[Senate Hearing 106-52]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-52
CASTRO'S CRACKDOWN IN CUBA: HUMAN RIGHTS ON TRIAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 10, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-879 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
BILL FRIST, Tennessee
James W. Nance, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Calzon, Frank, Executive Director, Center for a Free Cuba,
Washington, DC................................................. 8
Gutierrez-Menoyo, Eloy, President, Cambio Cubano, Miami, FL...... 4
Montaner, Ruth C., Representative, Internal Dissident Working
Group, Miami, FL............................................... 12
Zuniga, Luis, President, Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba,
Miami, FL...................................................... 15
Appendix
Coverdell, Hon. Paul, U.S. Senator from Georgia, prepared
statement of................................................... 29
del Pozo, Dr. Omar, prepared statement of........................ 29
Gutierrez-Menoyo, Eloy, prepared statement of.................... 31
European Investment in Cuba Before Human Rights Crackdown--
submitted by Senator Jesse Helms............................... 34
(iii)
CASTRO'S CRACKDOWN IN CUBA: HUMAN RIGHTS ON TRIAL
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Helms, Hagel, Dodd and Torricelli.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Senator Dodd of Connecticut is on his way here, but I have
been instructed to proceed in his absence. This town has slowed
down this morning because of our snow.
This morning's meeting of the committee will focus on Fidel
Castro's recent crackdown on courageous Cubans and independent
journalists who seek freedom from the heavy-handed treatment
imposed on them by the Castro Government.
Now, of course, there is nothing new about Castro's
brutality. But the latest Castro crackdown is significant
because it violates Castro's commitments to the Pope. The Pope
asked Castro to ``open up to the world'' and to respect human
rights. Castro's reply now has been heard. He gave a bloody
thumbs-down to the Pope of Rome.
The latest crackdown also comes despite years of Canadian
coddling and European investment in Cuba. The Canadians' self-
described ``policy of engagement'' has served to prop-up the
Castro regime; but it has done absolutely nothing to advance
human rights or democracy.
Those who have urged unilateral concessions from the United
States in order to nudge Castro toward change surely must now
acknowledge that appeasement has failed, as it always does.
The United States response to this latest wave of
repression must be resolute and energetic. We must invigorate
our policy to maintain the embargo on Castro while undermining
Castro's embargo on the Cuban people.
We should make no secret of our goal. I myself have
declared over and over again publicly and repeatedly that, for
the sake of the people of Cuba, Fidel must go, and whether he
goes, ladies and gentlemen, vertically or horizontally does not
matter to me at all.
Since the Pope's visit to Cuba, I have urged the
administration to increase United States support for Cuban
dissidents and independent groups, which include the Catholic
Church. Once again I call on the Clinton administration to
increase U.S. support for dissidents to respect the
codification of the embargo and to work with us in the Congress
on this bipartisan policy.
Castro's recent measures make clear that he is feeling the
heat from our efforts to reach out to the Cuban people, and
that is why he is trying to crush peaceful dissidents and
independent journalists who are daring to tell the truth about
Castro's bankrupt regime.
This is why he has made it a criminal offense for Cubans to
engage in friendly contact with Americans.
This cowardly brutality on the part of Castro, when one
pauses to think about it, shows that he is a weak and
frightened despot. His cruelty should make us more determined
than ever to sweep Castroism into the ash heap of history.
Now each of our witnesses this morning has been in close
and daily contact with friends and relatives on the island.
They are, therefore, in a unique position to describe and
analyze recent events.
One of our witnesses, Mr. Zuniga, spent 19 years in the
jails of Castro, as prisoners of conscience have been held on
so many occasions. Two other witnesses, Mr. Calzon--and I hope
that is the way to pronounce your name--and Ms. Montaner were
named last week in Castro's kangaroo court as collaborators
with the four prominent dissidents on trial in Havana.
So I welcome the distinguished witnesses. Mr. Frank Calzon
is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in
Washington. Mr. Eloy Gutierrez-Menoyo.
Also we have Ms. Ruth Montaner, who has been delayed by the
weather. She will be here later. She is the representative of
the Internal Dissident Working Group in Miami, FL. Last, but
not least, is Mr. Luis Zuniga, president of the Foundation for
Human Rights in Cuba, Miami, FL.
Senator Dodd has arrived. I know he joins me in welcoming
these distinguished witnesses to whom I will say again any
enemy of Fidel Castro is a friend of mine.
Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hagel and
witnesses. I am impressed that all of you have made it here
with all of this rough weather we are having.
The Chairman. The witness whom I said was on her way has
just arrived.
We welcome you, Ms. Montaner.
Senator Dodd. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will
catch my breath as we start out. I thank you for holding these
hearings.
It has been some time since the Foreign Relations Committee
has had a hearing on the subject matter of Cuba, and I believe
that each of us here this morning shares the common goal--I
hope we all do, anyway--that a peaceful, democratic change take
place in Cuba and take place as soon as possible.
Where we differ, I suspect--and we will maybe hear some of
this this morning--is what is the best path on which we can
travel to achieve that goal. Too often I think people have
allowed their differences on how best to achieve their goals to
confuse the desire and determination of what we all want to
seek in the end, and that is a democratic government in Cuba.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for bringing together an
interesting group of individuals who will share their
perspectives on the current state of human rights in Cuba.
Not surprisingly, each of our witnesses this morning has a
different personal experience with respect to human rights in
Cuba. They also have different views, I think, on how best to
foster increased respect for human rights in that country.
