Alan Gross: Stuck Between Havana and Washington

"Alan is a pawn from a failed policy between the two governments… two countries that don’t have diplomatic relations."

That's a recent quote from Judy Gross explaining why her husband, Alan Gross, is still jailed in Cuba for operating clandestinely as a USAID contractor inside the island. Alan Gross was sentenced to 15 years in jail last March, and his supporters are now hoping to win his release on humanitarian grounds.

Last December, Cuba experts William M. LeoGrande and Peter Kornbluh drew similar conclusions about the Gross case and explained that "the poisonous bilateral atmosphere between the two countries" is the "main obstacle to [Alan Gross'] release." But, despite the historical facts about US-Cuba relations, some still believe that stronger sanctions on Cuba can help free Alan Gross.

On the Capitol Hill Cubans blog you will notice two posts with identical titles: "How to Free American Hostages." The first one was posted March 1st and links to an op-ed originally written last December by a friend of Alan Gross. The author argues that since "neither the U.S. nor Cuba is willing to negotiate an exchange [between Gross and the Cuban Five]" Washington should threaten to cut off remittances and flights to Cuba and pressure the government to free Gross. The second post was posted March 8th and links to an op-ed by Otto Reich. Reich makes the same recommendations to threaten the Cuban government with, but argues that threats are effective because they worked in the case of NGO workers released from Egypt recently.

While the first post ignores the fact that restrictions on remittances and travel to Cuba from the U.S. has failed in the past, the second post from Otto Reich omits several important elements to the Egypt story. In fact, to compare Egypt and Cuba is astonishing and seems like a deliberate attempt at propaganda.

Aside from the HUGE differences in American diplomatic relations between Egypt and Cuba, threats alone didn't win the release of NGO workers in Egypt as Otto Reich argues. On the contrary, the threat from the U.S. to cut off $1.3 billion in military aid followed days of meetings between State department and Egyptian military officials in Washington, and preceded a Congressional delegation meeting with military leaders in Cairo. It is also likely that the threat was mostly political bluster since military aid to Egypt has averaged $2 billion annually since 1979 (even despite worsening human rights abuses which were ignored as conditions for aid during the Bush administration) and highly prized by U.S. military leaders.

Alan Gross is a victim, like many others, of the terrible relations between Havana and Washington. And, in this political climate you will always have hard-liners take advantage of the opportunity to push their terrible policies. And, they sometimes succeed. But, after half a century of the same policies, back and forth, it sometimes feels like you are trapped, like a victim yourself.

[Further details and updates about the Alan Gross case can be found on the Cuban Triangle blog.]

"Hooked" by Tijerón

[Time for a post from a reader of Mambi Watch*. Thanks to Tijerón for his submission which I found interesting to read as another listener of Radio Mambi. If anyone else would like to submit stories just e-mail me. It can be it critical or supportive of Spanish-language media in Miami covering Cuba.]


“Poor bastard.” I think that’s the closest translation in English. Ninoska Perez-Castellon on Radio Mambi likes to say “poor bastard” (pobre infeliz) a lot.

When she informs her Miami audience that a Cuban is waiting to receive construction material from the regime, or when discussing how doctors are exported to Venezuela for oil, or when sex-tourism, Cuban athletes or island godlessness are dissected, anyone living in Cuba is labeled a "poor bastard" if they are not fighting against Castro.

“Poor bastard.” It means their existence both saddens and offends her. Yet, she is far more offended than saddened since her solution for Cubans, other than US invasion, is to starve them until they successfully revolt or die. Anything perceived as compromise or conformity inside Cuba is intolerable. So, she labels them the way she pleases.

Ninoska’s views became clear to me one day when listening to her radio show. A caller who had recently arrived from Cuba had this to say:

"Why don't Cubans in Miami want to help us? You are against tourists coming here, against anyone who sends money to the island. We need help!"

Ninoska replied:

"Any money going to the island helps prolong the Castro-communist regime. You are a product of a system that degenerates the human spirit. The only way to free Cuba and Cubans is to cut the resources of the state."

