Mambi Watch (Dec. 2006 - Mar. 2008)

"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."

- Martin Luther King Jr., Beyond Vietnam speech, 1967.


"As applied to this case, an empathetic approach would begin with the assumption that neither the United States not Cuba holds the balance of virtue, and that the aims of both countries deserve to be accorded respect. It requires careful listening to both sides, devoid of the temptation to rush to judgment... Were U.S. officials to develop a degree of empathy for the Cubans, they would need to listen openly to what Cubans say rather than to presume they know best... That is, they would need to end the embargo and to relinquish Guantanamo."

- James G. Blight and Philip Brenner, Sad and Luminous Days, 2002.

Last Words

Finally.

Last post I forgot to include the excellent work of the Center for International Policy through their Cuba Program, and their recommendations for US-Cuba cooperation in drug interdiction. This and other cooperative efforts are found in the recent Melanie Ziegler book, "US-Cuban Cooperation Past, Present and Future."

Anyway, I will be keeping my eye on developments in Cuba and related US policy. There's always something happening. I hope to return in a year to review the developments and prognostications made by US-Cuba observers, namely four of them.

• Recently, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, warned the Armed Services Committee that internal Cuban instability "is something we need to watch over the next six or seven months."

• Last July, Andy Gomez, senior fellow at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, said in a PBS interview: "I say that Raul [Castro]-like many of my colleagues that watch Cuba on a regular basis-Raul's in charge of the day to day operations. Raul's got six months to a year to bring about some positive change. I'm not talking political reform. Minimal economic reforms. If he doesn't, then I dare to say, that you can have a large migration out of Cuba." Gomez predicts a worst case scenario of half a million migrants.

• Last September, Phil Peters from the Lexington Institute was interviewed on the Maria Elvira Live! show. [Watch the interview here.] He said: "I predict... there's no guarantees, no proof, but the sensation I now have is that there are many things being done [in Cuba] to prepare for an economic change, that within a year we will see initial steps [toward change]. Regardless if Fidel remains alive or not."

• And then, there's a very dire prediction made by a Cuban historian (hint) who over the phone, last year, told me: "in two years... the blood is gonna flow" in Cuba. Obviously a militant.

So, I look forward to returning. In the meantime, keep updated with the blog list on the side, especially with the Cuban Triangle Blog, and best wishes to all.

Solutions

It is my personal belief that a peaceful process of normalization lies ahead between Cuba and the US, and that others also share this view. Throughout my readings of current and past US policy recommendations, it seems that there is strong and growing support for this goal. And, there are various other indicators (scientific, historical, political) that have led me to this assumption. I have great faith in international institutions and their universal principles in finding solutions to future global problems, just as many others do.

Throughout my research for Mambi Watch I have found that many political analysts on Cuba have worked together in finding possible solutions to the US-Cuba conflict. Most of these recommendations are aimed at the US, and I think that is a good start. To point the finger elsewhere is to ignore a major factor in this asymmetric bi-lateral relationship.

Below are US policy recommendations that I feel are the best road maps to building trust between Cuba and the US, and leading both toward normal relations. They are the recommendations of political analysts that have been observing Cuba and US policy towards Cuba for a long time:

- US-Cuban Relations in the 21st Century: A Follow-On Report (Task Force Report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, 2001)

- A Road Map for Restructuring US Relations with Cuba (The Atlantic Council of the United States, 2007)

The Task Force Report by the Council on Foreign Relations is very thorough in providing a bi-partisan framework for future US policy, and the Atlantic Council report is a summary of similar recommendations, including some important additional notes. There are also two books that I feel contribute immensely to repairing US-Cuba relations:

- Sad and Luminous Days: Cuba's Struggle with the Superpowers After the Missile Crisis by James G. Blight and Philip Brenner, 2002.

- US-Cuban Cooperation, Past, Present and Future by Melanie M. Ziegler, 2007.

The Blight and Brenner book provides an excellent mental framework for future US policy towards Cuba (and other nations). According to their approach of realistic empathy:

"Were U.S. officials and U.S. advocacy groups to adopt an empathetic approach to Cuba, three changes would be necessary. They would need to: (1) no longer assume the worst about Cuba; (2) acknowledge the legitimacy of Cuban fears; and (3) renounce the Platt Amendment."