I would like to call particular attention to my colleagues
of one witnesses who is here with us this morning. He is Eloy
Gutierrez-Menoyo, who is currently the president of Cambio
Cubano, a nonprofit organization based in Miami. But I am not
sure that other witnesses here, who are going to be able to
speak with knowledge about the human rights practices in Cuba,
has had quite the same personal experience that Mr. Gutierrez-
Menoyo has had with respect to this issue.
Eloy took up arms against Fidel Castro in 1964. He fought
in the mountains against the Cuban Government, was captured,
and subsequently spent 22 years in a Cuban jail, until his
release in 1986. He lost the hearing in one ear during his
incarceration, Mr. Chairman.
Following his release from prison, Mr. Menoyo went into
exile in Spain and then came to the United States. He currently
lives in Miami.
In 1992, Mr. Menoyo established an organization which I
have mentioned, called Cambio Cubano. That organization has a
message that differs from the message of other anti-Castro
organizations. Cambio Cubano has a different view as to how
best to advocate an increased respect for human rights and for
the peaceful change and transition that we all hope will occur
in Cuba.
In a number of his writings, Mr. Menoyo has described
United States and Cuban policies as the two edges of the Sword
of Damocles--each both in its own way an obstacle to creating
the necessary conditions for democratic change to occur. I
think this is a very apt description of where we find ourselves
with respect to United States-Cuban relations.
Much of what happens with respect to the United States
policy is orchestrated in Havana, and vice versa. Cuban
authorities take certain actions knowing full well that we will
respond in predictable ways. Rather than crafting a policy that
serves the United States' long-term interests, in my view we
simply too often act and react to events as they unfold from
day to day.
None of these measures brings us any closer to the ultimate
goal of fostering a peaceful transition on the island of Cuba.
I profoundly disagree with the recent crackdown by the
Cuban Government on political and human rights activists. I
think that it was counterproductive and uncalled for, to put it
mildly.
Having said that, I do not believe that the United States
response to such policies should be to isolate further the
Cuban people, the 11 million of them, from contact with the
United States. Nor do I believe that denying food and medicine
to the 11 million people on the island of Cuba will improve the
human rights practices of the Cuban Government.
Moreover, such restrictions are in and of themselves
violations, in my view, of internationally recognized human
rights.
I am pleased that, thus far, the Clinton administration's
response to recent events in Havana has been measured. I am
also pleased that Major League Baseball, the Orioles, the
Players' Association for the Cuban Institute of Sports, and the
Cuban National Team have recently reached an agreement to play
two games this year--one in Havana on March 28 and the other at
a later date in Camden Yards in Baltimore.
It is my understanding that the Clinton administration is
prepared to approve the necessary licenses and visas to make it
possible for the Orioles to travel to Havana and for the Cuban
national team to enter the United States at a later date.
I believe that these kinds of people to people contacts
between the United States and Cuba will do more to foster
political, social, and economic change in Cuba than restricting
trade or offering hundreds of resolutions in the United Nations
condemning Cuba for its human rights practices, as justified as
they may be.
I would also hope that members on both sides of the aisle
in the U.S. Senate would see the wisdom of supporting projects
and programs of this kind. They are not going to change the
conditions in Cuba overnight. But it begins to help us shape a
policy that is more deeply rooted than that which acts and
reacts, and acts and reacts.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this hearing this morning
and hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses. Again, I
thank you immensely for having this hearing here today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Now the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, we are glad to
hear from you.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I thank you, as
well, for holding this hearing.
I welcome our witnesses and look forward to hearing from
them.
The Chairman. Thank you. Very well.
I believe I always like to move to the right.
Senator Dodd. No one has ever questioned that, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Sir, you had to pronounce your name for me
and I apologize for that. Mr. Menoyo, we will recognize you
first and then we will move along to my right.
You are recognized.
Senator Dodd. Mr. Menoyo, the chairman has recognized you
first.
Mr. Chairman, he will be having this hearing translated for
him.
The Chairman. Very well.
Do you need two microphones? If not, please take another.
Senator Dodd. Why don't you use the two mikes? It will be a
little easier for you.
Thank you, Mr. Calzon for yielding yours temporarily.
STATEMENT OF ELOY GUTIERREZ-MENOYO, PRESIDENT, CAMBIO CUBANO,
MIAMI, FL, AS TRANSLATED BY LILLIAN NIGAGLIONI, STATE
DEPARTMENT INTERPRETER
Mr. Gutierrez-Menoyo [as translated]. Ladies and gentlemen
of the committee, honorable Members of Congress, I appear
before you with the utmost respect and humility. For those of
you who do not know me, I assure you that I am a man absolutely
committed to the concepts of freedom and democracy.
I am a Cuban due to conviction and through merits earned
during the long and painful struggle against a dictator named
Battista.
In the year 1959, I was the first revolution commander who
entered Havana. It was a popular triumph, full of joy and hope.
I had led the second guerrilla front based in the central
mountains of the island with over 3,000 rebel soldiers under my
command. My brother, Carlos, had died heroically in the
struggle against Battista.
My childhood had been marked by love for freedom and
democracy. When the revolution triumphed, when I entered
Havana, I was 25 years of age and these two terms were not new
concepts to me or mere words with little meaning.