When I first heard this I did not know what to make of it. Now, everyday the shock of Radio Mambi rivals reality TV and video games.

As a Latin American that has never before cared about Cuba, today I’m hooked on the biggest political battle local Hispanic media has to offer; where political ideology hammers mutual empathy and understanding daily.

[*Edited by Mambi Watch]

What Embargo? [Part 2]

Over the decades, countless arguments have been made for keeping the US embargo (e.g. Soviet threat, property nationalization, approaching success, violation of human rights). In Miami, no two defenders will have the same defense. And, asking "What embargo?" is not only an effective excuse from again defending a half-century of sanctions, but it also expresses widespread exhaustion and disappointment with the effectiveness of current policy. But, despite its accepted failure, embargo defenders still view the embargo as the fine line that protects the Cuban exile identity, the necessary line that divides friend and enemy.

EXILE NEWS BUBBLE

I was listening to Nancy Perez Crespo on WWFE (670 AM) last week. She appeared shocked to see that Diario Las Americas, whose editors are hard-liners on Cuba policy, published an EFE article on the 50th Anniversary of the embargo which she thought was intolerable. She barely got halfway through reading the article on-air because she refused to accept the article's contention that economic reforms have been implemented in Cuba. "What reforms?," she asked. Maybe not the reforms that Perez Crespo had in mind. But, it seems, even to suggest any change in the cruelty of your enemy is unacceptable. God forbid the enemy does change and produces the need for a new strategy.

Upon the 50th anniversary, embargo defenders in Miami had to remind themselves why they should remain committed. One example came from Jesus Marzo Fernandez, former Cuban official who defected in 1996, and now a local "expert" on the Cuban economy (appearing countless times on Spanish-language TV and radio). Last week, Fernandez outlined chronologically why the US embargo was justified. Fernandez begins: "1960 - During this year 473 citizens were executed by firing squad, unprecedented in Cuban history." Interestingly, his chronology ends on October 24, 1960 when supposedly all American companies in Cuba have been nationalized. In fact, most of the dates in the timeline have to do with Cuban intervention and nationalization of foreign companies during the 60s, and therefore we can assume that Fernandez, like others in Miami, believe the embargo is justified because of these nationalizations (without fair compensation).

But, as usual, the timeline is incorrect and misleading.

There's no mention that both Washington and Havana did attempt to negotiate for fair compensation of future nationalized properties during 1959. But, the U.S. eventually rejected the compensation offer of 20-year bonds. (Of course, there were huge disagreements over what was "fair" compensation, such as the case of United Fruit properties which Cuba estimated at around $6 million, but the company wanted around $38 million!) By the time 1960 came around, negotiation attempts were replaced with escalating threats. And, as mentioned in the previous post, throughout the 60s the Eisenhower administration already had plans to overthrow the Cuban government with a covert war.

This is the context missing from Marzo Fernandez's chronology defending the embargo. In addition, his timeline has errors. According to Fernandez, on Jan. 3, 1960 "all phosphorous plants are confiscated." I assume he means sulphur plants, which the biggest one (Moa Bay Mining Co.) was intervened upon (not confiscated) in March 1960.

Also, Fernandez doesn't mention the accurate date the U.S. embargo began on (Oct. 19, 1960), and instead makes the chronology look like the embargo followed a long series of Cuban nationalizations. On the contrary, the Cuban government confiscated over 100 American companies in reaction to the Eisenhower embargo. (Interestingly, Moa Bay Mining Co. was not yet confiscated.)

WHO'S SIDE ARE YOU ON?

Over the years, I've heard countless excuses on why the U.S. embargo towards Cuba should be kept. None make much sense to me, but that's because the embargo means something deeper than rational thinking. It's more about exile identity and its corresponding narrative of combating an eternal enemy. Recently, Jaime Suchlicki made it very clear (and revealing his militant side) in a recent op-ed for El Nuevo Herald, arguing that "[a]ll forms of struggle for liberty are legitimate. The last recourse of a defenseless and oppressed people is violence. Cuba is on that road. Let us hope the last sacrifice is coming soon."

