“State Sponsor of Terrorism”

Two U.S. Congress Officials Object to O’Grady’s Defense of U.S. Designation of Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism

U.S. Representative Jim McGovern (Dem., Mass.) and U.S. Senator Peter Welch (Dem., VT) jointly voice their objection to Mary Anastasi O’Grady’s defense of the U.S. designation of Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism because, they argue, she presented no evidence for that action.[1]

Yes, McGovern and Welch say, “Cuban officials meet with counterparts in Russia and China, but so do American officials. Alliances with Russia and China, also cited as evidence of support for terrorism, would put half the world on the list. When it comes to spying, Cuba and other countries have had spies in the U.S.”

“Ms. O’Grady’s argument about Cuba’s support for Venezuela’s oppressive dictator might sound convincing, but Venezuela itself isn’t on the [terrorism] list. Cuba harbors some aging American fugitives, but none of them have been accused of international terrorism.”

“To be sure, there are [other] countries that belong on the list. [Two of them are North Korea and Syria.] North Korea threatens to launch nuclear weapons at us. Syria used chemical weapons on its own people and finances regional terrorists. Iran funds the rockets that rain down on Israel.”

“Cuba’s government is repressive; its economy is in shambles. If those were criteria for being on the list, it would be a mile long. It’s fine to criticize Cuba, but let’s be honest about who the real terrorists are. A policy of constructive engagement with Cuba might lead to more democracy. Wrongly labeling it as a sponsor of international terrorism only furthers a broken status quo.”

Conclusion

This blog has repeatedly and consistently argued that the U.S. designation of Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism is unjustified. [2]

===========================

[1] Compare McGovern & Welch, Cuba Is No Sponsor of International Terrorism, W.S.J. (Jan. 31, 2024), wit O’Grady, Why Cuba Belongs on the Terrorism List. W.S.J. (Jan. 21, 2024),

[2] E.g., Cuba Still on List of State Sponsors of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 1, 2023); U.S. Senators and Representatives Demand Ending of U.S. Designation of Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism (Jan. 12, 2024);COMMENT: Another Congressman Calls for Ending Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism (Jan. 13, 2024).

Cuba’s Current Economic and Political Crises

Introduction[1]

At least by early December 2023, it was evident that Cuba was experiencing a horrible economic crisis. One commentator put it this way: “Cuba is going through the worst crisis it has experienced in decades, with widespread shortages of food and medicines, rolling blackouts and a sky-high 400% annual inflation rate. The calls on the communist leadership to open up the economy to the market are getting loud, even from close political allies.”

t also was a Cuban political crisis on how to respond to this economic crisis. As John Kavulich, the president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council based in New York City, said in early December, Cuban “bureaucrats have become more reluctant to take risks since there is uncertainty about who is really in charge.” They are “either frightened or untrusting, and certainly not risk-takers.”

The most vivid criticism of this situation came from Roberto Alvarez-Quinones, a Cuban journalist, economist and historian who after working in Cuba for Granma and Cuban television stations has been doing that work in Los Angeles, California. He said, “Never in the history of the entire West has there been such an overwhelming economic and social crisis that it has affected practically 99% of the total population of a country, without having been caused by a natural catastrophe or a war, but by the Government of the nation.”

Cuban Government’s Response[2]

At a December 20-22, 2023, meeting of Cuba’s National Assembly, the Minister of the economy and planning, Alejandro Gil Fernandez, reported that for 2023 Cuba’s GDP fell almost 2%; exports were $770 million below predictions; food production was less than that for 2022; tourism, although more than the prior year, had a yield only 69% of the 2019 figures; overall production was down; there were shortages of supplies and fuels; and health care and education sectors where harmed by loss of workers to emigration.

Fernandez attributed Cuba’s inflation to international price hikes, the government’s release of money to finance its budget deficit, fewer goods being produced, the agricultural sector being burdened by labor shortages, high costs and low yields and Cuba being forced to import over 70% of the food that [was] being consumed.

Prime Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz said the government’s lack of control over production and distribution “adversely affects production by state entities and lets currency exchanges on the illegal market determine the pricing of products from the non-state sector.”

President Diaz-Canel, of course, criticized the U.S. embargo (blockade), but admitted that the Cuban government had made some errors in the “design and implementation of currency unification,” “approving new economic actors without performance norms having been established” and “the complexity of making decisions in a context of extreme tension [and of] commitment to preserving social conquests.”

All of these “difficult realities” were summarized by W.T. Whitney, Jr. (an U.S. political journalist focusing on Latin America) as “the adverse effects of diminished tourism, inflation, and emigration; social inequalities based on varying access to resources; production stymied by shortages of resources; inadequate food production; lack of buying-power for most Cubans, and for importing necessary goods; and the near impossibility of securing foreign investment.”

To meet these problems, Whitney said, Cuba was preparing these responses: “further decentralization of political and economic administration; cutbacks on the expenditure of central government funds; reduced subsidies for the purchase of water, fuel, transport, and electricity by business entities; adjustment of import tariffs to favor the availability of resources for production; capturing more tourist dollars; protecting state-operated production entities; fixing prices; and producing more food.”

Moreover, Whitney said, the U.S. needs to cancel its embargo (blockade) of Cuba and remove Cuba from the U.S. list of countries that are sponsors of international terrorism.

Criticism of Cuban Government Responses[3]

Javier Perex Capdevila, Doctor of Economic Sciences and Professor at the University of Guantanamo, said the Government measures are based on cutting subsidies, but “there are no measures to get out of economic stagnation and . . . to reduce inflation, accompanied by a fiscal deficit that entails generating more liquid money which does not stimulate the economy, but rather inflation. The measures that have been announced in a confusing and ambiguous manner are supposed to achieve macroeconomic stabilization, but that is not a real solution . . and there is no guarantee that they will work.”

In addition. Capdevila noted that increases in long-distance transportation rates will adversely affect many people who have to use such transportation to reach competent medical personnel. He said, “You cannot save a country if you do not save the people.”

Pedro Monreal, a Cuban economist, criticized the purported justification for increasing black market prices for currencies by saying the government had not designed that market. Monreal said this was “a fig leaf to cover up the poor design of the ‘organization that made this informal market necessary.’” The Cuban State did something worse in 2020 when “it designed a defective official exchange market with an overvalued [peso].” Monreal also “predicted more inflation” this year with a government deficit of 18.5% of gross domestic product.

Cuban economist Emilio Morales commented on the continued emigration of Cubans in 2023 while there was a 3.3% decrease in remittances to those on the island due to the need for those now in other countries to pay for their outbound transportation and expenses of living in other countries on their “march for family freedom.” Morales concluded that this result shows “the systemic crisis demands radical reforms and the entrenchment of the mafia regime in its totalitarian model blocks any possibility of survival. History teaches that bayonets cannot sustain a regime for long, indefinitely without fundamental reforms.”

The most recent news about Cuba’s laws affecting private enterprises was the January 16^thannouncement of new income tax regulations. Now “private sector employees will have to pay a 20% income tax on earnings above 30,000 Cuban pesos, about $109 per month. That’s a 15% tax rate increase from the previous scale set up in 2021, which imposed a 5% income tax for earnings over 9,510 Cuban pesos. Business owners must automatically deduct the tax payments monthly, the decree says.”

This recent announcement is in addition to the tax burden on Cuban private businesses: 35% tax on profits, a 10% tax on sales or services provided, a 5% payroll tax, a one percent revenue tax to support local governments and contributions to social security equal to 14% of workers’ salaries. Owners of the [private businesses] also have to pay up to 20% taxes on dividends.

Such private businesses “cannot hire more than 100 employees, they cannot be involved in economic activities handled by the state, such as telecommunications, and must import products and supplies through state companies working as intermediaries. According to the new regulations published this week, they can also be hit with price controls at any time ‘when circumstances advise it to achieve more favorable prices for the population.’”

