Relations seemed to reach a new low last month as Bush Administration officials expelled 14 Cuban diplomats from the United States on allegations of espionage, and have upped calls for a change of government on the island.

The Cubans see this and other actions as overtly threatening.

“We believe that we find ourselves in a moment of serious threat for the security and integrity of [Cuba],” said a recent statement by the Cuban Council of Churches. “We also believe that what is intended is to find pretexts to launch another war of aggression.”

These fears might not be entirely justified, but given the ban on travel to Cuba, few people are able to travel to Cuba and thus to explain to the Cuban people that we believe that the United States is not bent on invading their nation. Recently, the Bush administration moved to further restrict the already few types of legal travel to Cuba by US citizens.

The administration’s move comes in the midst of a widening gulf between the two governments, as each accuses the other of outrageous behavior. With government-to-government affairs at a virtual impasse and seemingly little hope for improvement, people-to-people contact is more important than ever.

Recognizing this, members of Congress in both the House and Senate recently introduced bills that would fully and unconditionally legalize travel to Cuba. Similar amendments have passed the House in past years only to have the Republican leadership remove them from the bills on which they were riding.

One of the major obstacles to passing this legislation, no matter how morally correct, has been the argument that Cuba is a repressive state. In recent months, Cuba has bolstered this assertion with a condemnable crackdown on its internal dissidents.

Rising Tensions

In mid-March, 78 Cuban dissidents were arrested, tried and imprisoned on charges of conspiracy to harm the national security of Cuba. The charges rested on alleged collaboration with the US Interests Section in Havana. All were sentenced to lengthy prison terms ranging from 6 to 28 years.

The Cubans explained that the charges were a direct result of American organizing, advising, and equipping of the dissidents through the US Interests Section in Havana; actions which the US government openly acknowledges. The actions of these dissidents, the Cuban government said, were more akin to working for a foreign government – one whose stated policy is the overthrow of the Cuban government – than acting as a legitimate opposition. Cuban government officials explained that in the wake of the new US policy of forcible, unilateral regime change, they cannot tolerate US-supported ‘operatives’ in their country.

When viewed through the prism of the Iraq war, the Cuban fears become more understandable. It has been on the United States’ list of terrorism-sponsoring nations for close to 20 years and has been locked in a long-standing feud with hardliners in the United States for more than 40. These explanations, however, do not excuse the jailing of dissidents for disagreeing with the regime.

Many organizations and people around the world, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Presbyterian Church USA, saw grave problems in the treatment of the dissidents. They, and others, issued statements of concern over the summary nature and the lack of transparency of their trials, the harsh sentences and the possible flaws in the evidence supporting the charges. (It is important to note that both HRW and AI called for a gradual end to the embargo as the best response to these human rights violations and others).

Also at issue in the statements of these organizations were the summary trials and executions of three hijackers. The three tried to hijack a ferry in Havana bay with the intention of defecting to the United States. They were caught and, less than 10 days later, executed by firing squad. The Cubans claimed that this was a legitimate response to a recent rash of hijackings. In addition, the Cubans pointed out, the United States had directly warned them that one more hijacking incident would be viewed as a threat to its national security. Nevertheless, human rights defenders around the world decried the severity and swiftness of the punishment.

In response to the imprisonments of dissidents and the executions of the diplomats, Washington heated up its rhetoric and kicked out 14 Cuban diplomats on charges of espionage. The Cuban Foreign Ministry denied the charges and called the expulsions a political rather than security-based decision and also part of a larger administration plan to increase tensions and provoke a crisis.

A New York Times May 15 article laid responsibility for the expulsions on the administration rather than the FBI. “The decision to expel Cubans was made ‘at the highest levels’ in the State Department and the White House, and the policy makers then turned to the bureau [FBI] for names of intelligence operatives.”

Congress Dedicated to Easing the Embargo

In spite of all of these recent tensions, the members of Congress are dedicated to easing the embargo. This action is more in line with the wishes of the American people – a majority of whom support easing the embargo – than the hard line rhetoric and actions of the Bush administration.