Ziegler's book provides the historical lessons from "confidence building measures" (CBMs) between Cuba and the US, and argues:

"At the very least, CBMs offer a new pathway for U.S.-Cuba relations that would be an alternative to the tired politics of the past. The U.S. policy of undermining Castro with the U.S. embargo has punished both countries for over forty years, and the unofficial policy of waiting for the biological solution is likewise flawed."

"Working to build confidence between the two countries serves the long-term interests of both. When the inevitable transition comes, an established pattern of cooperation will make it easier to re-establish healthier diplomatic ties between the United States and post-Fidel Castro Cuba."

All sources above do not demand that the US embargo be lifted unilaterally. But, the two books above disagree with the hard-line position that the embargo be used as a "bargaining chip" in future negotiations. The US embargo symbolizes one of the measures used to threaten Cuban sovereignty with, and it has the potential to derail any future efforts to build trust between the two nations. Nevertheless, demands for its unilateral termination may also be difficult to achieve, and thus a gradual process of termination may be best, perhaps within a time-table. Since this process may be more art than science, I believe an international body like the OAS or UN can better handle bi-lateral promises of ending the embargo, with a separate time-table for the release of Cuban political dissidents arrested in the crackdown of 2003. In fact, RAND Cuba analyst Edward Gonzalez proposed something similar in 1991:

"An inter-American approach has several advantages. It removes the emotionally charged issue of US-Cuban relations, deprives Castro of the opportunity to rally the Cuban population against the imperious Yanquis, and leaves the Cuban leader further isolated and without recourse to the world community should he choose to defy Latin American pressures for democratization."[*]

But, instead of "democratization," I feel the release of the remaining 2003 political prisoners (within a fixed time-table) is just. External demands for democracy upon any nation (even by international bodies) can still be perceived as threats to sovereignty, and can have negative impacts. Low-level diplomacy is best for encouraging a democratic process.

The policy recommendations above are very promising in re-establishing a climate of mutual respect between Cuba and the US, and changing the threatening asymmetrical relationship that exists. Still, the road map to US-Cuba normalization is long and may include unforeseen obstacles, such as "spoilers" like armed groups on both sides. In addition, the process of Cuban reconciliation can also become a long process. But, even drastic examples like Rwanda, can provide lessons on the need for dialogue, reflection and forgiveness. In this case, there are two possible frameworks available:

- Cuban National Reconciliation: Task Force on Memory, Truth and Justice.

- Varela Project's National Dialogue.

The Task Force on Memory, Truth and Justice outlines several historical events that require attention and deep reflection. Still, if the democratic processes in Cuba is slow, strong feelings may linger many years ahead, such as in Rwanda. And, perhaps the Cuban government may take actions to delay a potential democratic transition, such as in Zimbabwe.

The road ahead only becomes clearer if one makes efforts to achieve their desires. In which case, I am hopeful for a peaceful transition to normal US-Cuba relations.

[*] "The Beginning of the End for Castro?" by Edward Gonzalez, in "Cuba in the Nineties: A Special Report" by the Cuba Roundtable of Freedom House, 1991.

The Cuba "Threat" (Part 3)

But, hard-liners are missing the big picture surrounding the Ana Belen Montes case. According to a study of reported spy cases from 1947 to 2001 [PDF], the number of American acts of espionage against the US government has significantly decreased since the Cold War ended. The number of Americans who spy against their own country has reduced to the lowest recorded levels ever (and from the highest levels ever recorded during the early eighties). The study also found, from the few cases reported during the 90s, that American spies are far more likely (near 70%) to be volunteers instead of recruits, and be more motivated by "divided loyalties."

By reviewing the facts, it should be evident that as long as nations are in some kind of political conflict (like during the Cold War), acts of criminal espionage, or officially sanctioned government espionage, will remain an indispensable part of international intelligence gathering. If one wishes to reduce criminal espionage, then part of the solution lies in efforts to improve international relations, especially between regional neighbors. Unfortunately, hard-liners generally block those efforts, or instead prefer to exploit those conflicts.

Like Scott Carmichael, Chris Simmons believes that Cuban intelligence poses a threat to the US because "Havana has an insatiable appetite for information about U.S. military operations as well as U.S. intelligence operations." Simmons is a former US Counter-Intelligence officer (from 1987-2004) who also worked with Carmichael in the Ana Montes case, and now runs his own company (Cuban Intelligence Research Center) that specializes in "identifying and countering or defeating Cuban Intelligence."

