere efforts to maximize President Bush's tax relief in 2001. His next challenge willbe working to decrease taxes on dividends and capital gains in order to spurinvestment and fuel economic growth.

Just as he did in Arizona, Jeff has continued in Washington to work for local control,choice, and competition in education. His very first piece of legislation introduced inthe House of Representatives was designed to ensure that the federal government doesnot discriminate against innovative educational programs like those at the Thomas J.

117

Pappas School for the Homeless in Phoenix. Jeff also introduced legislation to givestates more freedom to replace failed bilingual education programs with innovativealternatives. Both of these important measures were adopted as part of PresidentBush's education plan and are now law.

Jeff has also been one of Congress’s most outspoken advocates of free trade. In fact, areport conducted by the Cato Institute found that no other Member of the House ofRepresentatives voted more consistently against trade barriers and trade subsidies than Jeff.

Through his position on the Judiciary and International Relations Committees, Jeff hasbeen working to find solutions to Arizona's ongoing problems with illegalimmigration. Jeff has been one of the House's most outspoken advocates of atemporary worker program and will work during his term to establish such a program.

Jeff has also introduced commonsense legislation to reduce the threat of devastatingwildfires, such as the Rodeo-Chediski fire that burned 469,000 acres in the WhiteMountains.

Jeff is a fifth-generation Arizonan, born and raised on a ranch in Snowflake, Arizona(the town was named, in part, after Jeff's great-great grandfather). After serving aMormon mission in southern Africa, Jeff graduated from Brigham Young University,where he received a B.A. in International Relations and an M.A. in Political Science.More importantly, was at BYU that Jeff met his wife, Cheryl. In 1992, Jeff and hisfamily moved back to Arizona where he was named Executive Director of theGoldwater Institute. In this role, Jeff worked to promote a conservative philosophy ofless government, more freedom, and individual responsibility. Jeff and Cheryl havebeen married 17 years and live in Mesa with their five children.

Pat Frank - Hillsborough County Commissioner

Pat Frank’s long career in public service began in 1972 with her election to the School Board.In 1976, she was elected to the Florida House of Representatives, and was a State Senatorfrom 1978 to 1988. She was the first woman admitted to the Georgetown University Schoolof Law, and has a degree in finance and taxation from the University of Florida. Elected to theBOCC in 1998, she is serving her third term as chairman.

She also serves on the Arts Council of Hillsborough County, the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization, the Port Authority and the Tampa Bay Convention & Visitors Bureau.

President Mikhail Gorbachev - Nobel Peace Prize-Winner

Mikhail Gorbachev served as leader of the Soviet Union from 1985-1991. He is world-renowned and admired for streamlining and decentralizing the oppressive system he inherited.In an effort to secure relations with the West, Gorbachev signed two broad disarmament pacts,and ended Communist rule in Eastern Europe. He taught the world two new words:Perestroika (governmental restructuring) and Glasnost (political openness). As a result of hisextraordinary achievements, Gorbachev was the recipient of the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize, theOrders of Lenin, the Red Banner of Labor, and the Badge of Honor.

118

In 1992, Gorbachev became President of the Gorbachev Foundation, known as theInternational Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies. The GorbachevFoundation is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation. Its purpose is to articulateand address the challenges of the post Cold War world, through the revisioning of globalpriorities.

In 1993, Gorbachev founded the environmental organization, Green Cross International. Thisis a non-governmental group with chapters in the United States, Russia, The Netherlands,Japan, and Switzerland. Green Cross International is a three-pronged program with a missionto clean up military toxins, assist in the creation of global ecological law, and foster a valueshift on the environment.

After graduating from Moscow State University with a law degree, Gorbachev joined theCommunist Party of the Soviet Union in 1952, and acted as First Secretary for the StavropolKomsomol City Committee from 1955 to 1958. He then gained reputation and experience inStavropol politics. In 1971, he was elected as a member to the Central Committee, CommunistParty (CCCP) of the Soviet Union. From 1978 to 1985, he served as Secretary for the CCCPwith the responsibility for areas involving agriculture. Gorbachev also served as Deputy of theSupreme Soviet from 1970 to 1990, and acted as Chairman for the Foreign Affairs Committeeof the Soviet Union from 1984 to 1985. From 1985 to 1990, he was President of the Presidiumof the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

Donna Hicks, Ph.D.-Harvard University

Dr. Donna Hicks is an Associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, HarvardUniversity where she chairs the Seminar on International Conflict Analysis and Resolutionand conducts her research and practice in advancing the understanding of international andinterethnic conflict. Dr. Hicks has been involved in numerous unofficial diplomatic conflictresolution efforts including projects in the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Colombia and Cuba. Herresearch interests are focused on the "human dimension" of conflict, examining the effects ofviolent conflict on human development and designing ways to restore human dignity toconflict ravaged relationships. In addition to teaching conflict resolution at Harvard and ClarkUniversities, Dr. Hicks conducts educational and training seminar in the U.S. and abroad.

José Latour- Paradise Entertainment Group

José Latour is an A/V Rated immigration attorney, journalist and commentator whose website,www.usvisanews.com, was named "One of America's Top Ten Internet/Virtual Companies"by Inc. Magazine and Cisco Systems in the 1999 Growing With Technology Awards and oneof fifteen Inc. Web Award Winners for 2002.

Mr. Latour, a former U.S. State Department Officer who served in Consular andAdministrative capacities in Mexico and Africa, is a frequent writer and speaker for theAmerican Immigration Lawyers Association and a media source for commentary on mattersof immigration law, policy, and international affairs. www.usvisanews.com is the mostvisited immigration-topic website on the World Wide Web. In addition to his legalcommentary, Mr. Latour writes for aviation, travel, and music-related publications andwebzines.

In addition to his legal background, Mr. Latour is an accomplished singer and songwriter withCD's released by Polygram Latin, Sony Discos, and his own Paradise Records label. His

119

production company, Paradise Entertainment Group, is engaged in the production of televisionprogramming for both U.S. and export markets. He is a private pilot who resides in theFlorida Keys, where he writes and records at his home-based recording studio.

William M. LeoGrande, Ph.D.- American University

Dr. William M. LeoGrande is Acting Dean and Professor of Government in the School ofPublic Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C., where he has been on the facultysince 1978. He also served as Acting Dean of the school from 1997 to 1999, Chair of theGovernment Department from 1992 to 1996, and Director of the Political Science programfrom 1980 to 1982. From 1976 to 1978 he was Assistant Professor of Government at Hamiltonand Kirkland Colleges in Clinton, New York.

Professor LeoGrande received his A.B. (1971) and M.A. (1973) degrees in Psychology andPolitical Science from Syracuse University in Syracuse, New York. He received his Ph.D. inPolitical Science with Certificate in Latin American Studies from the Maxwell School atSyracuse University in 1976.

In 1982-1983, Dr. LeoGrande was an International Affairs Fellow of the Council on ForeignRelations in New York, and worked with the Democratic Policy Committee of the UnitedStates Senate. In 1985-1986, he served on the staff of the Democratic Caucus Task Force onCentral America of the United States House of Representatives. He has also been a consultantto a variety of Congressional committees, Executive branch agencies, and private foundations.In 1994-1995, Dr. LeoGrande was a Pew Faculty Fellow in International Affairs.

Professor LeoGrande has written widely in the field of Latin American politics and UnitedStates foreign policy, with a particular emphasis on Central America and Cuba. He is theauthor of Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992 (Universityof North Carolina, 1998) and Cuba's Policy in Africa (University of California, 1980). He isco-author of Confronting Revolution: Security Through Diplomacy in Central America(Pantheon, 1986), and co-editor of The Cuba Reader: The Making of a Revolutionary Society(Grove, 1988) and Political Parties and Democracy in Central America (Westview, 1992).His articles have appeared in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Latin American ResearchReview, American Political Science Review, The New Republic, New York Times, WashingtonPost, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and other journals and newspapers. He is a memberof the American Political Science Association, the Latin American Studies Association, andthe Council on Foreign Relations.