Preserving the line between friend and enemy is something that draws hard-liners and militants together. And those voices are also our political leaders. As Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen once said on Radio Mambi: "[it's] not very difficult Ninoska. The intellectuals want to make it like - Oh, this is so difficult, you have to look at this as very complex. No, no, no. There are friends and there are enemies. Who's side are you on?"

In this world of eternal battle, who knows when intolerance, ignorance or violence may fall on either side.

What Embargo? [Part 1]

That's an often repeated line from callers and guests on Radio Mambi. The denial seems to be premised on the US being one of Cuba's top trading partners since 2000 when Congress allowed exceptions for agricultural exports (with several restrictions which you can look up here). In 2007, the US became Cuba's fifth-largest trading partner with approx. $582 million in agricultural sales (and approx. $710 million in 2008). In 2010, sales in food products dropped to approx. $410 million (seventh-largest trade partner with Cuba).

Of course the embargo exists (just ask the US-Cuba Democracy PAC), but, in Miami, hard-liners towards Cuba have grown incredibly frustrated defending the policy. The easiest way out of an argument is to say: "What embargo?" And, even the most adamant defenders of the policy know they don't have much to stand on. Let's take a look.

THE EMBARGO BEGAN IN 1960

Lot of articles were written this week about the US embargo towards Cuba, and its 50th year in operation. But, the embargo actually began in 1960 under the Eisenhower administration when US exports were cut. You can see from the picture above (courtesy of The Miami News on Google Archives), the top headline is from 1960, and the bottom one is the Kennedy administration's ban on imports from Cuba in 1962 (good chronology of US sanctions on Cuba here [PDF]). This is an important distinction because the Eisenhower administration made the goals of economic sanctions against Cuba very clear. Last year, historian Robert S. McElvaine wrote this in his op-ed to the L.A. Times:

"Noting in a 1960 memorandum that 'the majority of Cubans support Castro,' Lester D. Mallory, deputy assistant secretary of State for inter-American affairs, argued that 'the only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship.' The objective, he wrote, was 'to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.'"

And, it was throughout the 60s that the US was secretly planning a covert war against Cuba. You can check this great chronology from the National Security Archive to get an idea of how extensive American plans were to overthrow the Cuban government (also good is "The Castro Obsession" by Don Bohning).

EMBARGO DEFENDERS

The above context is important, especially when you hear today about how "moral" it is to keep the US embargo. While it certainly won't topple the Cuban government today, the embargo is perceived in Cuba as a policy of aggression, as it was in 1960 and 1962.

So, last Tuesday our four Cuban-American representatives in Congress came out with their defense of the US embargo. According to Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, "the embargo is a moral stance against the brutal dictatorship. Over the last 50 years, the embargo has served as a constant form of solidarity with the Cuban people."

What Rep. Ros-Lehtinen really means when she says "moral stance" is to say that the embargo is a symbol of our confrontation against Cuba. A message that should be interpreted by the Cuban government as "we are enemies, not friends." (Nevermind the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights suggesting " it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations.") Also, the embargo is not a "form of solidarity" with the people of Cuba. The majority of Cubans oppose the embargo (a 1994 poll inside Cuba found widespread opposition, and a 2006 poll showed Cubans highly favoring the US as an ideal trading partner.) Anyway, our foreign policy should not ignore the majority voice of Americans that oppose the US embargo.

Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart and Albio Sires make similar comments defending the embargo, but Rep. David Rivera seems to describe the need for expanding sanctions on Cuba because of their "Chavista and Mullah" allies. If we follow this logic, the US should expand their embargo to the rest of the western hemisphere.

Speaking of irrationality, let's not forget the other intransigents in Miami.