Freedom and democracy, the high price of sacrifice and pain
that one must pay to obtain them--when we felt that the
revolution was not inclined to honor these concepts, at least
in the way that we understood them, we broke with the
Government of Fidel Castro.
This is, in part, my background. Today, as you know, Cambio
Cubano, the organization I represent, advocates a peaceful
solution on the island and it believes that, for this to occur,
it is essential that Washington policy change vis-a-vis Havana
and that there be a change in the policy of Havana vis-a-vis
Washington and vis-a-vis Cubans themselves.
Members of this committee, you who are again reviewing
United States policy vis-a-vis Cuba, let us not fool ourselves.
This shows that this policy has flaws and fundamental errors
inherent in it, even for those who have defended the
strengthening of the embargo.
But I will say, further, 40 years of isolation have failed.
So, if you allow me, I will ask you what do we come here to
do--to multiply ad infinitum the suffering of 11 million
Cubans, to please a given lobby increasingly less powerful and
more discredited in southern Florida?
You may have heard, you will hear the painful voices of
some of my fellow countrymen--some of them respectable,
although I think they are wrong, and others of questionable
independence.
My fear is that out of this exercise in cacophony, we will
return to the same policy of freezing which has only managed to
attain two things. On the one hand, one is to give a very
cunning politician, Fidel Castro, a great excuse; on the other
is to allow him, shielded in this pretext or excuse, to prolong
his control of the island.
This hearing takes place at a decisive moment. Cuba is in
the midst of a social and economic crisis. It is perhaps the
worst political moment for the Cuban Government. After seeming
signs of opening after the hopeful visit of the Pope, there is
an increased pressure against certain sectors of so-called
dissidents.
There is, on the one hand, the reality of this conflict,
and, on the other, the interested desire of some to amplify
this episode.
If there is a political desire to connect these facts with
the desire to promote the need for confrontation, it seems to
me that this committee will have to watch for the best
interests of the United States.
The confrontation is not desirable for the United States,
nor is it desirable for anybody. If it is desirable for
somebody, perhaps it would be for the Cuban Government, whose
excuse would be furthered. In the expression ``if we become
entrenched,'' if we do not allow any opening, it is precisely
due to pressure from Washington.
I appear before you so that my testimony might be useful in
terms of a solution to the United States-Cuba conflict as well
as a favorable solution for all Cubans.
Members of this committee, because I seek for my testimony
to be useful, I have decided to make here some disclosures as
far as my prudence will allow me to do so.
In June 1996, I was received in Havana by President Fidel
Castro. This unusual encounter, apparently between two
opponents to the death, turned into a frank dialog in which
Castro disclosed some of his wishes, preoccupations, fears
regarding what a political opening would involve in the island.
But he left the door open to a serene and responsible diplomacy
by Washington.
Those policies vis-a-vis Cuba since 1959 have not been
exemplary. They have been characterized by a clear
confrontation, paved with undercover operations, attempts, and
conspiracies of different sorts.
This is in the public domain.
Castro said that he feared that this policy would be
continued through other means. He is very cunning.
In recent weeks, we have been able to read reports that are
significant and revealing in the press of this country. How
much did United States authorities know regarding the danger
involved in the flight of small aircraft over Cuba? Why were
they authorized to fly over Cuba? What was intended and
promoted with these risky provocations? Then why is there such
an explainable synchronism between here and there?
With the downing of the planes--a crass mistake by Havana--
there came to an end what we had achieved during our first
meeting with Castro. It was said that it would be possible for
a political space to be opened for Cambio Cubano. First an
office would be opened and then we would see.
The downing of the planes brought with it the signing of
the Helms-Burton law. It was unavoidable.
Excuse me, Mr. Helms and Mr. Burton, your law is an insult
to Cubans. It offends the world and it places this country in
the face of a paradox: how to change the Cuban Government with
a law which serves as an instrument to invoke nationalism and
perpetrate itself in power?
Constructive rapprochement was, is, and will be always the
best way out in conflict.
Fidel Castro is awaiting clear signals to initiate an
effective and serene diplomacy where it is clear that the
United States renounces in words and deeds to any desire of
hegemonic dominion over Cuba. Believe me, this is what he feels
and this is what he wants.
And listen to me. I do not speak as a Cuban ambassador. I
did not participate in the Moscow alliance nor in political
killings. I have never been an instrument of the U.S. policy.
So, I am a Cuban of absolute independence, so much so that
I rejoice in the thought of one day democracy reigning in Cuba,
a day when Cubans and Americans will see themselves as good
neighbors, without the fear of turning into masters some and
some into servants.
Is this possible? We know that it is. But it is possible
only leaving aside failed meddling policy. A little bit ago, a
group of well known Republicans and Democrats proposed the
creation of a bipartisan committee to assess the state of a new
United States policy vis-a-vis Cuba and the possibility of
seeking new alternatives therein. We support this initiative,
which we thought was encouraging.
Is it possible to change the mindset of the most
recalcitrant people? Yes, it is possible. In 1949, a young
politician named Richard Nixon criticized the Truman
administration and Democrats in general because they allowed
for the defeat of the Chinese Nationalists.
I invoke the name of Richard Nixon, because his position in
favor of a Taiwanese Government and his radical opposition to
Communist China could not foresee what, in 1971, would be a
true foreign policy feat headed by Henry Kissinger, who today
is asking for a bipartisan committee or commission on Cuba.
In passing, I recall that the same Richard Nixon left in
his memoirs a clear advice on the need to modify the foreign
policy of the United States vis-a-vis Cuba.