Ken Lindeman, PhD - Environmental Defense

Dr. Ken Lindeman, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Oceans Program, has publishedover 30 applied journal articles and book chapters on coastal resource management in thenorthern Caribbean since 1985. He has worked in Cuba since 1995 and eight publicationsinvolve Cuban coastal resources. These include the award-winning Smithsonian InstitutionPress book, Ecology of the Marine Fishes of Cuba, and the first comprehensive inventory ofCaribbean marine reserves. He has consulted for FAO, NOAA, National Geographic, andmany private interests. He serves on primary regional advisory bodies, currently including theWorld Commission for Protected Areas – Caribbean, National Center for Caribbean CoralReef Research, Habitat Panels of both the Caribbean and South Atlantic Fishery ManagementCouncils, and the 55-yr old Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute.

120

J. Kenneth Lipner, Ph.D.- Florida International University

As a semi-native Floridian, Kenneth Lipner, born and raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,came to Florida in the early 1960’s and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree inBusiness Administration from Florida State University. After a brief stint with theDepartment of Defense, Ken Lipner obtained an M.B.A. degree from the University ofMemphis. Professor Lipner taught at Le Moyne – Owen College in Memphis, Tennessee; andin Europe and Asia with the University of Maryland and with the University of Nevada, LasVegas.

Prior to coming to Miami, Kenneth Lipner obtained a Masters degree in City and RegionalPlanning from Rutgers University, where he obtained his Ph.D. with his emphasis being inurban economics.

Dr. Lipner was recruited from New York City’s Human Resources Administration to becomethe Dade County Model Cities Program’s Chief Planner for Economic Development andEmployment. He went on to hold similar positions with Metropolitan Dade County beforebecoming Economic Development Coordinator for Miami’s Downtown DevelopmentAuthority and was actively involved in assisting in developing many of the projects that cameto fruition downtown.

Dr. Lipner then joined the Department of Economics at Florida International University wherehe is a tenured member of the faculty. In addition to writing and lecturing about International,Urban, Labor and Human Resources Economics, Professor Lipner has a strong researchinterest in international trade and has visited over one hundred countries worldwide. As forrecreation, Ken Lipner is a lifelong avid baseball fan and has attended games in forty-threedifferent major league stadiums nationwide.

Joe McClash - Manatee County Commissioner

Joe McClash is presently serving his fourth term as a Manatee County Commissioner. He waselected in 1990 as the first Countywide Commissioner.Commissioner McClash is the past Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners,Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization,West Coast Inland Navigation Districtand Environmental Action Commission.

He currently serves as Chairman of the Port Authority; Chairman of the Tourist DevelopmentCouncil, Treasurer for the West Coast Inland Navigation District and Vice Chairman of theSarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization. He also serves on the Tampa BayNational Estuary Program and Joint Planning Committee.

Born in Astoria, New York, Commissioner McClash moved to Manatee County in 1969 and isa graduate of Manatee High School. He was honorably discharged after serving four years inthe United States Marine Corp.

He and his wife Casey have 2 children.He was past owner of McClash Heating and Cooling, acompany he purchased from his father in 1982 and managed until 2002.He is a licensed solarcontractor and an air conditioning contractor.He is a member of the Bradenton Kiwanis Cluband has coached youth soccer and baseball. When he has spare time you can see him enjoyinghis favorite hobbies, sailing along the tranquil waters of Tampa Bay or flying.

121

John McAuliff – Fund For Reconciliation and Development

John McAuliff is the executive director of the Fund for Reconciliation & Development, a non-profit educational organization based in New York. He is a widely acknowledged expert onVietnam, Cambodia and Laos, and on the history of U.S. relations there. McAuliff foundedthe Fund’s U.S.-Indochina Reconciliation Project (USIRP) in Philadelphia in 1985 to improveunderstanding and foster people-to-people exchange between the U.S. and Indochina. He alsocoordinates the Forum on Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, an informal network of aid anddevelopment non-governmental organizations ("NGOs"), universities, foundations andcorporate philanthropies with interest in the region. The Forum has held ten internationalconferences on Indochina development, most recently in Vientiane.

Shelley A. McConnell- The Carter Center

Dr. Shelley A. McConnell is currently the Associate Director of the Americas Program (AP)at The Carter Center in Atlanta, GA, an action-oriented, interdisciplinary, non-profit institutechaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. She tracks issues in inter-American relations,and plans and implements conflict resolution, anti-corruption and democratization projects incoordination with an affiliated 32 member Council of current and former heads of state fromthe Americas. She is also a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department ofEmory University. Dr. McConnell earned both her Ph.D. and her M.A. in Political Sciencefrom Stanford University. She was an Assistant Professor of Political Science for four yearsand a Bard Center Fellow at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, NY. Her publicationsinclude Centrifugal Politics in Ecuador, Current History February 2001, Nicaragua: Beyondthe Revolution, Current History February 1997 co-authored with Jennifer McCoy; InstitutionalEvolution in Nicaragua Without Illusions: The Chamorro years, edited by Thomas Walker;and Nicaragua's 1990 Elections: A Postmortem, Latin American Research Review February1996. In addition, Dr. McConnell authors conference papers and participates in roundtables,presentations and community education

Philip Peters - The Lexington Institute

Philip Peters, vice president of the Lexington Institute, is a Cuba expert who has traveledthroughout the island covering economic and political issues, and is also an analyst of U.S.-Cuba relations. He has published detailed studies of the main sectors of Cuba�s economy andhis articles have been published in The Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Tribune, TheChristian Science Monitor, Barrons, The Miami Herald, National Geographic Traveler, andspecialized publications. He serves as an advisor to Cuba Working Group that formed inJanuary 2002 in the House of Representatives and has testified before congressionalcommittees. Peters also writes on trade and immigration policy. Prior to joining Lexington,Peters served as a State Department appointee of Presidents Reagan and Bush and as a senioraide in the House of Representatives. He holds bachelors and masters degrees fromGeorgetown University. The Lexington Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policyresearch organization based in Arlington, Virginia

Mayda Prego- Hugues, Hubbard and Reed

Civil, criminal, and appellate litigation, including intellectual property, commercial disputes,international extradition, money-laundering, and employment discrimination.

122

Education Information: Yale University, B.A., 1988. University of Michigan Law School,J.D., 1992, Michigan Journal of Law Reform (Associate Editor 1990-91; Contributing Editor1991-92) Bar Admissions: New York, 1993 Massachusetts, 1993 Texas, 1994 Florida, 1995.Court Admissions:

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of New York United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit United StatesSupreme Court. Language Expertise French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish. ProfessionalActivities: Liaison, Young Lawyers Division, Litigation, American Bar Association, DeathPenalty Representation Project Member, Hispanic National Bar Association Member,American Bar Association

Michael Putney – Anchor, Channel 10, Miami

Michael Putney came to Channel 10 in 1989 to become senior political reporter and host of"This Week In South Florida with Michael Putney." He is Channel 10's lead reporter onpolitics and government, and writes a semimonthly column on politics for The Miami Herald.

Michael was born in New York City, spent his early years in St. Louis, and when he was 14-years-old, he moved with his family to Berkeley, Calif. Following graduation from BerkeleyHigh School, he attended Deep Springs College in California. After two years, he entered theUniversity of Missouri and received a BA in English Literature. He later completed coursework toward a master's degree at the University of Missouri.

Michael began his career in broadcast journalism in 1966 while a graduate student, first as aradio reporter and then as a news director at KCGM in Columbia, Missouri. He transferredacross town to KFRU radio and was quickly promoted from assistant news director to newsdirector. Between newscasts, he worked for The Columbia Daily Tribune as city editor.

In 1970, Michael moved from the Midwest to Washington, D.C. There he worked for TheNational Observer -- the first two years as general arts writer, then five years as generalassignment reporter and national feature writer. A promotion to West Coast bureau chief in1976 took Michael to Los Angeles. When the Observer closed in 1977 he worked in NewYork for Time Inc., then The Miami Herald lured him to Florida to write for its Sundaymagazine, Tropic. He later wrote a column for the paper.

In 1981, Michael returned to broadcasting, this time in television. At WTVJ in Miami, hereported on a wide variety of stories but with a heavy emphasis on government and politics. In1986, he became weekend co-anchor. By the late '80s, Michael Putney had achieved "mostvaluable reporter" status in the South Florida broadcast community. Michael has been to Cubadozens of times. His knowledge of, and experience with Cuban political issues is virtuallyunmatched among South Florida news professionals. The myriad of stories he has coveredincludes the Mariel boatlifts; Immigration Accord talks in Havana, Washington D.C. and NewYork; and an in-depth interview with Cuban National Assembly President, Ricardo Alarcon.Michael reported from Havana when the remains of Che Guevara were returned to the islandfrom Bolivia. He was part of the Channel 10 team that covered the visit to Cuba of Pope JohnPaul II.