Simmons has recently appeared in the news with headlines like: "Cuba Is Expanding Its Overseas Spy Network, Top Intelligence Expert Says" and "Cuban Spy Network to Ramp Up Its Work in US, Experts Say" or "Cuban Intelligence Is a Threat to the US. But, if you read the articles carefully, there's no beef. Like Carmichael, Simmons provides a lot of speculation rather than evidence.

The substance of Simmons' warnings rely on his investigation, and events following, from the Montes case, which it seems he never fails to mention. But, the premise of his warnings are rooted in the hard-line politics of the US and its designated enemies. From this premise, Simmons hardly needs evidence to throw more fuel into the fire. When asked by EFE if he had any proof of his allegations, he told them "there's no tangible evidence." He told this to reporters after an almost-2 hour speech on Capitol Hill arranged by Republican hard-liners like Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Rep. Thadeus McCotter, Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Ironically, while some fear the "threat" of foreign spies, there's no hesitation by the US to encourage espionage aimed at our designated enemies. Yesterday, it was reported that the US government has approved the recruitment of Saddam Hussein's former spies to infiltrate Iranians in Iraq. Despite a law that forbids the hiring of former Baathists into the new Iraqi government (because of human rights violations), Dan Maguire, a U.S. intelligence adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, believes there's "a lot of logic" to this operation.

In the case of US-Cuba relations, those who spread fears over the threat of Cuban intelligence want to manipulate the facts over international relations. The US, with its vast global resources and influence, can easily improve its relationship with the Cuban government and its neighbors. But, the US instead spends exorbitant amounts on national defense, which also includes its intelligence services, and this (along with foreign policy) is seen as a threat to its neighbors and global targets.

With US-Cuba relations now approaching a moment of potential improvement, some hard-liners may become more desperate in their attempt to sow distrust between the two governments and its citizens. By using tactics that exploit fears, hard-liners are encouraging public paranoia whose consequences can be extremely dangerous and perhaps permanently damaging to those who become its victim.

[Part 1]

The Cuba "Threat" (Part 2)

When then-Undersecretary John Bolton appeared before the Heritage Foundation in 2002, he criticized the 1998 US threat assessment of Cuba as "unbalanced." The '98 assessment, which incorporated the findings of many US intelligence agencies, concluded: "Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region. Cuba has little motivation to engage in military activity beyond defense of its territory and political system." Nevertheless, Bolton still felt the assessment had "underplay[ed]" the threat from Cuba, and he named the reason: Ana Belen Montes.

Just a couple of months before Bolton appeared at the Heritage Foundation, Ana Belen Montes, former leading Cuba analyst for the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), pleaded guilty to the charge of "conspiracy to commit espionage" for the Cuban government. Before she made a plea deal, Montes faced the death penalty for this capital crime. She was eventually sentenced to 25 years in prison after agreeing to cooperate with federal authorities.

But, despite the potential negative influence from Montes inside the DIA, current US threat assessments of Cuba have remained unchanged since 1998. Furthermore, any damage caused by Montes is unknown, and, unfortunately for the public, will most likely remain classified. Even a book released last year by the counter-intelligence officer who led an investigation against Montes provides no verifiable proof of Montes' damage to US intelligence. But that didn't stop hard-liners from sowing distrust and paranoia.

Upon the release of Scott Carmichael's book True Believer: Inside the Investigation and Capture of Ana Montes, Cuba's Master Spy, our favorite US Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart set up a press conference to begin Carmichael's book tour and helped the author manipulate the threat of Cuban spies. The Miami Herald quoted Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart saying: "There are many Ana Belen Monteses, I believe, in other branches of the government of the United States, as well as in the private sector, in academia, in media, et cetera." The author, Scott Carmichael, shared a similar view. He told El Nuevo Herald: "Fidel Castro has been able to penetrate all of the US government with spies." And, on an interview posted on the Babalu Blog Carmichael says: "I believe Cuba has us thoroughly wired."

But, all of this is pure speculation, rather than assertion. Carmichael's grave concerns over Cuban espionage come from a lack of convincing evidence (and sometimes ignorance). According to El Nuevo Herald, one of Carmichael's fears seem to stem from how it was "very easy for the Cubans to recruit Ana Montes, and later situate her where they wanted, in the heart of US intelligence." But, in Carmichael's book, the events of Montes' recruitment is reduced to only ONE SENTENCE, which unfortunately omits how "very easy" it supposedly was to recruit Montes. Also, a book review by Phil Peters points out how Carmichael's book relies more on belief, rather than fact: "Carmichael lists cases where Montes, with her wide access to secrets, could have betrayed classified information of military value: the 1990 U.S. military action in Panama, the wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, a 1987 guerrilla attack on a Salvadoran military base in which an American soldier was killed, the liberation of Kuwait. But Carmichael writes that he does not know if she did so."