The United States, through a rhetoric of confrontation and
through its laws--first the Torricelli and then the Helms-
Burton law--insists on the need to promote in Cuba a civil
society.
The elements of harassment of such laws, however, tend to
create conditions that would lead to internal conflict. What is
the object? Is it a repeat of the events of Hungary of 1956? To
make matters worse, the most recent law even violates the most
elementary standards of extraterritoriality vis-a-vis other
countries.
The Chairman. I believe you have had your say, sir. We will
have further exchange. But I want the other witnesses to be
heard from, too.
If you would, translate that for him, please. He is
preaching now.
Mr. Gutierrez-Menoyo. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez-Menoyo appears in
the appendix on page 31.]
The Chairman. Mr. Calzon.
Senator Dodd. Why don't we do this, Mr. Chairman? Why don't
we take the balance of his statement and make sure it is
included in the record.
The Chairman. We will be glad to do that.
Senator Dodd. Then maybe when we get to the questions, we
will have some for him.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Calzon, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF FRANK CALZON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR A
FREE CUBA, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Calzon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I am delighted to see not only Senator Helms, but
Senator Dodd and Senator Hagel here.
I would like to take this opportunity, since I have not
been successful until now, to ask Senator Dodd for an
appointment. I would love to come by and see you at some point
to talk about Cuba.
Members of the committee, my name is Frank Calzon. I am
here on behalf of the Center for a Free Cuba, an independent,
not for profit, organization based in Washington. I will not
waste any of your time telling you about my life.
I have spent more than 20 years as a human rights activist.
I would like to add, however, since I am sure Senator Dodd did
not know when he made the previous presentation, that another
witness here, Mr. Zuniga, spent 19 years in Castro's prisons.
Although it is not as long a term as the 21 years of
Commandante Menoyo, I think he also deserves some recognition
by the committee for his suffering in Castro's prisons.
I will depart from the statement very briefly to say what I
am not going to say here.
I am not here to question the integrity of any other
witness nor to drag the committee into the exile politics of
south Florida, nor to blame the United States for the suffering
of the Cuban people, nor to transmit any messages from Castro
to the United States Congress. I think the American people, the
United States, have very able diplomatic representation in
Havana, and they can certainly do that.
Now I would like to move on to my statement.
For almost 40 years, Castro's abuses have been reported by
Amnesty International, Americas Watch, Freedom House, and many
other organizations.
Since 1976, with the founding of the Cuban Committee for
Human Rights in Havana, many Cubans have risked their lives and
their freedom to report details of government repression to the
outside world. They continue today their noble and courageous
work, despite ever-increasing hardship and harassment.
The growing body of irrefutable evidence that they have
gathered has been echoed by many world leaders, including John
Paul II.
With the visit of the Holy Father to Cuba a year ago, there
was great speculation, including here in the Congress, that the
human rights appeals of foreign leaders were about to bear
fruit and that Cuba would abandon its cold war stance.
The Holy Father called on the Cuban authorities to release
political prisoners, to allow them to remain in Cuba, to work
for a national dialog of reconciliation, to permit the
emergence of civil society and the rule of law, to acknowledge
the role of parents in the education of their children, and to
allow the Church to play a role in that education.
To date, Castro's response has been very discouraging.
Some political prisoners were released and forced into
exile in Canada. Also, by the time the Pope arrived in Cuba,
the four prominent dissidents who authored the critical
document ``The Motherland Belongs to All,'' had been imprisoned
without trial for 6 months. The ``Havana Four,'' as the
Washington Post calls them, are the following:
Marta Beatriz Roque is an economist, who, according to the
New York Times has been denied adequate medical attention for a
serious breast condition.
Rene Gomez Manzano is an attorney disbarred for defending
political prisoners who was honored by the American Bar
Association in 1997.
Vladimiro Roca is a leader of a social democratic
organization and the son of a prominent leader of Cuba's
Communist Party.
Felix Bonne Carcasses is a black teacher who was expelled
from his college-faculty post for pro-democracy activism.
Their 1-day trial on charges of sedition was held 19 months
after their arrest and 14 months after the Pope's visit. The
government has called for a 6-year sentence for Roca and 5
years for the others.
Presently, they await sentencing.
The trial has resulted in an outpouring of concern
worldwide. The Economist, in a recent editorial, said that the
trial confirmed Castro's ``unwavering addiction, after 40 years
of power, to the basics of Stalinism.''
The trial came in the wake of a series of draconian
statutes imposing sentences of up to 20 years for sending
information abroad, information about human rights violations,
information that could be sent to this Congress or to Amnesty
International or to other international organizations.
The current cycle of repression, however, began shortly
after the Pope left Cuba.
Human Rights Watch, in its latest report, the ``World
Report for 1999'' says ``As 1998 drew to a close, Cuba's
stepped up prosecutions and harassment of dissidents, along
with its refusal to grant amnesty to hundreds of remaining
political prisoners or reform its criminal code, marked a
disheartening return to heavy-handed repression.''
Amnesty International, already on record during 1998,
continues to issue appeals on Cuban cases.
On January 22, it focused on the case of Jesus Diaz
Hernandez, 24 years old, a journalist, who was arrested on
January 18, 1999, and sentenced the following day to 4 years in
prison for ``dangerousness.''