Michael's superior reporting skills have won him two Emmys. The State Supreme Court alsoappointed him to the Florida's Judicial Management Council. He said his favorite part of being

123

a reporter is talking to newsmakers and trying to pull out the facts, some of which, he said, isoccasionally the truth. He's has tried to forget any embarrassments he may have had during hisillustrious career. He has a lot of respect for the broadcasting profession and said he is mostproud just to have made slot the night before.

Michael enjoys spending time with his wife Marta and his daughter Mia, and a quirky cockerspaniel named Zoe. When he is out on the town and looking for a place to dine, he oftenchooses Cafe Ragazzi. He also enjoys cooking, reading, tennis, and traveling.

William Ratliff, Ph.D.- the Hoover Institution

William Ratliff is a research fellow and curator of the Americas Collection at the HooverInstitution.

He is currently working on interpreting Latin American history, the traditional roots ofmodern China, and U.S. foreign policy. Ratliff is coauthor of Report from Havana (CatoPolicy Analysis, 2001), with Jonathan Clarke; The Law and Economics of Development(Hoover Press, 2000), with Edgardo Buscaglia; A Strategic Flip-Flop in the Caribbean: Liftthe Embargo on Cuba (Hoover Essays in Public Policy, 2000), with Roger Fontaine; andcontributing coeditor of The Law and Economics of Development (JAI Press, 1997), withBuscaglia and Robert Cooter.

He is also coauthor of Inside the Cuban Interior Ministry (Jamestown Foundation, 1994), withJuan Antonio Rodriguez Menier; The Civil War in Nicaragua: Inside the Sandinistas(Transaction Publishers, 1993), with Roger Miranda; and three Hoover Essays in PublicPolicy on legal reform and political/economic reform in Argentina, with Buscaglia, MariaDakolias, and Fontaine. Among his other books are Castroism and Communism in LatinAmerica and The Soviet-Cuban Presence in East Africa. He is contributing editor to TheMedia and the Cuban Revolution and coeditor of Juan Peron: Cartas del exilio. For twodecades Ratliff was Latin American editor of the Hoover Institution's Yearbook onInternational Communist Affairs and for four years a contributor to the annual Latin Americaand Caribbean Contemporary Record. He has also been book review editor of the Journal ofInteramerican Studies and World Affairs.

Ratliff has interviewed two dozen foreign presidents and prime ministers, including FidelCastro, Carlos Menem, Alberto Fujimori, and Lee Kwan Yew. He has published articles andcommentaries from dozens of countries, among them Panama, Argentina, Colombia,Venezuela, Greece, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, China, Vietnam, and Kazakhstan, in all majorAmerican and many foreign newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the New York

Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the International Herald Tribune, ElMercurio (Santiago), the Globe and Mail (Toronto), and the South China Morning Post (HongKong). He wrote from Cuba on the 25th anniversary of Castro's revolution and from the warzones of Nicaragua and El Salvador, for the Chicago Tribune.

On the Internet, he has written for the MSNBC "Opinion" section and contributed to theaward-winning Panama hand-over section of the on-line NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. He hasbeen interviewed on CNN, NPR, PBS, APR, BBC, Voice of America, Radio Marti, and manyother radio and TV stations around the world.

124

Ratliff's biography is included in Who's Who in the West and noted in Who's Who inAmerica. Between 1978 and 1986 he was a columnist and chief editorial writer for theChicago Tribune's newspaper Peninsula Times Tribune. In the mid-1970s he began writing onclassical music for the Los Angeles Times and the Metropolitan Opera's Opera News.

He has taught courses in English literature, Latin American and Chinese history, internationalrelations, and journalism at Stanford, San Francisco State University, the University of SanFrancisco, Tunghai University in Taiwan, and other universities; monitored elections in ElSalvador, Costa Rica, and Chile; and conducted private lecture tours in Latin America, China,and Southeast Asia.

Ratliff obtained his B.A. from Oberlin College; his M.A. (Chinese history) and Ph.D (LatinAmerican/Chinese history) are from the University of Washington in Seattle.

The Honorable William D. RogersFormer Assistant Secretary of State, Vice-Chair, Kissinger Associates

EDUCATION: St. Andrew’s School, 1944, Princeton University with honors A.B. 1948,Yale Law School J.D. 1951PRIVATE PRACTICE: Law Clerk, Judge Charles E. Clark, United States Court of Appealsfor the Second Circuit 1951-1952, Law Clerk, Justice Stanley Reed, Supreme Court of theUnited States, 1952-1953, Associate and latterly Senior Partner, Arnold & Porter,Washington, D.C. 1953-1961, 1965-1974, 1977-date: Trial and appellate litigation; Counseland arbitrator in International Chamber of Commerce and International Centre for Settlementof Investment Disputes.BUSINESS: Vice Chair, Kissinger Associates, 1988-date.ACADEMIC: Lecturer on Public International Law and Member of the Law Faculty,Cambridge University, England, 1982-1983, Writings on international policy issues.GOVERNMENT: Special Counsel and Deputy U.S. Coordinator, Alliance for Progress, U.S.Department of State, 1961-1965, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs,Department of State, 1974-1976, Under Secretary of State for International Economic Affairs,U.S. Department of State, 1976-1977, Special Emissary for President Carter to El Salvador,1980, Senior Counselor to the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America 1984-1985OTHER: Two-term President, American Society of International Law, Three-term Director,Council on Foreign Relations, Co-Chair, Bilateral Commission on the Future of U.S.-MexicanRelations, Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations Cuba Task Force, 1998-2001.Vice Chair, Cordell Hull Institute, 2001-date.

Joaquín Roy, Ph.D.- European Union Center, University of Miami

Joaquín Roy, 'Jean Monnet' Professor and Director, European Union Center, University ofMiamiJoaquín Roy (Lic. Law, University of Barcelona, 1966; Ph.D, Georgetown University, 1973),is Jean Monnet Professor (www.euroy.net) of European Integration, founding Director of theEuropean Union Research Institute, and Senior Research Associate of North-South Center, ofthe University of Miami, and Co-Director of the newly established European Union Center.(www.miami.edu/eucenter/). He is the author of over 200 articles and reviews, 25 books,among them The Reconstruction of Central America: the Role of the European Community(North-South Center, 1991), The Ibero-American Space/ El Espacio Iberoamericano

125

(U.Miami/University of Barcelona, 1996), La siempre fiel: un siglo de relacioneshispanocubanas (1898-1998), Cuba, the U.S. and the Helms-Burton Doctrine (University ofFlorida Press, 2000), Las relaciones exteriores de la Unión Europea (México: UNAM, 2001),and Retos de la integración regional: Europa y América (México: UNAM, 2002). His over1,100 columns and essays have been appearing in newspapers and magazines in Spain, theUnited States and Latin America.

Rob Schroth - Schroth & Associates

President, Schroth & Associates (Washington, DC) 1993-present. Rob Schroth, directed theconsulting team for the PRCS in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, which led to the re-election of President of Joaquin Balaguer and elected Jacinto Peynado as Vice-President. Mr.Schroth has served in presidential campaigns in Ecuador working with the PSC (PartidoSocial Christiano), in Costa Rica with President Oscar Arias, and in Venezuela with Mr.Eduardo Fernanadez of the Christian Democratic Party. Mr. Schroth has also worked for theUnivision Television NetworkÆs presidential campaign coverage in 1988, 1992, and 1996,including co-producing and planning the networkÆs Democratic and Republican Conventioncoverage, election night coverage, and publicizing the networkÆs polling program andpolitical research throughout the election season. Mr. Schroth has also served as pollster fornumerous political candidates, governments, and corporations in the United States.

General John J. Sheehan, USMC (Ret.)- Nato Allied Command

Born 23 August 1940, Somerville, Massachusetts. U.S.A. General Sheehan’s last activeservice posts were NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and COMMANDER INCHIEF U.S. Atlantic Command.

After retirement in November 1997, he served for two U.S. Secretaries of Defense as theirSpecial Advisor for Central Asia. He was a member of the U.S. Defense Policy Board.