At about the same time as this announcement of new taxes on private enterprises, the Cuban government announced a new “’ethics code’ for government officials and members of the Communist Party and similar organizations that mandate them to ‘be faithful to socialism,’ fight against the ‘genocidal’ U.S. embargo and ‘be loyal to the Cuban Communist Party, the Revolution… and to the Revolution´s Commander in Chief, Fidel Castro.”

Conclusion[4]

This blog consistently has advocated for U.S. repeal of the embargo (blockade) of Cuba and the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. However, all of the blame for Cuba’s current crises cannot be attributed to these U.S. measures. Indeed, the U.S. now is the sixth largest exporter to Cuba.

Moreover, now the U.S. is preoccupied with the Israel-Hamas and the Russia-Ukraine wars, problems with Iran, North Korea, China, Yemen and the Red Sea and the problems created by large number of immigrants at our southwestern border. As a result, the U.S. does not have the time and resources to devote to Cuba’s problems and U.S. policies regarding same.

=============================

[1] Analysis of Cuba’s Current Economic Crisis, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 5, 2023); Almost All Cubans Suffer Worst Economic Crisis in the History of the Western Hemisphere, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 11, 2023);

[2] Whitney, A revolution in trouble: Cuba’s government, People’s World (Jan 8, 2024).

[3] ‘You can’t save a country if you don’t save the people.’ a Cuban economics doctor explodes in response to the package, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 13, 2024); Another rise in the price of the dollar and the euro on the Cuban black market, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 15, 2024); Emigration grows, but remittances to Cuba sink, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 16, 2024);Through resolutions, the Castro regime intends to stop the astronomical fiscal deficit that it approved, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 17, 2024); Reyes, The economic package opens a political crisis in the Government of Cuba, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 17, 2024); Torres, As the economy craters, the Cuban government hits private-sector workers with tax hike, Miami Herald (Jan. 18, 2024).

[4] E.g., posts listed in sections “Cuba: State Sponsor of Terrorism?” and “U.S. Embargo of Cuba” in List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20]; Cuba Still on U.S. List of State Sponsors of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 2, 2023);U.S. Senators and Representatives Demand Ending of U.S. Designation of Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 12, 2024); COMMENT: Another Congressman Calls for Ending Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan.13, 2024); U.S. Increasing Exports to Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 12, 2024).

Cuba Still on U.S. List of State Sponsors of Terrorism

On November 30, the U.S. State Department published its annual list of state sponsors of terrorism. Cuba is still on the list. Others on that list are North Korea, Iran and Syria.[1]

Here is what the report said about Cuba:

“On January 12, 2021, the Department of State designated Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. The Secretary determined that the Cuban government repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism in granting safe harbor to terrorists.”
“Cuba was previously designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1982 because of its long history of providing advice, safe haven, communications, training, and financial support to guerrilla groups and individual terrorists.”
“Cuba’s designation was rescinded in 2015 after a thorough review found that the country met the statutory criteria for rescission. In 2021 the Secretary of State determined that Cuba had repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism in the six years since its designation had been rescinded. Citing peace negotiation protocols, Cuba refused Colombia’s request to extradite 10 ELN leaders living in Havana after that group claimed responsibility for the 2019 bombing of a Bogotá police academy that killed 22 people and injured 87 others.”
“The Cuban government did not formally respond to the extradition requests for ELN leaders Victor Orlando Cubides (aka “Pablo Tejada”) and Ramírez Pineda (aka “Pablo Beltrán”) filed by Colombia.”
“In November, pursuant to an order from Colombian President Petro, the Attorney General announced that arrest warrants would be suspended against 17 ELN commanders, including those whose extradition Colombia had previously requested.”
“Cuba also continues to harbor several U.S. fugitives from justice wanted on charges related to political violence, many of whom have resided in Cuba for decades.”

Conclusion

As the above report indicates, “Cuba’s designation was rescinded in 2015 [by the Obama Administration] after a thorough review found that the country met the statutory criteria for rescission.” [2] That is still the proper conclusion.

==========================

[1] U.S. State Department, Country Reports on Terrorism (Ch.2. State Sponsors of Terrorism) (Nov. 30, 2023);Despite Havana’s tantrums, Cuba will remain on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism for another year, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 1, 2023) .

[2] President Obama Rescinds U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” dwkcommentaries.com (April 15, 2015);U.S. Rescinds Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” dwkcommentaries.com (May 29, 2015). See also “Cuba: State Sponsor of Terrorism?” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20].

U.S. and Cuba Meet and Discuss Various Issues

On October 10, the U.S. Deputy Undersecretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Eric Jacobstein, met with Johana Tablada de la Torre, [Cuba’s] Deputy Director General for the United States of the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to discuss various issues. [1]

Jacobstein stressed that “the Cuban government [must release] the approximately 1,000 political prisoners unjustly detained” and allow “its citizens to exercise their fundamental freedoms. If the Cuban government seeks to improve relations with the United States, it is essential to achieve progress on these human rights issues.” Jacobstein added that U.S. policy toward Cuba “focuses on promoting accountability for human rights violations and abuses and, at the same time, increasing support for the Cuban people, including promoting safe and humane migration, and independent private sector in Cuba.”

Tablada said to media that the U.S. inclusion of Cuba on its list of state sponsors of terrorism “immediately triggered a disproportionate flow of migrants to the United States.”

The U.S. responded that “US law establishes specific legal criteria for rescinding a ‘country that sponsors terrorism’ designation, and that any review of Cuba’s status on the list would be based on the law and criteria established by the Congress.”

Moreover, the U.S. stated it has a primary objective of “guaranteeing safe, orderly, humane and regular migration between Cuba and the United States.” To that end, “Over the past year, we have taken a number of steps to facilitate such migration, including the full resumption of immigrant visa services in Havana and the creation of a new parole program for certain nationalities, including Cuban citizens. We continue to urge Cubans to follow legal immigration pathways and not risk their lives through dangerous irregular migration.”

========================

[1] USA: If the Cuban regime seeks to ‘improve relations’ it has to advance human rights, Diario de Cuba (Oct. 24, 2023); Torres, Cuba has ‘urgent’ need for sanctions relief, island’s diplomat tells U.S. officials, Miami Herald (Oct. 19, 2023).

Signs of Increasing Connections Between Cuban Private Enterprise and U.S.

As noted in prior posts, Cuba has a small and prospering private business sector in its economy.[1]

The Biden Administration has been indicating that it will adopt regulatory changes that will bolster that entrepreneurial sector by giving Cuban entrepreneurs access to the U.S. banking system. In addition, Cubans could access U.S. internet services (e.g., videoconferencing, e-learning, automated translation, I.T. managing services and cloud-based services). These upcoming changes are prompted by the Administration’s seeing these Cuban businesses as Cuba’s best hope to grow its economy and curb the outflow of its citizens escaping the island’s dire economy. But as of September 27^th no such changes have been officially announced.[2]

On September 25-26, about 70 Cuban entrepreneurs from the island attended an event in Miami that offered advice on how to improve their businesses and navigate the restrictions imposed by the U.S. embargo.[3]

Former congressman Joe Garcia, who helped organize the trip, said, ““The Cuban American community believes that an essential part of a future democratic and prosperous Cuba includes a free enterprise system.” Garcia, who does consulting for some companies doing business with Cuba’s private sector, added that the basic idea behind the trip is to prove that these enterprises are real and not a front for the Cuban government.

The Cuban visitors consists of men and women from various Cuban provinces, some of whom have never been to the United States. They own businesses in several sectors, including transportation, construction, software development, clothes and beauty products and manufacturing. Many said they are looking to cut costs and prices by contacting providers directly so they don’t have to buy from resellers. Others are searching for a market and partnerships to help them scale their operations.