Amnesty quotes the Cuban penal code. For you who write laws
here all the time, you might want to pay attention to what
Cuban law says regarding this particular crime and how it is
defined. The crime of ``dangerousness,'' according to Cuban
law, is: ``The special proclivity of a person to commit crimes
as demonstrated by behavior that manifestly contradicts the
norms of socialist morality.''
That is a piece of Cuban law that you might want to review
at some point.
Amnesty lists other independent journalists who are either
in prison or who have been charged: Bernardo Arevalo Padron,
Juan Carlos Recio Martinez, Manuel Antonio Gonzalez
Castellanos, and Mario Julio Viera Gonzalez. Regrettably, Cuban
independent journalists continue to be forced into exile.
Then there is the case of Jorge Luis Garcia Perez. I always
pay a lot of attention to what Senator Dodd says, particularly
when he talks about the issue of medical shortages in Cuba
because here is a case where the Congress potentially could do
some good.
According to Amnesty International, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez
suffers from tachycardia, hypoglycemia, renal colic, and other
ailments. According to Amnesty International, the medicine that
his family has obtained from abroad is not delivered to him in
prison. So the Cuban Government is denying him medicine that
already exists in Cuba.
I would like to ask Senator Dodd and other members of this
committee to urge the Cuban Government to permit the family to
deliver that medicine that is so much needed to this Amnesty
International prisoner of conscience.
While Castro attempts to stamp out civic opposition in
Cuba, he continues to charm foreigners and even some Members of
this Congress. The Washington Post, in an editorial a few days
ago, says that Castro is achieving some success. But the Post
warns: ``If the four''--meaning these four that we have been
discussing--``are convicted and sentenced, it will show that
the regime will not permit any opposition at all. What then,''
the Washington Post asks, ``will the international crowd have
to say about the society-transforming power of their
investments?''
In a similar vein, Le Monde, the French daily, said that
the trial has ``shattered the European illusions about Castro's
revolution.''
Finally, we come to the Canadians. Writing in the Globe and
Mail, just a few days ago, Marcus Gee said that Canada's
friendship to Cuba was a big asset for the Cuban Government.
Then he says, ``But, despite Canada's best intentions, the
practical effect on human rights in Cuba has been zero. Mr.
Castro's human rights record remains the worst in the Americas.
Cuba is still a one-party state where elections are a sham, the
judiciary is still a tool of state oppression, independent
newspapers and free trade unions don't exist, and more than 300
Cubans still languish in jail for `counter-revolutionary
crimes.' ''
Apparently, the Canadians are beginning to see the light
about Cuba, and I think Senator Helms and his leadership ought
to be credited for that.
I am afraid I might be running out of time. I will try to
proceed quickly, Senator.
The Chairman. Very good.
Mr. Calzon. Given the situation with Canada, and the
failure of Canada's constructive engagement policy as explained
in the pages of the Globe and Mail, what can we expect from the
forthcoming exercise in ``baseball diplomacy?''
Let us keep in mind that Cuban athletes who question
government policies are banned from the field. That is a fact.
That is not an exaggeration from Cuban exiles. You can look it
up.
Cuban athletes, Cuban baseball players who have expressed
independent political views are not allowed to play ball in
Cuba.
As was the case in Nazi Germany and the Communist Bloc, the
regime's sports programs have a most definite political
dimension. The Orioles mean well. They wanted to play in
Havana. They also said that they wanted to donate the proceeds
of the games to Catholic charities in Cuba.
I would be in favor of that. Unfortunately, as it stands
now, the Church will not benefit and there is even speculation
that American sports networks will pay Castro a sizable sum,
which is not likely to reach Cuba's poor.
Given the sorry state of affairs, the defeat in Geneva last
year of the American resolution condemning Castro's human
rights abuses, the willingness of the business community to put
narrow corporate agendas and potential profits ahead of U.S.
national interests and those of the Cuban people, what can this
Congress and the President do?
First, the Congress should join Amnesty International in
asking for the immediate and unconditional release of the
Havana Four.
Second, Congress should suggest to the President to urge
America's friends, many of whom today ask the President to put
American lives at risk around the world to defend freedom, to
insist on the need for a United Nations investigation of human
rights violations in Cuba.
Third, as the administration through Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright--to her credit--said a few days ago, the
United States ought to reaffirm its determination to stay the
course in Cuba until there is substantive political reform.
Fourth, as in the case of Eastern Europe, breaking through
the regime's censorship is paramount. I urge Congress and the
President to review United States broadcasting efforts and
Castro's jamming measures to provide the necessary technology
and resources so that both TV and Radio Marti can effectively
reach the Cuban people.
Fifth, Members of Congress and their staffs who travel to
Cuba and meet with Cuban Government officials should also try
to help Castro's victims.
Sixth, Members of Congress should urge fellow
parliamentarians from around the world to condition their
government's dealings with Havana on a substantial increase of
freedom in Cuba.
In conclusion, let me say a word about the Cuban people.
The Cubans know about the indignities of political
imprisonment. They know about the need for an independent labor
movement. They are painfully aware of the insidious effect of
segregation policies that bar them from hotels, stores,
beaches, restaurants, hospitals, and other facilities set aside
for foreigners. They celebrated the rebirth of freedom in
Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and still await their own.
The Cubans, despite what you might hear from time to time,
are no different from the Poles, the Czechs, the Chileans, and
many others who have freed themselves from tyranny in our
lifetime.