From October 1994 to November 1997, he served as NATO’s Supreme Allied CommanderAtlantic and Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command. While in the latter position, hewas responsible for the organization, training and deployment of 1.2 million men and womento support U.S. worldwide requirements. As CINCUSACOM he was responsible for migrantoperations in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Peace Support Operations in Haiti, hurricane reliefoperations in Florida, International Olympic support in Atlanta and the joint training andintegration for U.S. based forces.

As SACLANT, in addition to his Major NATO Commander’s responsibilities, he wasresponsible for the development and support of the Central Asian Peace Keeping Battalion andNATO’s Partnership For Peace training program for all former CIS nations conductingpeacekeeping training in the United States.

Prior to these positions, he served as the Director for Operations (J-3), U.S. Joint Chiefs ofStaff. As the J-3, he coordinated the worldwide deployments of U.S. forces. He also developedand supervised a state of the art global information management and command and controlsystem for U.S. leadership.

His U.S. combat decorations include a Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars with Combat V and 2Purple Hearts. He has also been awarded the French National Order of Merit; the Netherlands

126

Medal of Merit in Gold; the Portuguese Great Cross of Merit; the Hungarian Order of Meritand the Great Cross of the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit. He holds an undergraduatedegree from Boston College and graduate degree from Georgetown University. He also is afrequent lecturer at The Royal Institute Of International Affairs, London School of Economicsand Royal College of Defense Studies. He is married to the former Margaret Sullivan theyhave four children.

José Miguel Vivanco - Human Rights Watch, Executive Director, Americas DivisionJosé Miguel Vivanco holds a Master’s degree in Law (LLM) from Harvard Law School. Hepreviously studied law at the University of Chile, and then at Salamanca Law School in Spain.During 1986 and 1987 he worked as an attorney at Human Rights Watch, then known asAmericas Watch. From 1987 to 1989, Mr. Vivanco was an attorney for the Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS). In 1990 hefounded the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and functioned as its executivedirector until August 1994. (CEJIL is an NGO that files complaints before internationalhuman rights bodies (UN and the OAS) for human rights violations.) In September 1994, JoséMiguel Vivanco became executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch.Mr. Vivanco has also been an Adjunct Professor of law at Georgetown University Law Centerand the School of Advanced International Studies of the John Hopkins University.

Mr. Vivanco has received several scholarships and fellowships in the field of human rights,and has authored numerous publications. A Chilean national, Mr. Vivanco was born inSantiago on January 3, 1961

Lissa Weinmann - World Policy Institute, Cuba Project

As director of The Cuba Project at the World Policy Institute since 1997, Ms. Weinmann hasled an educational campaign on the impact of the embargo in Cuba and the U.S. Prior to herwork with Cuba, Ms. Weinmann was Vice President in charge of advising Latin Americangovernmental and private sector clients on media and public policy strategies at the AbernathyMacGregor Group in New York. She has worked as a reporter for various New York Citynewspapers and as a media and legislative staffer at the New York City Council. She is afounder and board member of Americans For Humanitarian Trade With Cuba (AHTC), thefirst national coalition seeking to end restrictions on sales of food and medicine to Cuba andthe free travel necessary for such trade to occur. Ms. Weinmann has a Masters Degree inInternational Affairs from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairsand a Bachelors Degree in Journalism from the Newhouse School of Public Communicationsat Syracuse University. She speaks Spanish and has two wonderful children.

Bishop Wenski, born in West Palm Beach on October 18, 1950 grew up in Lake Worth,Florida where he attended Catholic school at his home parish, Sacred Heart. He studied at St.John Vianney Minor Seminary in Miami and later at St. Vincent de Paul Major Seminary inBoynton Beach and was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of Miami on May 15, 1976. Heearned a B.A. Degree in Philosophy (1972), and Masters of Divinity (1975), from the BoyntonBeach Seminary and in 1993 a MA from the School of Sociology of Fordham University inNew York. He has also taken summer courses at the Catholic University of Lublin (Poland).

Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski- Bishop of Orlando

127

He served three years as associate pastor of Corpus Christi Church, a mainly Hispanic parishin Miami. In 1979, after briefly ministering in Haiti, he was assigned to the newly establishedHaitian Apostolate of the Archdiocese. He was associate director and then director of thePierre Toussaint Haitian Catholic Center in Miami from that time to his appointment as aBishop in 1997. He also served concurrently as pastor of

three Haitian mission parishes in the Archdiocese—Notre-Dame d’Haiti in Miami, DivineMercy in Fort Lauderdale, and St. Josephin Pompano Beach. Through the 1980’s he alsoconducted a circuit-riding ministry that led him to help establish Haitian Catholic communitiesfrom Homestead in the south to Fort Pierce to the north, Immokalee to the West and FortLauderdale to the east. In the early 1980’s his outreach to Haitians led him to preach inmigrant camps near Lake Wales and Winter Haven. The Pierre Toussaint Haitian CatholicCenter in addition to providing for the pastoral and spiritual needs of the Haitian communitiesof South Florida also provided numerous social, educational, and legal services to newlyarrived Haitian immigrants. He celebrated the weekly mass in English for shut-ins at the local ABC affiliate from 1992-1997. He directed the Archdiocese of Miami Ministry to Non-Hispanic Ethnic Groups. In January 1996, the then Father Wenski was appointed the Archdiocese Director of CatholicCharities, one of the largest Catholic social service agencies in the United States. In thiscapacity he helped forge a collaborative relationship with Caritas Cuba, the social service armof the Catholic Church in Cuba. Since early 1996 he has traveled to Cuba on many occasionson behalf of the Church. In late 1996, he spearheaded a relief operation that delivered over150,000 pounds of food to Caritas Cuba for distribution to people left homeless by hurricaneLily. This was the first time that Cubans in Miami participated in a humanitarian relief effortdirected to Cuba. In subsequent years, similar relief efforts were also directed to Haiti, theDominican Republic, and the countries of Central America and Colombia. Appointed auxiliary Bishop of Miami on June 24, 1997, he was ordained to the episcopacy onSeptember 3, 1997 along with Bishop Gilberto Fernandez in the Miami Arena. Besides hisduties in the Archdiocese of Miami, where he serves on numerous boards including Catholic

Hospice, Catholic Charities, Catholic Charities Legal Services, and St. Thomas University, healso serves as chair of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops Committee onMigration and is a member of the Conference’s Secretariat for Church in Latin America andCLINIC (Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.). On behalf of his work on these

committees, he has traveled to the Congo and the Great Lakes region of Africa, the Caribbeanand Central and South America. In 2001, Governor Bush appointed him to the FloridaCouncil on Homelessness. He is currently the Episcopal Moderator for Catholic HealthServices for the Florida Catholic Conference.

Bishop Wenski speaks Haitian, Creole, and Spanish fluently. His parents moved to Floridafrom Detroit, Michigan shortly after their wedding in 1947. They are both deceased. Hissister and niece live in Lake Worth. He is the only Florida native serving as a bishop in thestate. Pope John Paul II appointed Bishop Wenski as coadjutor bishop of the Diocese ofOrlando on July 1.

128

Silvia Wilhelm, Puentes Cubanos

A native of Havana, Cuba, she came to the United States as an unaccompanied child inJanuary 1961 through the Operacion Pedro Pan, which eventually took over 14,000 childrenout of Cuba.

Ms. Wilhelm attended Miami Dade Community College and American University School ofInternational Service. For many years she worked in various administrative positions at theUniversity of Miami School of Medicine. In 1986 she founded and operated her corporate andmeeting planning firm conducting the planning, operational and meeting arrangements for topcorporate clients' incentive travel in the Caribbean, Europe and the United States.

After returning to Cuba in 1994, after a 33 year absence, she became active in advocating for achange of U.S. policy towards Cuba. From 1995 to 1999 she served as the Executive Directorof the Cuban Committee for Democracy with offices in Washington and Miami. From 1999to 2000 she became the Executive Director of Americans for Humanitarian trade with Cuba,where she continues to play an active role as a member of the Board of Directors.

Mrs. Wilhelm was the founder and serves as Executive Director of Puentes Cubanos, an NGOlicensed by the Treasury Department to conduct educational, professional and culturalexchanges between the people of Cuba and the United States.

Ms. Wilhelm, along with other Cuban American leaders, is coordinating the Cuban AmericanAdvocacy Day scheduled for tomorrow in Washington as part of the National Summit onCuba event.