Carmichael's views about Montes are also fueled by negative attributions which are very misinformed. Early in his book, Carmichael admits a strong bias towards those he investigates: "Even after all these years as a mole hunter, that's my reaction to any spy we discover within the DIA staff. Their betrayal sickens me, angers me, and saddens my heart."[1] At a book presentation (available on C-SPAN), Carmichael reveals this personal contempt by playing Montes' psychoanalyst. According to Carmichael, Montes had an "abusive father" (but Carmichael never mentions what kind of abuse) from which she, as the eldest child, had to protect her younger siblings from. This "trauma" of feeling insufficiently protective caused guilty feelings inside Montes, which later projected into her espionage activities for Cuba. It should be noted that this very elaborate explanation by Carmichael is based on his own admission that he "didn't do additional library research or formal interviews"[1] in writing his book, and that he didn't even interview Montes' friends or co-workers. At his book presentation he admits: "I could've interviewed a lot of her co-workers, I didn't do that either. I had enough of the story already to make the points I felt needed to be made, and I felt that I knew enough about her personally to cover that aspect of it as well." He admitted this to some of Montes' neighbors who attended the book presentation. They wondered why Carmichael didn't interview them.

As a student of psychology, I can say that the literature on how life traumas causes long-term negative effects is incredibly complex and requires a lot of detail and investigation, which Carmichael has conveniently manipulated or ignored. Thus, while Carmichael's psychoanalysis is based on ignorance better suited for Hollywood pictures, his logic is still seriously flawed. His initial premise that Montes was "morally outraged" at the US, which then (coupled with her feelings of guilt) drove her to become a spy, is false. In this case, it seems that Carmichael had failed to read Montes' courtroom statement because she never said she was "morally outraged." Rather, Montes makes very clear in her statement what her personal motivations were in committing an act that she herself described as "morally wrong." But, she never mentions feelings of rage or anger. Furthermore, one doesn't have to be a psychoanalyst to understand the facts that surround why Montes might have felt "morally obligated" in her actions to "counter a grave injustice."

One year before Carmichael, Bill Gertz wrote about the Montes case in his book titled Enemies: How America's Foes Steal Our Vital Secrets and How We Let It Happen. Unlike Carmichael, Gertz strives to provide more details into Montes' espionage recruitment, and quotes a counter-intelligence officer saying "Montes established a relationship with the Cubans as a way to aid the Sandinistas. Following the electoral defeat of the Sandinistas in 1990, helping Cuba became her priority." Back in the eighties, the US was supporting rebel groups (Contras) to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The background of this conflict is also complicated, but during the armed conflict Nicaragua made formal complaints at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The final decision (Summary of the Judgment) by the ICJ in 1986 charged the US with committing clear violations of international law against the Sandinista government:

"The Court finds it clearly established that the United States intended, by its support of the Contras, to coerce Nicaragua in respect of matters in which each State is permitted to decide freely, and that the intention of the Contras themselves was to overthrow the present Government of Nicaragua... It therefore finds that the support given by the United States to the military and paramilitary activities of the Contras in Nicaragua, by financial support, training, supply of weapons, intelligence and logistic support, constitutes a clear breach of the principle of non-intervention."

The ICJ also rejected US claims of self-defense: "Since the plea of collective self-defense advanced by the United States cannot be upheld, it follows that the United States has violated the principle prohibiting recourse to the threat or use of force." In other words, the US committed an act of aggression against the Sandinista government, which is an act considered under international law as the "supreme international crime." Benjamin B. Ferencz, former prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, explains why.

Could an act like this by the United States against another nation make someone (especially someone inside its elite institutions) feel "morally obligated" to do something? Of course. Examining the threats of US policy towards Cuba also raises the same question. But, the actions that follow require another standard of moral justification. According to her courtroom statement, Montes' engaged in espionage: "because I obeyed my conscience rather than the law."