One of the visitors, Zoraida Perez Barrera, has a small but successful women’s and baby clothing business in Santa Clara, a city in central Cuba with 14 employees. She wants to find a U.S. market for her products. “All of us who are Cuban know how rooted we are in our traditions and I make the traditional newborn arrival clothes. In fact, people who live [in Miami] ask us how to buy the baby clothes.”

Some of these relatively new private companies on the island have become major employers and significant importers of food and other essential goods at a time when “the Cuban state is broke,” said Aldo Alvarez, whose own company, Mercatoria, has been importing large quantities of wheat, chicken and cooking oil to sell on the island.

Several of the visiting entrepreneurs said they are particularly encouraged by news reported by the Miami Herald that the Biden administration is readying to announce new regulations allowing Cuban private entrepreneurs to open bank accounts in the United States —something they can’t do now because of the U.S. embargo that would make it easier for them to pay providers abroad.

Also in attendance were two of the largest Miami exporters to Cuba’s private sector: Hugo Cancio, the owner of Katapulk, a marketplace for over a hundred private enterprises, and Ariel Pereda, whose company, Pearl Merchandising & Distribution, first started selling food to Alimport, the Cuban state monopoly, and now is primarily exporting to the private sector.

A keynote address was provided by U.S. healthcare executive and billionaire Mike Fernandez, who said he believes Cuba’s new private businesses are “the beginning of something monumental that will change” Cuba, though there is always the threat that Cuba could “reverse the process” if it finds other ways to resolve its economic crisis.

This gathering also heard from U.S. lawyers and U.S. officials from the Departments of State, Treasury and Commerce, who explained the regulations that allow American companies to export goods to the Cuban private sector. Though the embargo generally prohibits any transactions involving Cuba, the Obama administration eased restrictions on transactions if the final beneficiary is a member of the private sector, not the Cuban government.

A few days earlier Cuba President Miguel Diaz-Canel, who was at the U.N. in New York City, met with approximately 40 representatives of the American private sector, including Hugo Cancio, and told them that the Cuban regime is considering allowing Cuban Americans to invest and own businesses in Cuba. But the President was not prepared to discuss in detail the new regulations the regime needs to pass to allow private companies in Cuba to receive investment and financing from American companies.[4]

Conclusion

Let us hope that the U.S. soon will announce the promised new regulations to enhance Cuban entrepreneurs access to the U.S. banking system and that this sector of the island’s economy will continue to prosper. Of course, the U.S. also should end its embargo of the island and its designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, both of which would improve the lives of Cubans on the island while Cuba should end its recent expansion of Russian and Chinese military and espionage activities on the island.

========================

[1] See, e.g., these posts to dwkcommentaries: U.S. Needs To Improve Relations with Cuba (Aug. 4, 2023);COMMENT: Developments Regarding U.S. Private Exports to Cuba (Aug. 25, 2023);1.5 Million Tourists Tourists Have Visited the Island So Far this Year (Aug. 26, 2023).

[2] Martin & Wilcary, Biden Readies Measures to Support Cuba’s Small Business Owners, Wash. Post (Sept. 18, 2023). Torres, Cuban entrepreneurs to be allowed to open U.S. bank accounts, access internet services, Miami Herald (Sept. 19, 2023).

[3] Torres, In historic meeting, Cuba’s private entrepreneurs look for opportunities in Miami, Miami Herald (Sept. 26, 2023); Almost 70 MSME ‘entrepreneurs’ from Cuba arrive in Miami looking to do business, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 26, 2023).

[4] Diaz-Canel baits Cuban-Americans who want to own businesses on the island, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 23, 2023);Reyes, Diaz-Canel did not make the announcement in the US that businessmen expected, reproaches the anti—embargo lobby, Diario de Cuba (Sept, 25, 2023).

More Conflicting News About Cubans Fighting for Russia Against Ukraine While U.S. Continues Anti-Cuban Policies

The last several days have seen more conflicting news reports about whether Cuba condemns or tolerates Cubans fighting for Russia in the Ukrainian war. There also has been an U.S.-Cuba meeting on various issues and U.S. refusal to cancel its designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism as well as the U.S. continued authorization of its embargo of the island.

Cuba and the Ukrainian War[1]

On September 14, Reuters reported that RIA, a Russian state-owned news agency, had stated that “Cuba is not against the legal participation of its citizens in Russia’s war in Ukraine.” RIA’s stated source was the Cuban ambassador to Russia, Julio Antonio Garmendia Pena, who was quoted as saying, “We have nothing against Cubans who just want to sign a contract and legally take part with the Russian army in this operation. But we are against illegality” and those recently arrested in Cuba “had been engaged in illegal activities and had broken the law.”

More details about the Ambassador’s statement were provided by the Miami Herald, which reported that he said the Cubans who had been arrested were “’swindlers’ who had broken the law” and “We are talking about bad people who, on the basis of such an important issue as a military operation, as relations between our countries, want to earn money, want to put money in their pocket and engage in illegal activities.”

A Cuban Foreign Ministry official in Havana, however, on September 14, issued the following statement:

“Cuba reiterates its firm historical position against mercenarism and upholds its active role at the United Nations against that practice. Cuban laws are very explicit in relation to the criminalization of crimes such as trafficking in persons, smuggling of migrants and mercenarism.”
“Cuba likewise reiterates that it is not a part of the war conflict in Ukraine. It also states that, following the uncovering of a trafficking in persons network operating from Russia, intended to recruit Cuban citizens settled in that country, as well as others residing in Cuba, so that they would join the military forces taking part in war operations in Ukraine, several attempts of this same nature have been neutralized and criminal proceedings have been established against persons involved in such activities.”
“The Cuban authorities maintain an exchange with their Russian counterparts in relation to these incidents, given the excellent level of relations that exist between both countries, with the purpose of clarifying these events.”

The Miami Herald also reported that a “U.S. State Department official said the administration is “concerned by reports alleging young Cubans have been deceived and recruited to fight for Russia in its brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s need to use deceit to attract foreign fighters indicates both its military weakness and its disregard for human life. We continue to monitor the situation closely.”

In addition, the Miami Herald reported that the chairman of the Ukrainian parliament’s committee on foreign relations, Oleksandr Merezhko, stated, “the Cuban communist regime pretends that it has nothing to do with this ‘human trafficking.’ In reality, this totalitarian regime is on the side of the aggressor.”

U.S. Actions Regarding Cuba[2]

The U.S. State Department confirmed that on September 11, 2023, Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian Nichols met with the Cuban vice foreign minister and discussed “human rights, migration, and other issues of bilateral interest” after a number of meetings with officials from the Cuban embassy in Washington. But the U.S. did not agree to terminate its designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Another U.S. action continuing its hostility towards Cuba was President Biden on September 13, 2023, signing another year’s extension of the Trading with the Enemy Law, which is the basis for the U.S. embargo of the island. That document urged the Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, to enforce this sanctioning measure against the Cuban economy, and emphasized that the embargo “is in the national interest” of the United States.

Reactions

The U.S. needs to end its embargo of Cuba and its designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. In addition, the U.S. needs to press Cuba to stop assisting Russia in its war against Ukraine and to publicly clarify Cuba’s policies and actions regarding Ukraine.

==========================

[1] Conflicting News About Cubans Fighting for Russia, dwkcommentaries.com (Sept. 12, 2023); Cuba is not against its citizens fighting on Russia’s side in Ukraine, RIS cites envoy, Reuters.com (Sept. 14, 2023); RIA Novosti, Wikipedia; Torres, Cuban diplomat says island will not stop citizens from fighting for Russia in Ukraine, Miami Herald (Sept,. 14, 2023); Statement by Lleana Nunez Mordoche, Director for Europe and Canada of the General Division of Bilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba (Sept. 14, 2023). Damage control: the regime says it opposes the participation of Cubans in any conflict, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 15, 2023).