Antonio R. Zamora - The Time Is Now Coalition

Latin American counsel of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, a New York law firm with officesin Miami, Washington, Los Angeles and Paris. Mr. Zamora is based in the Miami office. Anative of Cuba, attended the University of Havana for a brief period before leaving Cuba forthe United States in 1960. Later, he was part of Brigade 2506 at the Bay of Pigs and a POWfor 20 months after the failure of the invasion. Upon his return to the United States he servedas an officer in the U.S. Navy. Upon leaving the Navy, Mr. Zamora obtained a Bachelor’sDegree in Political Science from the University of Florida in 1965, a Masters Degree inInternational Studies from the University of Miami in 1969, and a Juris Doctor degree fromthe University of Florida in 1973.

Mr. Zamora specializes in international corporate law dealing primarily with Latin America.This experience includes general corporate transactions, international litigation, mergers andacquisitions, international joint ventures, international trade, public/private offerings and,particularly, foreign investment. Mr. Zamora is a frequent lecturer on international matters.

He has written several articles on foreign investment, three of them about Cuba. From 1981 to1992 was General Counsel of the Cuban American National Foundation. He returned to Cubafor the first time in 1995. In 2000 founded the organization named US/Cuba Legal Forum,Inc., of which he is President. US/Cuba Legal Forum, Inc. is a Florida not-for-profitcorporation that promotes the normalization of legal relations between the United States andCuba by means of personal contacts, seminars, conferences and workshops between U.S. andCuban attorneys. In 2003 he was elected Chairman of The Time is Now Coalition, Inc.

129

By Mikhail GorbachevThe Washington PostEditorial; Pg. A19October 4, 2003

The changes that have occurred in the world in the past 20 years are truly remarkable.We have left behind the Cold War and the confrontation between two irreconcilableideological systems. The symbol of divided Europe -- the Berlin Wall, which Ronald Reaganfamously urged me to tear down in 1987 -- has long since been destroyed. But one relic ofthe Cold War remains: the wall of the economic embargo imposed by the United States onCuba 43 years ago.

The lack of relations between the U.S. and Cuban governments, enshrined as it is in theU.S. policy of economic and diplomatic isolation of Cuba, has not allowed for anunderstanding that could benefit the citizens of both nations. The burden of the isolation ofCuba has been borne by ordinary people on both sides of the Florida Straits: the dividedCuban family.

That this situation is abnormal and that the embargo is counterproductive is increasinglyrecognized throughout the world and in the United States. The high-profile visit of Pope JohnPaul II symbolized the willingness of the world to open to Cuba and of Cuba to open to theworld. Former President Jimmy Carter's trip to that country was a courageous andresponsible step.

Many other U.S. political leaders have spoken in favor of normalizing relations. Yet theU.S. government prohibits average Americans from even traveling to Cuba. While it calls forhuman rights in Cuba, the United States prevents its own citizens from sharing freeenterprise, freedom of movement and free thinking with the Cuban people.

The only way to get out of this time warp is to replace the current policy with a policy ofconstructive engagement similar to the one being pursued toward other so-called Communistcountries.

This view is shared not only by most members of the international community, it hassupport among those most affected by the current policy, namely the Cuban people andCuban Americans in the United States. They would also benefit the most if the United Stateswere to liberalize its policies, starting with opening the door to travel to Cuba.

Remember that expanding contacts and exchanges, agreed to by President Reagan andme at our 1985 summit in Geneva, did much to increase mutual understanding between ourtwo countries.

Many Cuban Americans who traditionally backed punitive measures against Cuba areincreasingly calling for dialogue between the two nations. Polls show that most CubanAmericans would like to take the first steps to heal the wounds of the past 43 years. I thinkthe leaders of both states should recognize that true courage is demonstrated by a willingnessto engage in a difficult and honest dialogue, to admit mistakes and to seek common groundfor the good of future generations.

The Last Wall

130

An end to the embargo would complete the unfinished business of the Cold War in theWestern Hemisphere. It is because of the Cold War that a country that saw an anti-dictatorialrevolution, which had nothing to do with Communist ideology, became involved in thesuperpower confrontation. Isolated and belonging ideologically to the "socialist camp," itschoice of the path of socioeconomic development became all but inevitable. And during themissile crisis Cuba nearly became the trigger for a nuclear war.

Yet it would be unfair to reduce Cuba's entire post-revolutionary history to that. Theachievements of the Cuban people in education, health, science and the arts have been widelyrecognized. The Cubans withstood the consequences of the withdrawal of Soviet economicsubsidies, and the country's economy has recently shown an 8 percent growth in grossdomestic product. Cuba has pursued a responsible foreign policy, as I can confirm based onmy own experience working with Fidel Castro to defuse regional crises in Central Americaand Africa.

The time has come to develop a policy responsive to those realities. Constructiveengagement would not just make it possible to normalize relations between two closeneighbors; it would also improve prospects for positive evolution in Cuba's domesticsituation and create a different set of conditions for raising human rights issues.

What's needed is a first step, and it is up to the United States to take it. I urge PresidentBush to tear down the wall of the embargo now, in order to lay the foundation for a newrelationship with Cuba.

The writer is former President of the Soviet Union.

131

SELECTED PRESS CLIPS RELATED TO THE NATIONAL SUMMIT ON CUBA

Cuba to Lift Restriction On Visits by Exiles in U.S.

Associated PressWednesday, October 1, 2003; Page A17

MIAMI, Sept. 30 -- Cuban natives living in the United States soon will no longer need permission from thegovernment of Fidel Castro to travel to the Communist-ruled island if they hold a Cuban passport, a Cuban officialsaid today.

Lazaro Herrera, a spokesman with the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, said the change will take effectearly next year. Cuban exiles now wishing to visit their homeland must obtain special permission.

The proposed change was announced by Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque at a meeting with about 300 CubanAmericans in New York on Saturday, Herrera said. The Cuban government is changing its policy to try to improverelations with exiles, Herrera said.

"For many years, we've been making steps with the Cuban community abroad that haven't been able to advancemore" because of the opposition of Miami's Cuban Americans, he said. "Now there has really been a generationalchange in Florida, where there is a majority of Cubans who support normal relations with the island."

The State Department had no immediate comment. U.S. policy allows Cuban Americans to visit relatives on theisland once a year without permission, but additional trips must be approved by the Treasury Department's Officeof Foreign Assets Control.

The Cuban American National Foundation supports the announced visa policy, executive director Joe Garcia said.

C 2003 The Washington Post Company

New Law to Grant Cuban Exiles Permissionto Visit Homeland without Havana's Blessing

Voice Of America News01 Oct 2003, 14:33 UTC

A Cuban official says Cuban natives living in the UnitedStates will soon be able to travel to the Communist island without permission from Havana.

Lazaro Herrera of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington told reporters Tuesday that the change would takeeffect early next year. He said details of the change were still being discussed in Havana.

Currently, Cuban exiles who wish to visit Cuba must obtain special permission from the Cuban government beforemaking the trip.

* Cuba did lift restrictions in 2004

132

Active U.S. Role Vital For Cuba

Sun-Sentinel Of Fort LauderdaleMonday - September 15, 2003South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board