Past examples like US policy towards Nicaragua and Cuba should serve as relevant background when considering why the US would be a potential target for international espionage. According to a recent global survey, the US is considered the "greatest threat" to many nations around the world.

But these facts are easily ignored by hard-liners, which then results in imaginative explanations (like Carmichael's psychoanalysis) about the actions of those who "betray" their country. When crimes that the US commits against other nations are ignored or minimized, hard-liners are left bewildered. By the end of his book, Scott Carmichael is still left asking:

"But what caused such rage within this young woman that she felt compelled to act in a manner that most of us consider to be irrational, irresponsible, and unlawful?... Why was Ana Montes so angered by the effect that U.S. government policies had, or were perceived to have, upon the Nicaraguan and Cuban people that she felt compelled to insert herself as their savior?"[2]

Unwilling to consider the relevant facts, Carmichael settles with an explanation that reveals his contempt and ignorance for Montes (and others who would share her beliefs): "She was a true believer, out to slay the dragon." And there are, unfortunately, many like Carmichael who see the world the same way. They see Cuban intelligence as a great threat to the US, involved in a sinister global conspiracy. But, hardly ever consider looking at the actions of their own country.

Source: Carmichael, Scott W. (2007). True believer: Inside the investigation and capture of Ana Montes, Cuba's master spy. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
[1]Page ix
[2] Page 149.

[Part 3]

The Cuba "Threat" (Part 1)

Back in the eighties, amidst the Cold War, most policy analysts focused on Cuba as a potential international threat. The Heritage Foundation was among the many who made it a priority to point this out. But, once Cold War rhetoric dissipated (and with the Cuban economy left in ruins), it became a bit more difficult for hard-liners to continue painting Cuba as a potential threat to the US (or its neighbors). By 1998, US intelligence and defense agencies agreed that the Cuban military had been weakened and fit only for self-defense measures. But, some hard-liners have remained committed to argue that Cuba is still a threat to the US (some by recalling events from the Cold War). It's a simple and convenient image of Cuba as the enemy, and the US as the potential (and perhaps innocent) victim. This manipulation serves many political interests, but carries very dangerous consequences. As the US embargo continues to be dismantled, its supporters are likely to become desperate in their accusations against the Cuban government, potentially exploiting the current fears of the general public.

Last month, Frank Calzon from the Center for a Free Cuba appeared on the Diane Rehm Show with US Secretary of State Carlos Gutierrez. They made sure to remind the public that Cuba is still an enemy of the US.

Calzon: "The policy of the United States [towards Cuba] is driven by American interests. To come and say that it's not a concession to provide [Fidel] Castro with additional resources at a time when Cuba AND Venezuela are playing such a significant role in organizing and orchestrating against the United States in Latin America I think is missing the whole picture."

Sec. Gutierrez: "[Through the US embargo] We have denied resources to a regime that has declared itself from the very beginning an enemy of the US, and that has shown that any time they do have resources they will use them for means that are not in the interest of the US; whether it be overseas guerrilla groups or terrorist organizations or wars in Africa... But, one thing we will never know is what would [Fidel] Castro have been like, and what damage would he have done, had he had resources, and that's something we have prevented through our policy."

Of course, these comments are manipulations of the facts. Whenever a hard-liner makes an accusation about any enemy country they usually first set aside difficult realities because if these realities are actually spoken hard-line rhetoric is reduced to absurdity. Sec. Gutierrez realized this on the Diane Rehm Show after he made the mistake of incorporating facts with rhetoric.

Sec. Gutierrez: "So the President's policy has always been to support the people of Cuba, but not to support the regime. And we recognize that anything we do to support the regime, anything we do to help them, will just cement their power and their ability to repress the Cuban people. Now, I will say this, that we [the US] today supply about one-third of [Cuba's] food and medicine. The second source of revenue in Cuba is remittances from Cuban-Americans in Miami. So, ironically we have helped them more than we will ever get credit for, but we're not looking for that, but we have helped them a lot throughout the years."

Therefore, according to Sec. Gutierrez, Cuba is still an enemy, and US policy denies them resources, but our policy also "helps" them to "cement their power and their ability to repress the Cuban people." A repression which the US has helped with "a lot throughout the years." (Listen to the audio for a good laugh around the 30:00 mark.)