[2] U.S. State Dep’t, Department Press Briefing—September 14, 2023;

Torres, American and Cuban officials meet ahead of Cuban leader’s trip to UN meeting in New York, Miami Herald (Sept. 14, 2023); Spetalnick, High-Level US-Cuba talks yield no progress on top disputes, Cuban official says, Reuters.com (Sept. 14, 2023); Senior Cuban and US officials hold an unusual meeting in Washington, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 15, 2023); Capote, Biden ratifies the blockade with his signature: the genocide against Cuba continues, Granma.com (Sept. 14, 2023); White House, Memorandum on the Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act (Sept. 13, 2023).

Criticism of President Biden’s “New Cuba Policy”

On May 16, 2022, the White House held a press briefing on what it called “Our New Cuba Policy.” After examining the details of that briefing, we will evaluate that so called “New Policy” and conclude that it is inadequate by failing to call for elimination of (a) the U.S. embargo of Cuba and (b) the U.S. designating Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism.”

U.S. “New Cuba Policy”[1]

The “new” policy was said to be designed “to increase support for the Cuban people and safeguard our national security interests” and resulted from the U.S. study over the last year that “continues to center on human rights and empowering the Cuban people to determine their own future, and we continue to call on the Cuban government to release all political prisoners.” This review was directed by President Biden to take actions in response to “the large-scale [Cuban] protests that took place last July” and “to take actions in two primary areas:”

“The first is to promote accountability for human rights abuses, for which we have announced several rounds of sanctions targeting those individuals and entities with direct ties to human rights abuses.”
“Second, . . . to explore meaningful ways to support the Cuban people.”

Therefore, the “new” policy has “prioritized and facilitated the export of privately sourced or donated goods to the Cuban people, focusing specifically on agricultural and medical exports; facilitated U.S. private sector faith-based organizations and other NGOs to provide humanitarian support; provided guidance to individuals and entities seeking to export to Cuba for the first time; . . . increased our support for the families of those who were detained; and increased, by $5 million, our support for censorship circumvention technology to support the ability of the Cuban people to communicate to, from, and among each other.”

In addition, the “new” policy was stated to fulfill President Biden’s commitment to the “Cuban American community and their family members in Cuba” by the following measures:

“[R]einstate the Cuba Family Reunification Parole Program and continue to increase the capacity for consular services. . . . [The U.S.] resumed limited immigrant visa processing [in Cuba] in early May and are looking to make sure that we staff up so that we can begin processing the full 20,000 immigrant visas out of Havana as quickly as possible.”
“[Strengthen] family ties and . . . [facilitate] educational connections for American and Cuban people by expanding authorized travel. . . . [That includes] specifically authorizing commercial and charter flights to locations beyond Havana. We are reinstating group people-to-people educational travel under a general license, among a number of other measures. We are not reinstating individual people-to-people educational travel.”
“[w]e are increasing support for independent Cuban entrepreneurs. That includes encouraging commercial opportunities outside the state sector by using . . . independent Cuban entrepreneurs’ access to the Internet, cloud technology, programming interfaces, e-commerce platforms, and a number of other measures, including access to microfinance and training.”
The U.S. “will ensure that remittances flow more freely to the Cuban people while not enriching those who perpetrate human rights abuses. . . . [That includes] removing the limit on family remittances of $1,000 per quarter per sender/receiver pair. And we’ll authorize donative remittances, which will support Cuban families and independent Cuban entrepreneurs.”

In addition, the new policy will “continue to elevate the matter of human rights, the treatment of political prisoners, and . . . elevate the issue of labor rights in Cuba, [which more generally is “a core priority for the Biden-Harris administration.”

The authorization of group travel to Cuba will be limited to purposeful purposes, not tourism.

More generally the new policy is intended “to help alleviate the humanitarian suffering that prompts out-migration from Cuba and also to advance our interest in supporting the Cuban people and ensuring that Cuban Americans and Americans in general are also the best advanced ambassadors for U.S. policy.”

The U.S. will be increasing the staff at the Havana Embassy “with an appropriate security posture.”

There was no mention at this briefing of two very significant U.S. policies regarding Cuba: the U.S. embargo of the island and the U.S. designation of Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Therefore, both of them remain in effect with continued major impacts on the island and will be discussed below.

Reactions to the “New” U.S. Cuba Policy[2]

New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, a Cuban-American and now the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, welcomed the maintenance of the State Department’s Cuba Restricted List and the restart of the Cuban Family Reunification Parole program. But he was “dismayed” at its restarting group travel to the island because it will not breed democracy on the island and merely help the Cuban government fund its “continued repression.”

The harshest critic of the “new” policy was Ben Rhodes, who was President Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor and involved in that administration’s efforts to normalize relations with Cuba. Said Rhodes, “Disappointed doesn’t begin to scratch the surface of how I feel about the Biden-Cuba policy. Granted it was Trump” who initially reversed Obama’s policies, but “then Biden doubles down” on Trump’s policies. We had Trump—in the most grotesque, callous way—politicizing this. But then Biden doubles down. It’s a gaslighting to those people in Cuba ” (deliberately and systematically feeding false information that leads recipients to question what they know to be true). (Emphasis added).

Scott Hamilton, who served as U.S. charge d’ affaires in Havana during Obama’s opening to Cuba, said Biden’s measures do not reorient relations, but “are more about addressing the need to get the numbers [of Cuban [emigrants] down on migration.”

It also should be noted that Biden left Trump’s sanctions in place as the coronavirus pandemic overwhelmed the island’s medical system and strangled tourism, a crucial source of cash and goods for families. Allowing U.S. flights only to Havana ignores the difficulties of obtaining and paying for land transportation to other parts of the island, and most hotels are off-limits under U.S. regulations. Biden’s relaxing limits on remittances to families on the island is a good idea, but it does not cope with the difficulties of U.S. blacklisting of the financial institution for electronic fund transfers, Fincimex, due to its ties to the Cuban military. A leading U.S. expert on Cuba, William LeoGrande, a professor of government at American University, said, “What’s striking about these[Biden] measures is, there’s nothing about reopening the diplomatic dialogues that were ongoing at the end of the Obama administration.”

As a member of a church (Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian) that since 2001 has had a partnership with a Presbyterian church in Matanzas, Cuba and members who actively provide and maintain clean-water systems on the island,I welcome the new Policy’s encouraging “faith-based organizations to provide humanitarian support.” I, therefore, reject Senator Menendez’s criticism of encouraging group travel to the island.

The Biden administration is hoping that these new measures will reduce Cuba’s soaring out-migration. Apprehensions of Cubans on the U.S.-Mexico border have rocketed to more than 113,000 in the first seven months of this fiscal year, nearly three times as many as in all of fiscal 2021. These emigrants include some activists who were protesting in the streets last year, teachers, farmers and parents of young children who decided they would be better off leaving as the island’s economy continued to tank, the Cuban government having not enacted significant reforms and Nicaragua lifted its visa requirement, making travel there easier. This exodus is sapping Cuba of much of its youth while its population is aging and declining.

Now these economic problems have been exacerbated by the following two recent events:

In August 2022 oil storage tanks near the city of Matanzas on the north coast of the island were destroyed by a lightning strike. That destruction resulted in a heavy human toll and a serious blow to fuel for Cuba’s electric power generating system, which already had been tottering from lack of maintenance and investment. The U.S., however has not offered any help in responding to this emergency other than telephonic technical assistance.
More recently, on September 26, Hurricane Ian, a Category 3 storm, slammed into the western end of the island. The next morning videos showed residents walking through waist-deep water as waves continued to crash on shore. Power lines, trees and siding could be seen littered along the roads. Electric power throughout the island was damaged.

U.S. Embargo of Cuba[3]

On October 19, 1960, almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had taken over the island’s government, the Eisenhower administration launched the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba that prohibited all U.S. sales of goods and services to Cuba except food and medicine. That embargo continues in effect today, nearly 62 years later, with amplification by many U.S. statutes.