Up until Cuba's 1959 revolution, the United States wielded incalculable influence on the island.It's time for the United States, which has worked to isolate Cuba politically and economically, to switchgears and again play a role in the country's political, economic and social development. There are those who believe the United States must maintain a hands-off stance until the time isright -- meaning the moment Fidel Castro dies or a popular revolt erupts to dislodge him from power.That's a mistaken approach. The United States, and South Florida, have too much at risk to sit on the sidelines until events spinout of control. Instead, U.S. policy-makers must seek opportunities now to guide, sway and encouragegroups, enterprises and institutions to adopt forward-looking approaches that embrace democratic andmarketplace driven ideas. That's especially the case since important voices within Cuba are calling for broad internal reforms,which the United States should support with constructive measures. Last week, Cuba's Catholic bishops issued a letter to the Cuban government. The bishopscriticized the regime's intolerance for differing political views and the curtailing of reforms that permitCubans to run small businesses and hold private jobs. These actions haveset back aspirations raised by Pope John Paul II's January 1998 visit to the island. While the bishops' landmark letter is aimed at the Cuban government, the choice it indirectly laysout for Washington is clear. The United States, and its allies in the hemisphere and beyond, can sit onthe sidelines, or find ways to engage Cuba and play an effective rolein backing reform efforts in ways that promote needed and peaceful change. The time for the United States to begin wielding its influence inside Cuba, not outside it, is now.But Americans must do so across-the-board, not in piecemeal ways. Washington should lift its travelban. It also should permit multinational companies to engage in commerce and invest in the country,permit the sale of a much broaderlist of goods and services to Cubans and offer financial assistance to organizations in Cuba that promotea peaceful transition to democracy. Most importantly, it should do this not because it seeks to displace Castro and his brother Raúl orto modify the Cuban government's behavior. Rather, it must do this because setting the stage for anorderly transition in leadership is in Cuba's, America's and the WesternHemisphere's best interests. Anti-Castro groups and organizations oppose lifting the embargo on commerce and investment, aswell as a ban that prevents people, except journalists, Cuban-Americans and other select groups, fromtraveling to Cuba. Their rationale on the travel ban is that touristswill do little to prod needed reforms in Cuba, while simply putting dollars in the repressive government'scoffers. Their concern is the only Americans traveling to Cuba will be those stepping of a cruise ship foran afternoon in Havana, or another port-of-call, or those sipping mojito cocktails on Varadero Beach. Lifting the travel ban, however, could give a boost to the purchasing power of many ordinaryCubans. Spending by Americans, via tips and purchases, would provide critical dollars to 100,000Cubans who run their own businesses, including restaurants, art shops and taxis.These entrepreneurs are precisely the economic class that America must reach out to, but that currentpolicy shuns.

133

Ditto for the restrictions placed on U.S. investment in Cuba under the decades-old embargo and the1996 Helms-Burton law, which sought, among other things, to dissuade companies in other countriesfrom investing in Cuba. U.S. companies, for example, should be encouraged to purchase from, and perhaps invest in, thefew Cuban state-owned enterprises that have gone through the government-sanctioned restructuringprogram knownas perfeccionamiento empresarial. These companies have conducted aggressive top-down reviews ofoperations and found ways to become more efficient and productive. In return, company managers aregranted greater autonomy from the government and ruling Communist Party. U.S. investment or commerce with these companies might encourage greater utilization of thisstrategy, bolstering higher-income employment for Cuban workers and prodding Cuba's economytoward autonomy and efficiency. This tactic asks a great deal of American companies, especially since many are still owedreimbursement for properties and investments that were nationalized at the beginning of the CubanRevolution. Buttaking the risk of investing in Cuba now could offer great rewards later on. Plenty of U.S. companieshave already shown an interest in the island's industries. And Castro, though openly and consistentlyhostile to capitalist systems and beliefs, has frequently met with Americancorporate chieftains who have visited the island to assess opportunities. U.S. policy also should aid groups seeking to broaden political discourse in Cuba. This would helplay the groundwork for the eventual transition to a multiparty state. Currently, only the Communist Partyis legal in Cuba. Again, the goal shouldn't be to destabilize Cuba, but to put the blocks in place to support an orderlytransition. If constructive steps aren't taken now, Cuba could collapse into economic and political chaoswhen the inevitable change in leadership does come. A number of organizations in Cuba are working for electoral and economic change. These includethe Varela Project, a faith-based group that has petitioned the Cuban government for basic civil rights. The bottom-up reform movement received a major blow in April when dozens of individuals inthese organizations were arrested, charged with subversion and sentenced to long prison terms. Despite the risks, the United States should continue supporting the brave people involved in grass-roots reform, though lessons should be learned from the crackdown. For example, U.S. diplomats inCuba, whodirectly aided and publicly backed these organizations, should not be involved. Instead, financial aidshould be channeled through competent and effective non-government organizations around the worldthat are committed to, and have experience in, fostering peaceful democratic andentrepreneurial views. The objective of such a comprehensive strategy would not be to turn Fidel Castro into a democrat.That's not going to happen as a result of any U.S. policy. Castro chose his direction, destiny and fate in1959. End of debate. Nevertheless, there are 11 million other people in Cuba, many of whom think very differently thanCuba's dictator. They, not Castro, should be the U.S. government's top priority. Elected leaders,including those in South Florida, should not hesitate to travel to Cuba on"fact-finding" missions to broaden their understanding of the challenges that will confront the Cubanpeople following a change in leadership. A foreign policy tailored to the Cold War will not engage the many free thinking and willing Cubancitizens who hope for meaningful change in their country with the inevitable changing of the guard.America must reach out with the best that it has: Its ideas, its entrepreneurial spirit and its faith in anopen society that grants opportunity to all.

Copyright (c) 2003, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

134

Miami HeraldPosted on Sat, Oct. 04, 2003By Patricia Gutierrez-Menoyo

On Aug. 7, my father, Eloy Gutiérrez-Menoyo, decided not to return to the United States from what wassupposed to be a short visit to Cuba. I can just see him when he said to himself: ``Why should I leave? Thisis my country.''

His action symbolizes a break with the past. It reflects his unwillingness to accept current preconceptions thatthe Cuban people cannot resolve their differences. It is a rejection of fear -- a new beginning. Above all it isan expression of love, determination and of his belief in the future of a united Cuban people.

In this spirit, an event will be held today at the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables that will bring togetherprominent national, international and local leaders from a variety of sectors who also seek to challenge ourhabitual way of thinking and chart a new course for the Cuban community.

This event, the Florida National Summit on Cuba, is being led by Cuban-American groups, including myfather's organization, Cambio Cubano (Cuban Change), representing the new consensus: U.S. policy towardCuba must change before more people are thrown into prison, more bodies wash up on Florida's shores andanother generation of Cubans gets lost in the suspended animation that U.S. policy -- hand in hand withCastro -- has led to all these years.

Current policy is a foul stew of unintended consequences, contradictions and double standards.

There is much being made now of the U.S. administration's ''new'' plans to step up funding of the internalopposition in Cuba and attempts to create an American-led international fund for such activities. It is ironicand a monument to double standards; the U.S. funnels an estimated $30 million a year of taxpayer dollars toCuban dissidents-- many of whom end up being agents of the Cuban security-- while I, by law, can only sendmy father $300 dollars per quarter.

Ironies abound. While I can visit my father only once a year without U.S. authorization, members of Congressand other VIPs can travel when they wish and enjoy a Cuba untainted by American tourists, who must not beallowed to travel to Cuba because they might dare to go to the beach. Otto Reich, the former assistantsecretary of state, even warned that Americans might be ''corrupted'' if they are allowed to visit Cuba.

Demand change

In America, when an idea doesn't work, people demand something else. For four years, the U.S. Congresshas been blocked by its leadership from bringing an honest vote to the floor on whether to allow open travelto Cuba. Now that the Senate is expected to vote again soon, the president has threatened to veto the entireTreasury appropriations bill -- the source of funding for the war against terrorism -- if the travel provisionstands.

The goal of this National Summit on Cuba is to give voice to all groups who genuinely seek a proactive Cubapolicy, one that can better project U.S. values and the needs of the Cuban people. We must honestly assesswhat policy will bring us, each day, closer to our goal of a free, independent and united Cuba.

As I prepared to take part in this summit, I was encouraged to hear that colleagues were in tune with some ofmy personal feelings. As one of them told me: ''We will all be thinking of your father and his courageousmove.'' It is comforting to know that his call for reconciliation is being heard and that there is hope for achange in U.S. policy and, most important, for the future of the Cuban people.

The Miami Herald published opposing editorials on the day of the Summit

Consensus, Openness Lead Toward A Free Cuba

Patricia Gutiérrez-Menoyo is a member of the national directorate of Cambio Cubano, led by her father, EloyGutiérrez-Menoyo.

135

Miami HeraldPosted Oct. 4 2003By Jaime Suchlicki

Opponents of U.S. policy toward Cuba continue to claim that, if the embargo and travel ban were lifted,the Cuban people would benefit economically, the communist system would start crumbling andtransition to democracy would accelerate. Do they really believe that American tourists and businesseswould succeed where Canadians, Latin Americans and Europeans have failed?

For decades hundred of thousands of tourists from these countries have visited the island, and theirinvestments and trade have been welcomed by the Castro regime. Yet the end result has been littleprosperity and more repression for the Cuban people.

The assumption that tourism or trade will lead to economic and political change is not borne by empiricalstudies. In Eastern Europe, communism collapsed a decade after tourism peaked. No study of EasternEurope or the Soviet Union claims that tourism, trade or investments had anything to do with the end ofcommunism. A disastrous economic system, competition with the West, successive leadership changeswith no legitimacy, anti-Soviet feeling in Eastern Europe and the failed Soviet war in Afghanistan wereamong the reasons for change.