Wilman Villar Mendoza (1980-2012)

Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch

"Villar Mendoza was charged with 'contempt' (desacato) and sentenced to four years in prison in a hearing that lasted less than an hour, his wife told Human Rights Watch. While she was allowed to attend the trial, dissidents who tried to enter the courtroom were denied access. Villar Mendoza was not given the opportunity to speak in his defense, nor was he represented by a defense lawyer, she said. His wife said he initiated his hunger strike to protest his unjust trial and imprisonment."

[Video of demonstration that landed Villar in jail, courtesy of Directorio Cubano Democratico]

Newt Gingrich Interview on Radio Mambi [Updated]

Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich arrived in South Florida last Thursday just in time for an evening fundraiser in Coral Gables. The following day, Gingrich visited Little Havana where he pledged a hard-line policy towards Cuba in a written letter to Miami's most intransigent Cuban exile organization, Unidad Cubana. While Unidad Cubana seemed very pleased by Gingrich's promise, they were probably even more pleased that a Presidential candidate had actually endorsed such an extremist policy. The letter, undoubtedly written in Miami and not by Gingrich, has now raised policy expectations by the most hard-line in Little Havana.

ENTER DAVID RIVERA

Thursday's fundraiser was held at the luxurious Biltmore Hotel where Gingrich met up with Rep. David Rivera (FL-25) who, surprising some, is strongly endorsing and accompanied Gingrich while in Miami. Rep. Rivera was recently named one of the "most wanted corrupt politicians in Washington," and, according to Politico's Alex Isenstadt, accepting Rivera's endorsement shows Gingrich in a "scramble to put an organization in place" before the Florida primary. But, in Miami, Rivera is untouchable.

For years, David Rivera has been consistent with his hard-line policy towards Cuba (e.g. supporting 2006's Florida academic travel ban to terror-sponsoring nations like Cuba [now heading to the Supreme Court], proposing legislation to reform the Cuban adjustment act in order to punish Cubans in Miami who dare return to their homeland, and welcoming alleged criminals to Miami like Luis Posada Carriles). And, this is why Rivera still has many strong supporters in Miami, namely Cuban exile political leaders and other supporters of a "free Cuba."

ENTER LITTLE HAVANA

Perhaps knowing that Newt Gingrich was "scrambling" for support in South Florida, hard-liners in Miami most likely saw an opportunity to raise the political stakes and asked Gingrich to accept their extremist positions on Cuba in exchange for the coveted Cuban-American vote.

Disguised as a letter written by Gingrich himself, the four points outlined describe traditional and recent frustrations from hard-line exiles in Miami. Keeping the U.S. embargo towards Cuba is standard, while full implementation of Helms-Burton has been a long-time grievance in Miami, but frustrated due to international pressure on Washington. Seeking criminal indictments of Fidel and Raul Castro was proposed by Rivera earlier this year, but has been part of the Cuban American National Foundation's policy recommendations for years, and a local project headed by Cuban exile militant Santiago Alvarez at least since 2010. And, reversing the Obama administration's relaxed travel restrictions for Cubans would be a tremendous relief for hard-liners who find it outrageously immoral to see Cubans traveling back and/or sending remittances to Cuba. (In reality, the new Obama travel policies are very popular in Miami, but hard-liners don't care.)

ENTER RADIO MAMBI

Before the interview on Friday morning, Newt Gingrich and David Rivera held a press conference inside the Univision Radio offices (Univision 23 report). Surrounded by the press, and various members of the hard-line Cuban exile community, Gingrich officially presented his so-called Cuba policy letter to Unidad Cubana, Miami's most intransigent Cuban exile organization. At the table, Gingrich sat next to Armando Perez-Roura, chairman of Unidad Cubana and programming director of Radio Mambi. Also nearby were members of Vigilia Mambisa, such as Laura Vianello and Miguel Saavedra.

Once ready inside the studio of Radio Mambi, Perez-Roura began by expressing his pleasure with the Gingrich pledge to fulfill the initiatives outlined in the letter. But, besides the outlined policy, Gingrich hardly had any other original ideas. Following his answer regarding Cuba travel restrictions, Gingrich added his idea of a "very aggressive public relations policy" which would include a "daily report" about human rights abuses and other violations by the Cuban government. The purpose of course would be to convince the world about the evil nature of the Cuban regime. But, I seriously doubt any country would use these reports to change their long-established relationships with Cuba.