Cuba claims that to date it has suffered significant economic damages from the embargo and the U.N. General Assembly every year since 1992 (except 2020 due to the Covid pandemic) has adopted resolutions, by overwhelming margins, condemning the embargo as a violation of international law.

The last session to approve such a resolution happened on June 23, 2021, when the vote was 184 to 2 (the U.S. and Israel in opposition) with three abstentions (Colombia, Ukraine and Brazil). Cuba’s Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla told the Assembly that the embargo was a “massive, flagrant and unacceptable violation of the human rights of the Cuban people” and “an economic war of extraterritorial scope against a small country already affected in the recent period by the economic crisis derived from the pandemic” with estimated 2020 losses alone to be $9.1 million.

The U.S. opposition at the last session was offered by Rodney Hunter, the Political Coordinator for the U.S Mission, who said sanctions are “one set of tools in the U.S. broader effort toward Cuba to advance democracy, promote respect for human rights, and help the Cuban people exercise fundamental freedoms.” Moreover, despite the blockade, the US recognizes “the challenges of the Cuban people” and therefore, the US was “a significant supplier of humanitarian goods to the Cuban people and one of Cuba’s principal trading partners. Every year we authorize billions of dollars’ worth of exports to Cuba, including food and other agricultural commodities, medicines, medical devices, telecommunications equipment, other goods, and other items to support the Cuban people. Advancing democracy and human rights remain at the core of our policy efforts.”

The current session of the General Assembly on November 2, 2022, will consider this year’s report by the U.N. Secretary-General, “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” The U.N. website for this report had a list of countries that had submitted comments (presumably supportive of the resolution), but did not include any comments from the U.S. or Israel, both of whom voted against the resolution in 2021, or from the three countries that abstained last year (Brazil, Colombia and Ukraine).

Therefore, it is fair to assume that the resolution against the U.S. embargo will again by overwhelmingly approved on November 2. Moreover, this blog continues to support abolishing the embargo.

U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”[4]

Since 1982 the United States has had different opinions as to whether Cuba was a “state sponsor of terrorism” under three U.S. statutes—the Export Administration Act (section 6(j)), the Arms Export Control Act (section 40) and the Foreign Assistance Act (Section 620A)—that authorize the Secretary of State to designate countries that “have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism” as “state sponsors of terrorism” and thereby impose sanctions on such countries, including restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance, bans on U.S. defense exports and sales, controls over exports of dual use items and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

We will look at these different positions, including the Biden Administration’s current review of the Trump Administration’s last minute designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor.”

Cuba as “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” 1982-2014. From 1982 through 2014, the U.S. designated Cuba as such a Sponsor.[5]

U.S. Rescinds Cuba’s “Sponsor” Designation, 2015. [6] On April 14, 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry publicly announced that the State Department had recommended that President Obama rescind the designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism.” His press release stated that the prior week the “Department submitted a report to the White House recommending, based on the facts and the statutory standard, that President Obama rescind Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.”

“This recommendation,” the Statement continued, “reflects the Department’s assessment that Cuba meets the criteria established by Congress for rescission . . . . whether Cuba provided any support for international terrorism during the previous six months, and whether Cuba has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.” This conclusion was based, in part, upon “corroborative assurances received from the Government of Cuba.”

Nevertheless, according to the Secretary’s statement, “the United States has had, and continues to have, significant concerns and disagreements with a wide range of Cuba’s policies and actions, [but] these concerns and disagreements fall outside of the criteria for designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.”

The same day (April 14, 2015), a White House press release stated the President had “submitted to Congress the statutorily required report and certifications indicating the Administration’s intent to rescind Cuba’s State Sponsor of Terrorism designation.” That presidential decision was based upon the previously mentioned State Department recommendation that was based on its “careful review of Cuba’s record, which was informed by the Intelligence Community, as well as assurances provided by the Cuban government.”

This White House press release also stated, “As the President has said, we will continue to have differences with the Cuban government, but our concerns over a wide range of Cuba’s policies and actions fall outside the criteria that is relevant to whether to rescind Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. That determination is based on the statutory standard – and the facts – and those facts have led the President to declare his intention to rescind Cuba’s State Sponsor of Terrorism designation. More broadly, the [U.S.] will continue to support our interests and values through engagement with the Cuban government and people.”

President Obama’s simultaneous message to Congress certified that “(i) the Government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding 6-month period; and (ii) the Government of Cuba has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.”

U.S. Non-Designation of Cuba, 2016-2020.[7] From 2016 through the end of the Obama Administration in January 2017, the U.S. continued to not so designate Cuba as the U.S. and Cuba held several bilateral diplomatic meetings to discuss the many issues that had accumulated ever since the January 1, 1959, takeover of the Cuban government by the Cuban Revolution.

At their May 2016 Law Enforcement Dialogue, the U.S. State Department said that “law enforcement is an area of mutual interest to both the U.S. and Cuba as we advance toward normalized relations. We anticipate that the dialogue will be productive, and an additional opportunity to reinforce the benefits of law enforcement cooperation. During the dialogue, the United States and Cuba will continue to discuss a wide range of areas of cooperation, including counterterrorism, counternarcotic, transnational crime, cybercrime, secure travel and trade, and fugitives.”

The framework for the dialogue was the May 2016 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Cuban Ministry of Interior. This MOU set the basis of cooperation in exchanging risk information for travelers, cargo or conveyances in international transit; the continuation of periodic, mutual, and reciprocal assessments regarding air, sea, and port security; and the coordination of transportation security, screening of cargo, travelers and baggage, and the design of secure, efficient inspection facilities at ports and airports, among other things.

The next month, June 2016, the U.S. and Cuba met in Havana for their first Counterterrorism Technical Exchange. The State Department said, “Coordination and cooperation on counterterrorism has been one of several important topics discussed in law enforcement dialogues between the United States and Cuba. We welcome the opportunity to bring together technical experts to discuss this topic of common interest.” Afterwards, the Cuban Foreign Ministry said that the meeting was conducted with “respect and professionalism” and that “both parties agreed on the importance of progress in cooperation in this sphere and agreed to continue the meetings of technicians on the topic.”

During the last weeks of the Obama Administration in January 2017, the U.S. and Cuba signed the following four agreements:

Cuba Memorandum of Understanding on Law Enforcement “to cooperate in the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and other international criminal activities.”
Memorandum of Understanding to strengthen cooperation in the field of maritime and aeronautical search and rescue by enhancing effectiveness and efficiency in assisting persons in distress and to act in furtherance of obligations under international law.
U.S., Cuba and Mexico signed a treaty to set territorial limits in contested Gulf of Mexico waters. The treaty covers the Eastern Gap of the Gulf of Mexico, an area believed to be rich in oil and gas deposits. The three countries’ overlapping claims in the Eastern Gap had created what is known as a “Doughnut Hole.” Trilateral discussions begun in mid-2016 on the maritime territorial issue were concluded by the end of the year.
U.S. and Cuba memorandum of understanding to help prevent the introduction and spread of quarantine pests, animal and plant disease agents through the exchange of scientific information, best practices for the prevention and control of plagues and emerging diseases, collaborative scientific projects, including the use of technology, research and surveillance, and the holding of events on specific aspects of animal and plant health.

In addition, the Trump Administration for 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 did not designate Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism.”