There is no evidence to support the notion that engagement with a totalitarian state will bring about itsdemise. Only academic ideologues and some members of Congress interested in catering to theeconomic needs of their state's constituencies cling to this notion. Their calls for ending the embargohave little to do with democracy in Cuba or the welfare of the Cuban people.

The assumption that Fidel Castro and the Cuban leadership would allow U.S. tourists or businesses tosubvert the revolution and influence internal developments is at best nave. The repeated statement thatthe embargo is the cause of Cuba's economic problems is hollow.

The reasons for the economic misery of the Cubans are a failed political and economic system. Like thecommunist systems of Eastern Europe, Cuba's system does not function, stifles initiative andproductivity and destroys human freedom and dignity.

Lifting the embargo and travel ban without meaningful changes in Cuba's political and economic systemwill:

• Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structures and delay any transition.

• Strengthen state enterprises, considering that money will flow into businesses owned by the Cubangovernment. Most businesses in Cuba are owned by the state and, in all foreign investments, the Cubangovernment retains a partnership interest.

• Perpetuate the rather extensive control that the military holds over the economy, including tourism.Numerous tourist enterprises including the airline Gaviota is owned by the military.

The economic impact of tourism, while providing the Castro government with much-needed dollars,would be limited. Few dollars will flow to the Cuban poor; state and foreign enterprises will benefit mostand a large percentage of the tourist dollars spent will be sent abroad by the foreign entities operatinghotels and nightclubs.

The travel ban and the embargo should be retained until there is a regime in Cuba willing to providemeaningful concessions in the areas of human rights, democratization and market economics. To dootherwise is to provide the Castro regime with a gift that it has not earned.

Jaime Suchlicki is Emilio Bacardí Moreau professor of history and international studies at the Universityof Miami.

Catering to Castro hurts Cubans

136

THE NATIONAL REVIEWOctober 17, 2003By William F. Buckley Jr.

Announcing his new initiatives in the matter of dealing with Cuba, President Bush (news - websites) proclaimed that "no tyrant can stand forever against the power of liberty." Mr. Bushmust have been making a biological point. Fidel Castro (news - web sites) is not going to liveforever, and therefore it is true that that tyrant's stay on Earth is limited by a congeries oforganic factors that include blood, heart and brain. A mortal development here would notmake his death a triumph of U.S. foreign policy.

Castro celebrated his 77th birthday last August. He had told the National Assembly in Marchthat he would remain in power "as long as I feel that I can be useful and if it is not decided bynature before." By "nature," he doesn't mean U.S. policies. He completed his thought: "Now Iunderstand it was not my destiny to rest at the end of my life."

What Mr. Bush did, on Oct. 10, was to announce, or rather to re-emphasize, three policies.There would be a commission set up to assist a Free Cuba -- i.e., motions to help Cuba whenCastro is ousted or dies. (One wonders whether these would include renouncing the claims ofU.S. corporations whose assets were confiscated by Cuba four decades ago.)

Bush will more strictly enforce travel restrictions to guard against American entrepreneursgoing to Cuba to do business, or Americans going there as tourists.

And Bush will continue to attempt to devise ways to get Cubans seeking refuge from Castroentry to the United States without requiring them to "risk their lives at sea." The policy wouldseek to cope with Castro's punishment (most recently, sentences of 10 years in jail) of Cubanswho seek to emigrate, are caught and repatriated. How? Castro reacted to the Bush initiativesin a characteristic way. "Cuba again denounces these new provocations and aggressions by theneofascist American government." These policies, said the official Communist Party daily,Granma, "have an electoral stink" that shows "the unlimited commitment of the Americangovernment to the extreme right and its obsessions with destroying the Cuban revolution'sexample."

Now analysts of the political situation can't discount the whole of such condemnations of U.S.policy simply because they issue from Castro and his retinue. Mr. Bush's reiteration of thesame old thing in respect of our treatment of Cuba can't be attributed to fundamental U.S.attitudes toward tyrannical governments. If this were so, we would not have permitted tradewith the Soviet Union during 30 long years before that tyranny ended. The tyranny in Chinashows no sign whatever of ending and does not, there, depend on the longevity of a singleperson. Mao has been dead for a long time, and we are into the fourth generation of tyrannicalsuccessions. U.S. policy urges trade with Vietnam, a tyranny we fought, in living memory, notby restricting tourist visas to Hanoi, but by dispatching 500,000 American soldiers to shootNorth Vietnamese Communists and their sympathizers.

Policies toward China and Vietnam evolved, but not policies toward Cuba, even though theworldwide threat of which Cuba was once a salient no longer exists. Why? Do those policieshave something to do with "an electoral stink"?

Well, yes. Minority exertions on foreign policy tend to have extortionate effects. This is true

Castro's Mortality?

137

of Jewish-American influence on Mideast policy, of Hispanic-American influence onimmigration policy, of Cuban-American influence on Cuba policy.

There is, in this case, something of national pride also at work. We have been terriblyhumiliated by Castro for 40 years. We tried to invade his country and failed. We tried toassassinate him and failed. He extended his hospitality to Soviet nuclear missiles, very nearlyprecipitating world war. Add to this his personal odiousness in torturing and killing individualCubans who defy or displease him. I quote myself a few years ago, and reiterate that I wouldvolunteer to serve as hangman if Castro were caught and sentenced to death.

But U.S. pride, brandished in Little Havana policy, doesn't make sense. Castro lives on, thepenury of the Cuban people increases, and the only truth that survives is that socialist Cubacannot withstand one thing: capitalist intervention. But only Cuban-Americans, apparently,can bring on such revisions in policy as would at least permit American enterprise (news -web sites) to bring concrete relief to Cubans, through the capitalism that scorns the pretensionsof Castroism and the misery they have brought.

But this torch must be lighted by Cuban-Americans. That day is not advanced by politicalfustian that has got us nowhere in the 13 years in which Castro has lived an isolatedsalamander in what was once the oceanic threat of a Soviet enterprise.

Senate Votes to End Limits on Cuba TravelBy Jim AbramsThe Associated PressOctober 23, 2003

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defying a threatened presidential veto, the Senate joinedthe House Thursday in moving to end four-decade-old restrictions on travel toCuba.

``It is not constructive at all to try to slap around Fidel Castro byimposing limits on the American people's right to travel,'' said Sen. Byron Dorgan,D-N.D.

The Senate voted 59-36 to bar the use of government money to enforce currenttravel restrictions. Last month a nearly identical measure passed the House,setting up a showdown with the administration, which says President Bush willveto a $90 billion Transportation and Treasury Department bill if contains theCuba language.

``The administration believes that it is essential to maintain sanctions andtravel restrictions to deny economic resources to the brutal Castro regime,''the White House said in a statement.

The Treasury Department estimates that about 160,000 Americans, half of themCuban-Americans visiting family members, traveled to Cuba legally last year.Humanitarian and educational groups, journalists and diplomats are also allowedvisits, but thousands of other Americans visit illegally, by way of thirdcountries, risking thousands of dollars in fines and imprisonment.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who co-sponsored the amendment to the spending

138

bill with Dorgan, said the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control,a key office in the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking, shouldn'tbe devoting resources to American tourists going to Cuba.

``Ten percent of the OFAC budget is used to track down little old grandmasfrom the West Coast who through a Canadian travel agency chose to bike inCuba,'' he said.

Opponents warned that the provision sent a wrong signal at a time when theCastro regime has escalated its crackdown on dissidents. ``Why should we nowopen up travel to Cuba to give additional cash flow to the Castro regime?'' asked Sen. TedStevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The bill is H.R. 2989.

ROLL CALL VOTE OF SENATORS ON TRAVEL BAN MEASURE

Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion To Table Dorgan Amdt. No. 1900Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the enforcement of the ban on travel to Cuba.