Despite Castro's repression, the Cuban people have embarked
on a journey similar to that of the Mothers of the Plaza de
Mayo, the people power movement in the Philippines, the
students who gathered around Vaclav Havel, the workers who
joined Lech Walesa's Solidarity in Gdansk, and to that of
Americans who joined hands with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Now the third witness is Ms. Ruth Montaner, who is a
representative of the Internal Dissident Working Group, whose
four leaders, as I understand it, were tried last Monday for
``inciting sedition.''
I would ask staff to stand to the side because I want the
hearing room to see this picture. Those four courageous
leaders, who are pictured here on my right, have spent 19
months--is that correct--in jail for publishing a critique of
Castroism entitled, ``The Homeland Belongs to All.''
Ms. Montaner, we would be glad to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF RUTH C. MONTANER, REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNAL
DISSIDENT WORKING GROUP, MIAMI, FL, AND CUBAN DISSIDENCE TASK
GROUP
Ms. Montaner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senators. I am
very grateful for the opportunity to be here in behalf of the
Cuban Dissidence Task Group.
First of all, I would like to quote the group: ``The world
must know that we are desperately trying to contribute to the
peaceful transformation of Cuba from a uni-party state to a
democratic, pluralistic society under the rule of law.''
My name is Ruth Montaner. Along with Pablo Llabre and
Antonio Santiago, I represent the four persons who do comprise
the Cuban Dissidence Task Group.
Let me tell you briefly who they are.
Felix Bonne Carcasses, the person on the right hand side of
the picture, is a former University of Havana professor who was
expelled from his work when he signed a letter in 1992 to the
Council of State demanding more academic and political freedom.
He organized the Corriente Civica Cubana, which is kind of a
Cuban think tank of intellectuals.
Then on the left corner you have Rene Gomez Manzano, a very
bright and talented jurist, who was a graduate of Patricio
Lumumba University. Also, when he dared to oppose or present
ideas contrary to the regime, he was expelled from his work. He
formed then the Corriente Agramontista.
Next there is Vladimiro Roca Antunez. He could have been a
prince of the revolution because of his father, because of who
he was. He chose another path. An economist and a trained MiG
pilot, he created the Partido Social Democrata Cubano, a
political party that has allies throughout the world.
Finally there is Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello, the only
woman in the group, an economist who was also expelled from her
work at the University of Havana as a math teacher when she
presented information as to mismanagement in some government
groups.
Let me tell you now what the four did.
First of all, I am going to try to convince you that the
problem in Cuba is not a problem between the Cuban Nation and
the American Nation or United States policy. It is a problem
between the Cuban regime and the Cuban people.
These four persons, right after the Concilia Cubanos group
was destroyed, going back to the airplanes being shot down--I
have to remind you, gentlemen and ladies, that the day that the
airplanes were shot down was the day that the group of Concilia
Cubanos, that were part of 100-some organizations in Cuba,
tried to meet to present some proposals to the Cuban Government
for some political liberalization.
That meeting was denied. The permit for the meeting was
denied by the Cuban Government.
After that, these four persons that we have here created,
in the middle of 1996, a group that is called the Cuban
Dissidence Task Group, and prepared a platform, a six point
platform, asking for amnesty for the political prisoners,
asking for participation of all Cubans in elections, for
economic freedom, and respect for human rights, among other
things.
In a 4-month span in 1997, these 4 people wrote several
documents, and the list of recipients of these documents was
headed by Raul and Fidel Castro themselves. This indicates
that, really, they had a purpose of trying to talk to the
government at all times.
Let me read just a little piece of one of the documents
that is part of the indictment, the Cuban Government
indictment, and is an appeal to the Cuban exiles. ``We wish to
point out the impact that the remitants''--they are referring
to the moneys that the Cuban community sends to the people in
Cuba--``may have upon the silencing of the many voices inside
Cuba who disagree with the Communist regime.''
This letter ends, first and foremost, with the same
peaceful framework in which we carry out our activities.
Another of the documents they wrote in that time was the
letter to foreign investors. It reads, ``Resolving the
disagreement between the Government of Cuba and our citizens is
a fundamental short-term objective. Other existing conflicts,
such as those related to the Helms-Burton legislation, are
beyond the limited capabilities of the internal opposition and
even of the international community to resolve.''
In a span of time that is becoming even shorter, there will
be a transition to democracy in our country and this leads to
the need for measures that will avoid a situation where current
foreign investment may be viewed in the near future as one form
of complicity with the wrongs that now are suffered by the
Cuban population.
With this in mind, the article's principles, a copy of
which is attached, were promulgated.
We cannot be involved in the debate as to whether or not it
is correct to invest in Cuba. Nonetheless, it is evident that
observers of norms of equity and cooperation in labor
relations, as well as respect for the Cuban people on the part
of those wishing to invest, is the best for everyone.
A business strategy opposed, therefore, supporting
implementation of the article's principles.
Then they wrote a letter to the people in Cuba asking them
to abstain to go to the elections to vote in the upcoming
elections in that year as a sign of protest for the conduct of
the Cuban regime.
Finally, in June 1997, they wrote the document, ``The
Homeland is for All.''
I will go a little later back to that and I am going to be
brief.
In that document, the four asked for an internal dialog.
They petitioned the Cuban Government for the opportunity to be
heard. They presented a plan, how they thought it was
incorrect, and their proposal for correcting the mistakes of
the government to the government itself.
For that reason, they were incarcerated on July 16, 1997.