U.S. Re-Designation of Cuba as “Sponsor,2021-22.[8] On January 11, 2021 (with only nine days left of the Trump Administration), U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo announced that Cuba was being re-designated as a “State Sponsor” to join Iran, North Korea and Syria. Here is what his statement said:

“The State Department has designated Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism for repeatedly providing support for acts of international terrorism in granting safe harbor to terrorists.”
“The Trump Administration has been focused from the start on denying the Castro regime the resources it uses to oppress its people at home, and countering its malign interference in Venezuela and the rest of the Western Hemisphere.”
“With this action, we will once again hold Cuba’s government accountable and send a clear message: the Castro regime must end its support for international terrorism and subversion of U.S. justice.”
“For decades, the Cuban government has fed, housed, and provided medical care for murderers, bombmakers, and hijackers, while many Cubans go hungry, homeless, and without basic medicine. Members of the National Liberation Army (ELN), a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, traveled to Havana to conduct peace talks with the Colombian government in 2017. Citing peace negotiation protocols, Cuba has refused Colombia’s requests to extradite ten ELN leaders living in Havana after the group claimed responsibility for the January 2019 bombing of a Bogota police academy that killed 22 people and injured more than 87 others.”
“Cuba also harbors several U.S. fugitives from justice wanted on or convicted of charges of political violence, many of whom have resided in Cuba for decades. For example, the Cuban regime has refused to return Joanne Chesimard, on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List for executing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster in 1973; Ishmael LaBeet, convicted of killing eight people in the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1972; Charles Lee Hill, charged with killing New Mexico state policeman Robert Rosenbloom in 1971; and others.”
“Cuba returns to the SST list following its broken commitment to stop supporting terrorism as a condition of its removal by the previous administration in 2015. On May 13, 2020, the State Department notified Congress that it had certified Cuba under Section 40A(a) of the Arms Export Control Act as “not cooperating fully” with U.S. counterterrorism efforts in 2019.”
“In addition to the support for international terrorism that is the basis for today’s action, the Cuban regime engages in a range of malign behavior across the region. The Cuban intelligence and security apparatus has infiltrated Venezuela’s security and military forces, assisting Nicholas Maduro to maintain his stranglehold over his people while allowing terrorist organizations to operate. The Cuban government’s support for FARC dissidents and the ELN continues beyond Cuba’s borders as well, and the regime’s support of Maduro has created a permissive environment for international terrorists to live and thrive within Venezuela.”
“Today’s designation subjects Cuba to sanctions that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with Cuba, restricts U.S. foreign assistance, bans defense exports and sales, and imposes certain controls on exports of dual use items.”
“The United States will continue to support the Cuban people in their desire for a democratic government and respect for human rights, including freedom of religion, expression, and association. Until these rights and freedoms are respected, we will continue to hold the regime accountable.”

So far in 2022, the U.S. has not taken any further action regarding this designation. However, at a July 21, 2022, press conference a journalist asked, “Is the administration’s position that Cuba still meets the legal requirements to be a state sponsor of terrorism?” The only response to that question came from Ned Price, the Department’s spokesman, who said, “The fact pattern that led a previous administration to [so] designate Cuba . . . is in the public record.”

One year after the July 11, 2021 protests in Cuba, the United States recognizes the determination and courage of the Cuban people as they continue to fight for respect for human rights and persevere through repression during a historic year. We celebrate the Cuban people and commend their indomitable determination.

Conclusion

This blogger strongly favors a return to the Obama Administration’s pursuit of normalization of relations with Cuba as well as its rescinding the designation of Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism” and its support for abolishing the U.S. embargo. These opinions are further supported by the recent explosion of Cuba’s oil storage tanks and its being hit by Hurricane Ira as well as recognizing that Cuba is a much smaller country than the U.S. with much more limited military and security forces.

Comments from readers to correct or supplement any of the discussion or citations to the record of these complex issues would be appreciated.

================================

[1] White House, Background Press Call By Senior Administration Officials On New Cuba Policy (May 16, 2022).

[2] Sheridan & Chaoul, As Biden eases Trump’s sanctions, Cubans hope for an economic life, Wash. Post (June 2, 2022); Armario, Last year, Cubans took to the streets. Now they’re fleeing the island, Wash. Post (July 11, 2022); Isikoff, Former top Obama aide accuses Biden of ‘gaslighting’ Cuba: ‘Disappointed doesn’t begin to scratch the surface,’ Yahoo News (Sept. 14, 2022); Matanzas oil storage facility explosion, Wikipedia (Aug. 5, 2022); 17 missing, dozens hurt as fire rages in Cuban oil tank farm, MPRNews (Aug. 6, 2022); Fire at Cuban oil storage facility further exacerbated electricity shortages, wsws.org (Aug. 12, 2022); Cuba’s oil fire is contained—but the disaster has sparked U.S.-Cuba diplomatic flames, wusf news (Aug. 12, 2022); Finch, Residents in Cuba wake-up to waist-deep water after Ian makes landfall, Accuweather.com (Sept. 7, 2022); Last Minute, Hurricane Ian: the center leaves Cuban soil, but continues to hit with intense winds, rains and strong swells, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 27, 2022); Byrne, Latest AccuWeather Eye Path forecast takes Ian’s landfall south of Tampa, Acuweather (Sept. 27, 2022); Live: the passage of Hurricane Ian through Cuba, Granma.com (Sept. 27, 2022); Cuba Foreign Ministry, The economic blockade against Cuba must end, (Sept. 7, 2022).

[3] United States embargo against Cuba, Wikipedia; UN General Assembly calls for US to end Cuba embargo for 29^th consecutive year, UN News (June 23, 2021); U.N., Schedule of General Assembly Plenary and Related Meetings (Sept. 27, 2022). See also posts listed in the “U.S. Embargo” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: Cuba (as of 5/4/20].

[4] See posts listed in “Cuba: State Sponsor of Terrorism?” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries: Topical—Cuba [as of 5/4/20].

[5] Ibid.

[6] See President Obama Rescinds U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” dwkcommentaries.com (April 15, 2015).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Crowley, Augustin & Semple, Pompeo Returns Cuba to Terrorism Sponsor List, Constraining Biden’s Plans, N.Y. Times (Jan. 11, 2021 & updated 2/15/21).

More Objectionable U.S. Statements About Cuba

On May 12, 13 and 14, the U.S. State Department made three negative statements about Cuba. First, it listed Cuba and four other countries for “not cooperating fully” with U.S. counterterrorism efforts in 2019. Second, the U.S. identified Cuba and four other countries for allegedly creating, disseminating and amplifying disinformation and propaganda in the Western Hemisphere. Third, an anonymous source said the U.S. was considering re-designating Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism by the end of the year.

These U.S. statements along with reactions thereto are discussed below.

Cuba’s Alleged Noncooperation Over Counterterrorism[1]

According to the Department on May 12, there were two points of alleged non-cooperation.

Cuba’s Refusal To Extradite Colombian Guerrilla Leaders to Colombia

The first related to Cuba’s refusal to extradite to Colombia 10 leaders of the Colombian rebel group—the ELN (the National Liberation Army)—who are living in Cuba after the group claimed responsibility for the January 2019 bombing of a Bogota police academy that killed 22 people and injured more than 60 others. The State Department said, “As the United States maintains an enduring security partnership with Colombia and shares with Colombia the important counterterrorism objective of combating organizations like the ELN, Cuba’s refusal to productively engage with the Colombian government demonstrates that it is not cooperating with U.S. work to support Colombia’s efforts to secure a just and lasting peace, security, and opportunity for its people.”

Yes, it is true that there was such a bombing in Bogota, that the ELN claimed responsibility for same, that certain ELN leaders are living in Cuba and that Cuba has declined to extradite them to Colombia. There indeed is reason for Colombia to be outraged. But the U.S. citing this as an objectionable refusal to cooperate with the U.S. is inappropriate and objectionable.

Since 2005, Cuba has been acting intermittingly as a mediator of the conflict between these two parties. These peace talks, however, have been inconclusive. The first round started in 2005 and ended in August 2007, when the ELN said there were “two different conceptions of peace and methods to get to it.” The next year (2008) then Colombian President Alvaro Uribe invited an ELN representative to the Colombian Presidential Palace for new talks, but the ELN did not accept the invitation.