Facts are certainly a nuisance to hard-liners, especially when they are trying to accuse Cuba of being a threat to the US. The case of John Bolton, former US Undersecretary of State, is another example. In May 2002, he accused the Cuban government of having "at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort." His accusations made headlines as quickly as they attracted skepticism due to the obvious lack of evidence presented (in a speech at the Heritage Foundation). Analysts from the Center for Defense Information and the Center for International Policy quickly noted the manipulations made by Undersecretary Bolton. One month later, a Senate committee hearing provided sobering facts with testimony from Bolton's original source of intelligence: Carl Ford Jr., assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. At the Senate hearing Ford said [PDF]:

"Among the various weapons of mass destruction, biological warfare [BW] is perhaps the most difficult to clearly identify absent unambiguous, reliable intelligence information. Owing to the dual use nature of the technology and materials used to support a BW program, in today's world many nations including Cuba have in place robust biotechnology infrastructures as some of the world's best scientific talent has turned to this avenue of modern science to promote medical and agricultural advances in their countries."

"The nature of biological weapons makes it difficult to procure clear, incontrovertible proof that a country is engaged in the illicit biological weapons research, production weaponization and stockpiling. Cuba's sophisticated denial and deception practices make our task even more difficult. That said, we have a sound basis for our judgment that Cuba has at least a limited developmental offensive biological warfare research and development effort."

The latest threat assessment [PDF] by the US Director of National Intelligence did not mentioned these "limited developmental" programs. On the other hand, US intelligence seems more concerned with Cuba's internal problems, in which they conclude that Cuba is "likely to remain stable at least in the initial months" with Raul Castro as the new president.

But some hard-liners today seem to have a new strategy to again inculcate fear into the public about Cuba. (Thanks again to the work of the Heritage Foundation.) And this time they don't need to worry much about presenting evidence, public paranoia is enough to work with.

[Part 2]

Comments by John McAuliff

[Below are excellent comments by John McAuliff, executive director of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, from a recent Brookings conference on Cuba. (Unedited transcript PDF)]

When Americans go to Cuba, they see a complex reality, not the ideological hero of the left or the ideological villain of the right. They meet Cubans who have all kinds of views and are prepared to talk about those views. They begin to recognize the role of nationalism and the respect for sovereignty in the dynamic. This is not a history that begins in '59; it's a history that begins in the 19th Century or the 18th Century and certainly was a major factor in the development of Cuban self-awareness throughout the 20th Century. It is not the same country as portrayed by exiles who have their own agenda.

Now, I'm Irish-American. I portrayed the Brits' role in Northern Ireland to equal one-sidedness, as I hear Cuba now described today, but that's not the reality and that's not what Americans need to be knowing if they're trying to determine their country's policies.

It's also totally inconsistent for [the US] to have this policy towards [no] other country in the world. No other country suffers from this travel restriction, whether it is a country that [has] virtually the same political system, [or] legal system -- [such as] China or Vietnam. [T]he U.S. is a leading source of tourists to Vietnam today aside from China, which is a next door neighbor. And Vietnam's political system is not so different than Cuba's. We don't object in an organized fashion to the Vietnamese party or the state, [and] that doesn't inhibit our tourists at all. There are other countries that are far worse that you can go to [such as] North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran. Also, our limits on travel... give attention to a special interest group. As intense as its feelings are, it's a tiny percentage of the American population. It's even now a minority of it's own population. It does not reflect two-thirds of Americans who think we should have normal relations with Cuba and believe there should no longer be travel restrictions, nor does it, as I said, reflect the 40 percent that would travel there on vacation, nor the 55 percent of Cuban-Americans that think all restrictions should be ended, not just the revenue restrictions.

According to the [latest] GAO report [WP article], 120,000 Americans every year go to Cuba through third countries without any license. A lot of those are Cuban-Americans, but a lot of them aren't. The Cuban figures have about 40,000 non-Cuban American Americans traveling there and it cannot be controlled.

Finally, and I'm still just talking about the United States, the ending of travel restrictions can restore our national reputation faster than anything else. Our policy towards Cuba is as damaging as our war in Iraq. We're considered an arrogant bully ["greatest threat" (PDF)] by much of the hemisphere and much of the world. They think we're obsessed. It's an echo of the Monroe Doctrine, the Platt Amendment, the concept of the Caribbean as a U.S. lake. [O]ther countries share our goals, but they think we [use] silly and counterproductive means; that is, they'd like to see a Cuba more democratic [with] greater respect for human rights, but they think engagement leads to change, [and] isolation doesn't.