When asked what he would do about the Alan P. Gross case, Gingrich gave no practical solution and instead suggested something similar to his "public relations policy" from before. Then, as if related in some way, Gingrich proposed implementing a "much more effective program" of intelligence and counter-intelligence "against pro-castro infiltrators." Of course, this is a nod to espionage cases like Ana Belen Montes and the Myers. But, with the U.S spending about $80 billion (!) on intelligence services, I'm confident that those agencies are doing just fine without Gingrich proposing a "more effective program" for them.

EXIT MIAMI

After leaving Miami, Gingrich's Cuba policy certainly lifted spirits and expectations, like that of Manuel Malgor. Besides being a member of AMCVA, Malgor is also active in other local political organizations that focus on Cuba, and he "couldn't find a single defect in what [Gingrich] said" concerning Cuba.

Armando Perez-Roura has told listeners that he now expects to receive a similar pledge from Mitt Romney upon his next visit to Little Havana. It will be very interesting to see how Romney's advisors can top the letter to Unidad Cubana. As a reminder, Perez-Roura has translated Gingrich's letter for the recent publication of Libre Magazine. (It is the only Spanish version since the Gingrich campaign forgot to translate it for their Spanish-language website.)

Little Havana is certainly looking forward to seeing Mitt Romney's Cuba policy.

[Newt Gingrich Interview on Radio Mambi]

Newt Gingrich Interview on Radio Mambi by Mambi Watch

Panama Ratifies Sentence Against Posada

I first heard this on Radio Mambi during today's noon news program. According to Spanish news agency EFE, the Second Appellate Court in Panama has ratified sentences imposed against Luis Posada Carriles and five other accomplices from 2004. The sentences stem from charges of "threatening public security and falsifying documents" after their arrest in Panama in 2000. This recent ruling paves the way to formally extradite Luis Posada Carriles to Panama. Armando Perez-Roura read the report on Radio Mambi and indicated forthcoming updates on mobilizing the community against the ruling.

Luis Posada was arrested in Panama in 2000 for what looked like another attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro. Posada and five others were found guilty on several charges. In April 2004, Posada was sentenced to eight years in prison for "threatening public security and falsifying documents." But, in August 2004, Posada was pardoned (along with his accomplices) by then-President Mireya Moscoso as she left office. The government of Cuba responded by cutting diplomatic ties with Panama.

The president that followed, Martin Torrijos, sought improved relations with Cuba (he traveled to Havana in 2005 to re-establish diplomatic ties) and his administration also attempted to rectify what it thought were corrupt practices during the Moscoso administration (recent Wikileaks cables described several complaints of bribery to the U.S. embassy).

In 2008, the pardons by Mireya Moscoso were targeted. Those who collaborated with pardoning Luis Posada Carriles were charged for abusing their authority, and in July 2008 Panama's Supreme Court overturned 182 pardons* granted by Moscoso, including Posada's.

This confirmation of Posada's sentence from 2004 opens the door for his possible extradition to Panama. Currently, Venezuela also has an extradition order for Posada related to his alleged involvement in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian airplane, and other investigations related to torture as a Venezuelan intelligence officer. If granted, Panama would become the second country with an extradition order for Posada related to an act of terrorism.

According to the EFE report, Julio Berrios was identified as representing the plaintiffs in this case that confirmed Posada's sentence, and Rogelio Cruz was Posada's lawyer. (In case you didn't know, Berrios is one of Manuel Noriega's lawyers in Panama after Noriega's recent extradition from France.) And, according to Prensa Latina, Berrios will be joined by a grassroots organization called ULIP (Union de Lucha Integral del Pueblo) to file for an extradition order.

*[Wikileaks: Details of Pardon Revocation for Posada and 181 Others]