In 2012, the ELN tried and failed to negotiate a position for itself at a peace conference in Cuba between the government of former [Colombian] President Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Five years later, in 2017, the ELN and the Colombian government formally entered peace negotiations in Cuba. In October 2017, those talks resulted in the Colombian government’s accepting the ELN’s offer of a ceasefire, the first between the two.”[2]

“The ceasefire between the ELN and the Colombian government encountered difficulties in early 2019 with new Colombian President Duque’s demanding the ELN to stop kidnapping and to release hostages as a condition for the continuation of the peace talks, which the ELN refused. This lead to the ELN attack in January 2019 on the police academy and the Colombian government’s suspending the peace talks indefinitely. As of June 2019, President Duque has called for the arrest and extradition of the ELN leadership present at the Havana peace talks.”

On March 29, 2020, ELN announced a unilateral 30-day ceasefire starting April 1 as a “humanitarian gesture” during the coronavirus pandemic and stated its williness to reviving suspended peace negotiations. The Colombian government immediately responded by announcing that two former ELN commanders would serve as “peace promoters” (gestores de paz). On April 27, 2020, however, ELN announced that effective May 1 it would resume its guerrilla war because of a lack of response by the conservative government of President Duque, who allegedly lacked “the will” to resume stalled peace talks in Havana.

Under these circumstances Cuba invoked the protocols for the peace talks stipulating that, upon a breakdown of negotiations, Cuba would facilitate the return of ELN members to safe havens in Colombia. However, because Colombia’s government expressed the intent to arrest ELN members upon their return to the country, rather than allow their returns to safe havens, Cuba refused extradition.

ELN predictably denounced this U.S. action. The ELN emphasized that these protocols are guaranteed by Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Norway and Venezuela and that Colombia is violating them by insisting upon Cuba’s extradition of ELN leaders to that country. The FARC also backed this position by withdrawing from a meeting of Colombia’s Commission for Follow-up, Promotion and Verification of the Implementation of the Agreements of Peace.

Cuba’s trying to assist peaceful resolution of these disputes is an important contribution to overall peace in the region and takes precedence over the U.S. demanding that Cuba do what the U.S. wants it to do. Moreover, as the Washington Office on Latin America stated, this U.S. action “sends the message that if a state agrees to host peace talks, and doesn’t violate its word, that state could still face severe consequences for its contribution to global peace and security. In Colombia, as reprehensible as the ELN’s actions were, this sends a perverse message to any group that might decide to enter into a future peace process with the government.”

Instead, in this blogger’s opinion, the U.S, should press both the Colombian government and the ELN to resume peace negotiations in Cuba with the latter’s assistance.

Cuba’s Refusal To Return U.S. Fugitives to the U.S.

The second ground cited by the U.S. for non-cooperation is Cuba’s harboring “several U.S. fugitives from justice wanted on charges of political violence, many of whom have resided in Cuba for decades. For example, the Cuban regime has refused to return Joanne Chesimard, who was convicted of executing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster in 1973. The Cuban Government provides housing, food ration books, and medical care for these individuals.”

Yes, it is true that several U.S. fugitives have resided on the island for a long period of time, and Cuba has declined U.S. requests for their return. The most significant has been Ms. Chesimard, who was convicted in New Jersey state court of aiding and abetting the murder of that State Trooper; she was in the car with men who had guns and killed the trooper, but she did not pull the trigger.

She escaped from a New Jersey prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba, which granted her political asylum, and under U.S.-Cuba extradition treaties of 1905 and 1926, each country is not obligated to extradite someone when the offense is of “a political character.”[3]

Moreover, Cuba has cooperated with the U.S. on this issue by discussing the issue in bilateral talks with the U.S. during President Obama’s efforts to normalize relations with the island, by not admitting any other U.S. fugitives to the island and by extraditing some such fugitives to the U.S.

Cuba’s Alleged Disinformation and Propaganda[4]

On May 13, additional statements against Cuba were made in the context of the perceived threat to the U.S. from disinformation and propaganda in Latin America. The State Department’s briefing on this subject was conducted by Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, and Lea Gabrielle, Special Envoy and Coordinator of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center.[5]

According to Kozak, Cuba (along with Russia, China, Iran, the former Maduro regime in Venezuela, and other malign actors) play a role in the creation, dissemination, and amplification of disinformation and propaganda around the region with the purpose of undermining the efforts of the competent authorities in the region to address the [pandemic] crisis appropriately.”

Most of the specific comments were directed at Russia, China and Venezuela. The only ones specially about Cuba were in the concluding remarks by the Special Envoy, who said:

Cuba has “capitalized on COVID-19 to try to amplify its longstanding propaganda campaigns around its medical missions, routinely amplifying reports of Cuban doctors assisting in the fight against COVID-19 in countries around the world.And we certainly encourage Cuba to allow its doctors to provide their assistance freely instead of withholding their salaries, confiscating their passports, and forcing them into destitute living and working conditions, but what we’re seeing is the Cuban propaganda machine have a global reach through social media. So we’ve identified, for example, more than four dozen Twitter accounts that are key components of that global network, including accounts in Venezuela alongside other countries in the region, even as far as Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. And these accounts have worked together to try to obscure the well-documented exploitation inherent to the Cuban medical program.”

The Special Envoy’s comments implicitly admit that Cuba’s medical missions to combat the coronavirus pandemic have been favorably (and legitimately) received around the world, which annoys the U.S. She then repeats the U.S. canard that Cuba illegally treats its medical professionals on these missions. As discussed in prior posts, there has been no credible showing by the U.S. that Cuba has been and is engaging in illegal forced labor of these medical professionals.[6]

U.S. Possible Re-Designating Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism[7]

On May 14, an anonymous State Department source told Reuters that by the end of this year the U.S. might re-designate Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism,” which was lifted in 2015 during the Obama Administration’s normalization of relations between the two countries.

This anonymous source said there was a “convincing case” for such re-designation because of Cuba’s continued backing of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and its providing refuge for ELN leaders. If that re-designation happens, it would carry the risk of further U.S. sanctions against Cuba.

This threat is ill founded. The U.S. in May 2015 officially rescinded its designation of Cuba as such a Sponsor for well founded reasons.

A Miami-based Cuba-exile group supporting closer ties with Cuba, Cuba Study Group, said, “We always knew this administration planned to return Cuba to the to the SSOT. Now starts the slow election-year rollout for maximum theatrical effect. Just for you, Miami.”

Conclusion

All of these U.S. statements about Cuba are unjustified. They all are premised on the dominant U.S. saying “my way, or the highway.” Instead, the U.S. should encourage both the Colombian government and ELN to resume peace negotiations with the assistance of Cuba. In addition, the U.S. should propose the resumption of respectful discussions with Cuba over the many issues that have accumulated over the last 60 years, including the ending of the U.S. embargo of the island.

==============================

[1] The four other countries are Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela.(See State Dep’t, Countries Certified as Not Cooperating Fully With U.S. Counterterrorism Efforts (May 13, 2020); Reuters, U.S. Says Cuba Is Not Cooperating Fully on Counterterrorism, N.Y. Times (May 13, 2020).

[2] Mapping Militant Organizations. “National Liberation Army,” Stanford University (Last modified July 2019); National Liberation Army (ELN), Wikipedia; Johnson, The National Liberation Army (ELN) Joins Colombia’s Santos for Peace, Crisisgroup.org (May 12, 2016); Colombia’s ELN rebels call ceasefire over coronavirus, BBCNews (Mar. 30, 2020); ELN Unilateral Ceasefire an Important Opportunity for Peace in Colombia, wola.org (Mar. 30, 2020); Colombia’s ELN rebels scrap ceasefire, France 24 (April 27, 2020); Washington Office on Latin America, Inaccurate Trump Administration Charges Against Cuba Damage Prospects for Peace Talks in Colombia and Elsewhere. WOLA.org (May 14, 2020); Guerrilla of the ELN:’It is perfidy’ for the US to include Cuba in the list of countries that sponsor terrorism, Diario de Cuba (May 18, 2020).