The active members of Congress on easing the embargo, many of whom have visited Cuba, came to the conclusion that the most effective way to support Cuban civil society and legitimize opposition movements was to increase links between the citizens of the two nations. They argue that the best response to a crackdown on dissidents is to flood the streets of Cuba with normal US citizens who can best explain why our nation does not tolerate arrest on the basis of political belief and that our government is not planning on invading Cuba a la Iraq.

It is important to remember statements like that of the Cuban Council of Churches reflect feelings in Cuba right now. They feel threatened by our government in its words and actions. Supporting an end to the ban on travel through Congress is currently the best way for the average citizen of good will to express support for better relations between the United States and Cuba. And better relations will mean less repression in Cuba and more opportunities to begin to heal the wounds of 43 years of divisive and bitter feuding.

Action:
On April 30, Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY) and other members of the Senate Cuba Working Group introduced the “Freedom To Travel to Cuba Act of 2003.” Less than two weeks later, the House Cuba Working Group, led by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) introduced a bill with identical language. If passed, these bills would lift all restrictions on travel to Cuba permanently. Grassroots support of these bills is urgent! Call your representative and senators requesting that they co-sponsor the bill in their chamber.

Influencing your representative or senator can be as easy as a phone call or letter. You may write to:

The Honorable full name
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable full name
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

You may contact representatives and senators by phone by calling the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Some talking points:

• A majority of American Citizens want to see an end to the embargo on Cuba. An October 2000 public opinion poll found that 85% of Americans think the United States should ease restrictions on the sale of food and medicine and travel to Cuba (Florida International University poll).
• A majority of members of Congress has repeatedly voted in favor of easing the embargo on Cuba. Despite this widespread congressional support, pressure and maneuvering from individuals in the House leadership have prevented such efforts from moving forward.
• There has been growing momentum in the House to ease the embargo on Cuba. In a vote on the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill last year, the House of Representatives voted 262-186 to end enforcement of the ban on travel to Cuba. In a subsequent vote, 201 bipartisan members of the House voted to end enforcement of the entire embargo.
• The embargo is creating a dangerous situation. The embargo prevents the US and Cuban governments from engaging in meaningful dialogue, THUS creating a climate of fear and mistrust. Given the security concerns since September 11, open and frank dialogue is more important than ever. Easing any part of the embargo, including travel restrictions, would increase pressure on Washington and Havana to begin communicating.
• Freedom to travel is your right. US citizens travel freely to any other country in the world, including those that are considered hostile. It’s your constitutional right to travel anywhere you want, and the embargo violates this right.
• Sign the petition to President Bush on travel to Cuba found at www.cubacentral.com . We currently have over 9,500 signatures; at 10,000 signatures, the petition will be hand-delivered to the White House by a member of Congress.

General Assembly

Whereas, United States’ efforts to bring about political change in Cuba through punitive economic sanctions have largely failed and resulted in both hardship for the Cuban people and resentment among numerous friendly governments around the world; and

Whereas, calls by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to lift the U.S. embargo and normalize relations over the years (1969, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1990, 1993) have gone unheeded; therefore, be it… resolved, that the General Assembly do the following:

Renew the call upon the United States government to initiate negotiations with the Cuban government toward the end of reestablishing full diplomatic relations.

Renew the call on the United States government to end the economic sanctions that it has imposed on Cuba, and to respect the opinion of the world community in this matter.

Call upon the United States to encourage economic investment in Cuba for assisting the Cuban people’s efforts to build a just society, and to do so in ways that respect the dignity of the Cuban people and their right to self-government.

Encourage presbyteries and Presbyterians to seek to be peacemakers by building relations with Cuba through visits, church-to-church exchanges, provision of humanitarian needs, study, and advocacy of positions recommended by the General Assembly. (Minutes, 1997, Part I, pp. 588-592)

By Philip Schmidt
Latin America Working Group