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."

In 2004, after no "weapons of mass destruction" were found in Iraq, the US Intelligence community adopted stricter standards of threat assessments and "concluded that it is no longer clear that Cuba has an active, offensive bio-weapons program."

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]

Bush's Gettysburg (Part 3)

After his inaccurate historical introduction, President Bush coins the basic theme of his Cuba policy speech: "Nuestro Dia Ya Viene Llegando" (Our Day is Coming Soon). Or, as I translate it: Let's wait and do nothing.

The background on the coined phrase comes from a 1991 Willy Chirino song, coincidentally titled "Nuestro Dia (Ya Viene Llegando)" [Spanish lyrics], which became quite popular in Cuba. Alex from the Stuck on the Palmetto blog describes well the personal and significant meaning of this song, and at the time when Cuba was undergoing difficult changes. It was also a time when many Cuba experts were expecting big changes in Cuba, and hard-liners were seizing the opportunity to further squeeze the island with sanctions.

Following this, Pres. Bush introduces us to his administration: Sec. Condoleeza Rice (who is the Chair of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba), Amb. John Negroponte (Director of National "Intelligence", who almost a year ago said that Fidel Castro only had "months" to live), and Sec. Carlos Gutierrez (who last month inaugurated a series at the Heritage Foundation supporting the US embargo, and which currently supports Congressional "hearings on ways that current [Cuban] threats to U.S. national security can be eliminated and market-based democracy can be promoted in post-Castro Cuba").

Next, Pres. Bush introduces his favorite members of Congress: Sen. Martinez, Reps. Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Thaddeus McCotter, and Tim Mahony (all US Reps. who this July voted against the recent Rangel Amendment that simply sought to overturn a 2005 banking restriction on US farmers legally trading with Cuba).

(Pres. Bush also mispronounced Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's name too. He said "Leythien" as he read the name off his hard copy. Almost twenty years in Congress, and we get "Leythien"? Even I'm offended.)

[Part 4]