Just before their incarceration, they tried to hold a meeting
with the international community to present those documents to
the international community and to the Castro Government
itself. In that meeting, only the Americans were there. Only
Mr. Tim Brown and Michael Cosack were at that meeting. Absent
was all of the international community.
In the documents these people wrote, in the bulletins they
wrote throughout that year and with the help of the people of
respected groups--economists, lawyers--they repeatedly stated
that the problems of the Cuban Nation had nothing to do with
United States' failing foreign policy; but, on the contrary,
they were related to the lack of democracy that exists in the
country today.
When the Pope visited Cuba in January 1998, everybody had
the hope of a transformation, of a new life in Cuba. But,
unfortunately, the facts are that repression increased
tremendously and dramatically after the Pope visited--no matter
the efforts of the international community that embraced what
the Pope said: let's open up to the Cuban Nation and the Cuban
Nation will open to the world.
This did not happen.
The release of political prisoners was not an unconditional
release, but the prisoners were sent out of Cuba. They were not
allowed to remain in the country. That is also not an amnesty.
Then, at the end of the year, United States policy changed
or tried to change the embargo law, and the reply from Federal
people that head the union syndicates in Cuba early in January
1999, indicated that that softening of the embargo measurements
was an aggression to Cuba by the imperialist Yankees.
So I don't know how to interpret that, really. It goes
beyond my comprehension.
In March of this year, they had the trial of the four
Cubans who were accused of sedition.
I don't know how much time I have left.
Unfortunately, I don't have too much time, but for you
lawmakers in a free country, to read the indictment of the
Cuban Government against these people is a piece that probably
those of you who read it will never forget what is there.
In the items confiscated from them you will find computers,
pencils, books, notebooks, and items such as pieces of paper.
These people are incarcerated for writing, again, four or five
documents. But not only them, the whole Cuban Nation is
incarcerated for thinking, for trying to present a different
approach to the problems that are in the country today than
those that the regime offers.
I do not see a frank solution or any solution to the
problem, and also some organizations, such as the Federacions
Electrica de Cuba, the Centro no Gubernamental Jose de la Luz y
Caballero, the Partido Pro Derechos Humanos de Cuba, the Comite
Cubano Pro Derechos Humanos, the Cuban Workers Group, the
Partido Democrata Martiano and others----
Senator Dodd. Our stenographer is having a very difficult
time with these names. So why don't you submit the list and we
will make sure it is included in the record.
The Chairman. Exactly.
Ms. Montaner. You have the list, and they sent you a letter
almost reconfirming all of what has been said here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Montaner and related
material has been retained in the committee files.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let's go to the next
witness now.
We appreciate your testimony.
Next is Mr. Luis Zuniga, who spent 19 years in Cuba's
prisons as a political prisoner. As president of the Foundation
for Human Rights in Cuba, he monitors events on the island
closely. He has testified before several sessions of the U.N.
Human Rights Commission meetings in Geneva as a guest of the
Nicaraguan delegation.
We are glad you are here, sir. We appreciate your coming
and now we will hear from you, sir.
STATEMENT OF LUIS ZUNIGA, PRESIDENT, FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS IN CUBA, MIAMI, FL
Mr. Zuniga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, when addressing the issue of human rights
in Cuba, we must start by pointing out that Fidel Castro has
been in power for 40 consecutive years, longer than dictators
Trujillo, Stroessner, and Francisco Franco.
Let us also recall that Castro monopolizes all of the
important positions in Cuba--Chief of State, Head of
Government, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and
Secretary General of the only permitted political party.
With this introduction, any individual, even without
knowing anything about Cuba, would be able to easily conclude
what Cuba has become under Castro.
One of the first actions Castro undertook after taking
control of political power was to establish the death penalty
and use it extensively as an instrument of terror. There is no
question that the most outstanding characteristic of the
situation in Cuba is the state of terror the population lives
under.
This terror is not unfounded because Castro has never
hesitated to kill or destroy anyone who opposes him and
because, in contrast to former dictators in the Latin American
tradition, Castro never had an independent judicial power he
must answer to or one that could impede his arbitrary measures.
In fact, another of his first actions in government was to
dissolve judicial power and create a new one, submitted to him
by law and with judges appointed by him in order to insure
impunity.
Note how last Friday, Cuba's foreign relations spokesman
declared before Cuban television that the four dissidents
recently tried were already sentenced, this without the judge
having rendered a decision yet.
Mr. Chairman, Castro's dictatorship is not different from
the many others Latin America had in the past. I do not
remember politicians asking those dictators to reform their
systems or to allow a group to open an office. Everybody
demanded the dictators to quit and allow democracy to reign.
Mr. Chairman, it is truly difficult to find respect in Cuba
for any of the fundamental rights and freedoms. In my opinion,
the most important of those rights is that to freely choose
one's government because, using the electoral process, it is
possible to remove from office anyone who places himself above
the law.
The worst aspect of the Cuban situation is that the people
do not have the legal right to choose their government nor to
change the current political structure.
Article 5 of the socialist constitution establishes that:
``The Communist Party is the guiding force of the Cuban
society.'' Consequently, the highest authority of the country
is the head of the Communist Party, and that individual is not
elected but is chosen by the Executive Committee of the Party.
In other words, Fidel Castro chooses Fidel Castro.
This is the primary reason why, as long as Article 5 is not
removed from the socialist constitution created by Castro, it
is naive to expect changes in Cuba.