[3] See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: Issues Regarding Cuba and U.S. Extradition of the Other’s Fugitives (Feb. 24, 2015); U.S. and Cuba Discuss Counterterrorism Cooperation (June 10, 2016); Criticism of U.S.-Cuba Law Enforcement Agreement (Jan. 21, 2017); Congressional Proposal for Extradition of U.S. Fugitives in Cuba (Dec. 16, 2017).

[4] State Dep’t, Telephonic Press Briefing with Ambassador Michael Kozak & U.S. Special Envoy Lea Gabrielle (May 13, 2020).

[5] The State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which was created by a President Obama Executive Order on March 14, 2016, has a mission “to direct, lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States, its allies, and partner nations.”

[6] E.g., U.S. State Department Unjustly Continues To Allege That Cuba’s Foreign Medical Missions Engage in Forced Labor, dwkcommentaries.com. (Aug. 17, 2017). .

[7] Reuters, Exclusive: U.S. Considers Returning Cuba to List of State Sponsors of Terrorism-Source, N.Y. Times (May 14, 2020). See also the following posts to dwkcommentaries.com: Baseless Ground for U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” (Nov. 6, 2014); U.S. Has Conceded Many Reasons Why Cuba Has Provided Assurances That It Will Not Support Future Acts of International Terrorism (Jan. 3, 3015); President Obama Rescinds U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” (April 15, 2015); U.S. Rescinds Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” (May 29, 2015).

No Mention of Cuba in New U.S. Report on Terrorism

On November 1, 2019, the U.S. State Department released its latest annual report on terrorism in the world, this for calendar 2018. It had no mention of Cuba. [1]

For the calendar years, 1981-2014, such reports listed Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” But the report for 2014 also stated, “on April 14, 2015, President Obama submitted to Congress the statutorily required report and certifications indicating the Administration’s intent to rescind Cuba’s State Sponsor of Terrorism designation, including the certification that Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the previous six-months; and that Cuba has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future. The required 45-day Congressional pre-notification period expired, and the Secretary of State made the final decision to rescind Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, effective on May 29, 2015.” [2]

Thereafter in the annual reports for 2015, 2016, 2017 and now 2018, Cuba was eliminated from this category. Moreover, for 2016, 2017 and now 2018 there was no mention of Cuba at all. [3]

At the press briefing on the report for 2016, a journalist asked whether then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson himself had made the decision not to put Cuba back on the list of state sponsors since at his Senate confirmation hearing he had testified that he “wanted to examine the criteria under which Cuba was removed from the list” for the year 2014. [4]

At that briefing, a State Department official responded: “Cuba was removed, and there is no requirement within the report for an individual chapter on every single country around the world. We produce chapters in the Country Reports based upon material, frankly, to include in the report. So it was assessed that there was not sufficient information there to provide a report this year on Cuba, but it was removed from the state sponsor list previously.”

The continued non-inclusion of Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism” in this latest report, in this blogger’s opinion, is the proper conclusion and perhaps a sign that the Trump Administration’s rhetoric about Cuba is louder and stronger than its bite. This also is good news in light of calls by some this year for re-designating Cuba as such a “sponsor.”[5]

====================================

[1] State Dep’t, Country Reports on Terrorism 2018 (Nov. 1, 2019)

[2] State Dep’t, Country Reports on Terrorism 2014

[3] State Dep’t, Country Reports on Terrorism 2015 (June 2, 2016); U.S. State Dep’t, Country Reports on Terrorism 2016 (July 19, 2017); U.S. State Dep’t, Press Release: State Department Releases Country Reports on Terrorism 2016 (July 19, 2017); U.S. State Dep’t, Press Briefing: Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism Justin Siberell on the Release of Country Reports on Terrorism 2016 (July 19, 2017); State Dep’t, Country Reports on Terrorism 2017 (Sept. 19, 2018).

[4] Welsh, State Department drops Cuba entirely from annual detail of terrorist activity, McClatchy (July 19, 2017); No Mention of Cuba in U.S. State Department’s Latest Report on Terrorism, dwkcommentareis.com (July 22, 2017).

[5] U.S. Considering Re-Designating Cuba as “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 26, 2019);Congressmen Reiterate Call for Re-Designation of Cuba as “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 21, 2019).

Congressmen Reiterate Call for Re-Designation of Cuba as “State Sponsor of Terrorism”

On July 10, 2019, two Republican Congressmen from Florida=–Mario Diaz-Balart and Francis Rooney– asked Secretary of State Pompeo to re-designate Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism.”[1]

Their letter said the following:

“We strongly commend you and President Trump and his administration for imposing tough sanctions on the brutal regime in Cuba, and for the unprecedented decision to allow lawsuits to proceed against traffickers in confiscated properties,” said Diaz-Balart. “With these key changes, there remains a major mistake of the previous administration to rectify: returning Cuba to the state sponsors of terrorism list. The Cuban regime smuggled weapons to North Korea, harbors fugitives including a convicted murderer on the FBI’s ‘Top Ten Most Wanted Terrorist’ list, and planted thousands of operatives in Venezuela. I look forward to working with the Trump administration to continue its commendable policy of applying pressure to oppressive, anti-American dictatorships. Classifying Cuba as a terrorist state is an important next step in that robust policy.”
“Four years ago, President Obama removed Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism,” said Rooney. “Despite this decision, Cuba has continued to support known terrorist organizations and corrupt dictators such as the regime of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and has continued to harbor known terrorists sought by American law enforcement. Accordingly, I support the Administration’s firm stance toward our communist island neighbor and urge Secretary Pompeo and President Trump to redesignate Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.”
“The State Department defines State Sponsors of Terrorism as ‘Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act.’”
“Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions,” the State Department adds. “Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors.”

Congressman Rooney separately stated, “Four years ago, president Obama removed Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Despite this decision, Cuba has continued to support known terrorist organizations and corrupt dictators such as the regime of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, and has continued to harbor known terrorists sought by American law enforcement. Accordingly, I support the Administration’s firm stance toward our communist island neighbor and urge Secretary Pompeo and President Trump to redesignate Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.”

Congressman Diaz-Balart added, “I commend President Trump and his administration for imposing tough sanctions on the brutal regime in Cuba, and for the unprecedented decision to allow lawsuits to proceed against traffickers in confiscated properties. With these key changes, there remains a major mistake of the previous administration to rectify: returning Cuba to the state sponsors of terrorism list. The Cuban regime smuggled weapons to North Korea, harbors fugitives including a convicted murderer on the FBI’s “Top Ten Most Wanted Terrorist” list, and planted thousands of operatives in Venezuela. I look forward to working with the Trump administration to continue its commendable policy of applying pressure to oppressive, anti-American dictatorships. Classifying Cuba as a terrorist state is an important next step in that robust policy.”

Congressman Rooney serves as the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

This proposed re-designation is a bad idea and should not be adopted.[2]

As of August 21, that re-designation has not happened. Nor have there been any further comments on the subject from these two Congressmen or from Secretary Pompeo or the State Department.

==================================

[1] Derby, Return Cuba to ‘State Sponsors of Terrorism’ List, Urge Florida Congressmen, Sunshine State News (Julyu 11, 2019); Press Release, Diaz-Balart, Rooney Urge Secretary Pompeo to Reclassify Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism (July 10, 2019); Press Release, Reps. Rooney and Diaz-Balart Urge Secretary Pompeo to Re-classify Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism (July 10, 2019).

[2] See the posts through 06/20/15 listed in the “Cuba: State Sponsor of Terrorism?’ section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries: Topical: CUBA; See also these posts: U.S. and Cuba Discuss Counterterrorism Cooperation (June 10, 2016); No Mention of Cuba in U.S. State Department’s Latest Report on Terrorism (July 20, 2017); U.S. Considering Re-Designating Cuba as “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” (Jan. 26, 2019).