Vote Counts: YEAs 36 (THIS IS A VOTE AGAINST ENDING THE TRAVEL BAN) NAYs 59 (THIS IS A VOTE IN FAVOR OF ENDING THE TRAVEL BAN) Not Voting 5

YEAs ---36 (AGAINSTending the travel ban)

Alexander (R-TN) Allen (R-VA) Bunning (R-KY) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Cornyn (R-TX) Corzine (D-NJ) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (D-FL) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Kyl (R-AZ) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Lieberman (D-CT) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)

Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY)

NAYs ---59 (IN FAVOR of ending the travel ban)

Akaka (D-HI) Allard (R-CO) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Byrd (D-WV) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE)

Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Enzi (R-WY) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)

Lincoln (D-AR) Mikulski (D-MD) Miller (D-GA) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 5

Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Burns (R-MT) Edwards (D-NC) Kerry (D-MA)

139

He panders to a narrow, reactionary slice of a politically diverse community.

The Los Angeles TimesBy Ann Louise BardachOctober 26, 2003

Ann Louise Bardach writes for Newsweek International and is a commentator on the PublicRadio program "Marketplace." She is the author of "Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeancein Miami and Havana."

Earlier this month, President Bush gathered 100 Cuban Americans in the White House RoseGarden to outline his new Cuba policy. Sprinkling his speech with a few words of well-rehearsed Spanish, the president announced a new commission, co-chaired by Secretary ofState Colin Powell and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez. Its mission:to draw up a transition-to-freedom plan for a post-Castro Cuba and to "identify ways to hastenthe arrival of that day." But judging from the reception of the president's speech most notablywithin the Miami exile community Operation Cuba could be as controversial as Operation IraqiFreedom.

The cornerstone of the president's initiative is to aggressively criminalize travel to Cuba byasking the Department of Homeland Security to identify and punish those who visit Cuba inviolation of U.S. laws, whether they travel from the United States or via a third country. Thepresident also vowed to crack down on people sending money to Cuba. What this policy failsto take into account is that it is Cuban Americans who will be most penalized by thecrackdown. Not only do they travel often to Cuba to see family, they also send an estimated $1billion annually to the island.

Bush's speech was carefully calibrated to appeal to a narrow and extremely reactionary sectionof the exile community. He spoke about Cuban dissidents jailed by Fidel Castro, but he failedto mention Cuba's most prominent dissidents, including Nobel Peace Prize nominee OswaldoPaya, leader of the respected Varela Project; and human rights activist Elizardo Sanchez.Dissidents like Paya are ignored because, although they would like to see the end of Castro'sreign, they also argue that the U.S. embargo is counterproductive. Moreover, such charismaticand popular figures represent a threat to the ambitions of White House favorite Rep. LincolnDiaz-Balart, the Miami congressman who has made no secret of his desire to succeed his uncleby marriage, Castro the sooner the better.

Perhaps the clearest signal of just how extreme the Bush policy is can be gleaned from the listof those invited to the Rose Garden. Amply represented were members of the Cuban LibertyCouncil, a group that broke away from the conservative Cuban American National Foundationon the grounds that it was too moderate. Also present was Alberto Hernandez, an exile knownfor his militancy who is profusely thanked for his support and friendship in the memoirs ofLuis Posada Carriles, currently in prison in Panama on charges that he attempted to assassinateCastro.

Though the president spoke of his intentions "to hasten the arrival of a new, free, democraticCuba," it was the wind of political partisanship, not the spirit of democracy, that blew in theRose Garden. Miami's three Cuban American Republican congressional representatives chattedwith the president, but their colleague Robert Menendez, a fervently anti-Castro exile whorepresents a district in New Jersey, was left off the list. He is a Democrat. More stunning wasthe omission of representatives from the Cuban American National Foundation, a prominentexile group. The slight was viewed by insiders as part of ongoing punishment for the group'snot having endorsed Bush (or any other candidate) in the 2000 presidential campaign. "These

Bush Passes on Cuban Exiles' Right

140

guys have no equal when it comes to revenge," says one foundation board member.

Members of the Cuba Study Group, an exile organization made up of the most influentialCuban business leaders in Miami, were also excluded. One of its founders, Carlos Saladrigas,who describes himself as a "lifelong conservative Republican," attributes the snub to thegroup's recent polling, which found that a majority of South Florida's exiles now favor anonconfrontational approach to Cuba.

Of course, the president's speech omitted mention that the sole point of consensus amongCuban exiles has been their belief that the U.S. economic embargo has utterly failed to meet itsstated goals although hard-liners would advocate strengthening rather than eliminating it. "Ifnot for the embargo," says Saladrigas, "Castro would just be another tin-pot Third Worlddictator. He is the one who really needs to keep it in place, because it gives him his bestexcuse. And it really helps keep him in power."

Seeking to justify his hostile policy toward Cuba, the president peppered his speech withincendiary allegations. "A rapidly growing part of Cuba's tourism industry is the illicit sextrade, a modern form of slavery which is encouraged by the Cuban government," he charged.Certainly, prostitution has flourished in Cuba since the advent of tourism, and that isworrisome. But it is hardly comparable with the skin trade in Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City or adozen other Latin American cities, and there is no evidence that the government is complicit.Nor is prostitution as prevalent as it was in the 1950s when Cuba was America's sex and sinparlor.

The president's policies are not only at odds with public opinion on Cuba; he has squared offagainst his own party. In September, the Republican-controlled House of Representativespassed amendments to ease the embargo against Cuba. For the fourth time in three years, itvoted to ease restrictions on travel. Thursday, the Senate for the first time passed the measureas well. The president has said he will veto such a bill if it comes to him.

Bush's hard-line policies are not without political peril. "It would be close to impossible forPresident Bush to carry Florida if he does not get the 80% or 85% level of the Cuban Americanvote," says pollster Sergio Bendixen, adding that the administration is "risking 15% to 20% ofthe vote by listening only to the most extreme element who favor a confrontational approach."Bendixen points out that more than half of South Florida's exiles are fairly recent émigrés "whoare basically economic refugees and who have family in Cuba." This group, he says, no longerwants sanctions to be the focus of U.S. policy.

One might reasonably ask, then, what the Bush administration believes it stands to gain bytailoring its policy to please only hard-liners. The answer may be that, though Cuban exileshave a multiplicity of political views, the extreme right wing still controls the politicalleadership and electoral machinery of Miami-Dade, along with the vitally important Spanish-language radio stations. Bush is unlikely to have forgotten that it was Miami exile radio thatsummoned rowdy protesters to the canvassing board during the 2000 presidential recount. AndMiami-Dade County officials decided to shut the recount down.

The current U.S. stance toward Cuba has little to do with effective foreign policy andeverything to do with Miami-Dade politics. All of which may explain why Fidel Castro seemsso amused by George W. Bush, the 10th American president to face off against him. Withenemies like this, Castro hardly needs friends.

141

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

Havana Club

The Wall Street Journal27 October 2003Review & Outlook (Editorial)

The Bush Administration, more than most, contains people whose families have paid apersonal price for the horror that is Cuban communism. Which is why it's a little unfair, afterlast week's Senate vote to lift the U.S. travel ban to Cuba, to dismiss the White Houseobjections merely as worry that signing such language would hurt the President's re-electionchances in Florida.

Yes, the Cuban-American vote is a big deal, as Bill Clinton recognized when he courtedMiami's anti-Castro community and cash in his election runs. And given that the Senate voteapproving the lifting of the travel restrictions was less than the two-thirds required to overrideany veto, we'd be surprised if the White House doesn't make good on its threat. But the tensionhere reflects what is a genuine argument among conservatives over what is the best way tobring Fidel Castro down.

Otto Reich of the National Security Council staff and Housing Secretary Mel Martinez believethat lifting such restrictions will breathe financial life into a decaying regime. Some of our freemarket friends in Congress, notably Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, argue that after 40 years ofan embargo Fidel is still sitting pretty. So it's time to try something different.

We fall into the latter group, not least because one of the problems with the existing travel banis that it is applied selectively. Privileged groups of people -- academics, journalists, CubanAmericans and left-leaning Christian groups -- can and already do travel to Cuba. JimmyCarter travels there and CNN more or less treats it like a state visit.

But we're also impressed by Oswaldo Paya, leader of Cuba's homegrown answer to Poland'sSolidarity movement, who wants to see the U.S. embargo lifted. Mr. Paya points out that theheart of the Cuban crisis isn't the partial embargo the U.S. has imposed on Cuba but is the totalembargo Fidel has imposed on his own people: the limits on their speech, their ability to go tochurch, to run their own enterprises, and so on.

As Mr. Flake has written, Fidel's three most obvious failures are "breakfast, lunch and dinner."The more Americans are able to travel to Cuba, the more will be able to see for themselves thesuffering that Fidel and his commissars have wrought.