This message should be heeded by United States Senators who
travel to Cuba and are misled by Castro with false hopes for
change.
Mr. Chairman, the conditions inside the prisons are truly
alarming. In fact, it has always been so. For Castro, the act
of confining an individual who opposes his dictatorship is not
sufficient punishment. Castro's view is that prison has to
succeed in submitting the will of the enemy.
To accomplish this, he uses methods of systematic
destruction--physical, such as hunger and malnutrition,
beatings, and lack of medical attention, as well as
psychological, such as walled in cells, confinement in
psychiatric hospitals, torture with electronic sounds, and
isolation for long periods of time.
Fear of being imprisoned is another instrument of terror
used by Castro to maintain the population under control.
If there were at least a small amount of international
concern, the request for the freedom of all political prisoners
in Cuba would be a priority. And, by the way, it also would be
worthwhile to call for putting an end to the usual petition of
presidents or dignitaries who travel to Cuba asking the
dictator to free some political prisoners because, while it is
true that some are released, it is also true that it serves as
an incentive to Castro to continue imprisoning individuals he
can later give to other visitors.
If a dignitary has a true calling to request the release of
prisoners, let it be the release of all political prisoners.
As a case in point, Dr. Omar del Pozo, freed a year ago
following the Papal visit. His place is now occupied by the
four authors of the manifesto, ``La Patria es de Todos,'' ``The
Homeland Belongs to All Citizens.''
Mr. Chairman, another terrible aspect of Cuban life is
political discrimination. Under Castro, to be allowed to study
beyond the elementary school level or to obtain a job, one must
belong to the political organizations the government has
created as its own support system. In fact, Decree 34,
effective on March 12, 1980, establishes that political conduct
is one of the considerations to fire an employee. In fact, any
individual who is not a member of those organizations or
refuses to participate in the activities in support of Castro
and his dictatorship simply becomes a third class citizen,
jobless and uneducated.
There is another level of discrimination, that of Cubans
versus foreigners. The latter are allowed to own business
entities, engage in commerce, import and export, while those
same activities are prohibited to Cuban citizens.
A similar situation prevails in segregated hotels, beaches
and stores that prohibit access to Cubans. As far as I am
aware, there is no comparable case of blatant discrimination in
the Western Hemisphere.
The infamy behind the dual health care system in the island
is also well known. But I want to emphasize what occurs with
foreign investments in Cuba because, aside from the fact that
many factories, warehouses, and industries have been stolen
from their rightful owners, Fidel Castro is violating numerous
labor standards accepted by Cuba in the International Labor
Organization, such as the direct hiring of workers by the
employer without government interference, the prohibition that
workers be allowed to organize independent labor unions to
defend their rights, and the abominable practice of
confiscating up to 95 percent of the salary they receive.
If Fidel Castro is responsible for this peculiar mix of
exploitation and arbitrariness, the disreputable businessmen
that confabulate with Castro against the Cuban workers are just
as responsible by accepting to do business under such
conditions.
It is very worrisome that executives of American companies
are putting pressure on Congress to lift the restrictions that
prohibit them from doing business in Cuba when such commerce
would take place under the same adverse conditions for Cuban
workers as those that exist today under other foreign investors
in Cuba.
A clear example of the dangers implicit in the issue of
investments in Cuba was evident when recently the attorneys of
several American telephone companies sided with Castro when a
Miami judge decided that the funds that were destined for Cuba
as payment for telephone services would be diverted as
compensation to the families of the American pilots who were
killed when Castro's armed forces destroyed their aircraft over
international waters in 1996.
Doubtlessly, companies who enter into business with the
Cuban dictator will ultimately oppose any United States measure
that seeks Cuba's freedom which would, of course, disrupt their
flow of profits. In this sense, it is alarming how it is
becoming increasingly clear that this administration intends to
follow a policy of engagement with regard to the Cuban problem.
The complete failure this policy has had in China is a fact
which government officials have tried to conceal. This policy
should serve to dissuade the administration from pursuing such
purposes in Cuba, lest it results in a more grave mistake.
What changes has engagement produced in China in terms of
repression against dissidents or recognition of fundamental
rights? None--or, actually, one. This is one completely
contrary to what was desired, and that is the silence of
government authorities concerning imprisonments, lengthy
sentences, and forced deportations.
Robert Kegan, a reporter for the New York Times, mentioned
in a January 15 article that: ``They''--the American
officials--``were wrong and they have paid dearly. China's
leaders seem confident that they will pay no significant price
for the crackdown and that President Clinton will tolerate
almost any misbehavior rather than change his policy of
engagement. So far, they are right. President Clinton has been
silent.''
It really is not my desire to be critical of the
administration, but it is my duty to point out potential errors
which can still be avoided. Let us not forget that errors here
are only that--errors without further consequence than
criticism. But for Cubans on the island, those errors can cost
lives and years of imprisonment.
Apparently, common sense prevailed some weeks ago, and the
plans to create a commission to review United States policy
toward Cuba were discarded. It was a good thing, too, because
the phrase ``review'' was redolent of engagement and of
economic profit over human suffering.
What the policy toward Cuba needs is enforcement. If the
embargo, the Helms-Burton bill, and the efforts to get allies
to place pressure on Castro to open Cuba are the instruments,
then, please, enforce them.
It looks like a joke to say the policy has failed when it
is not really implemented.
Mr. Chairman, I lived for 30 years in Castro's Cuba, 19 of
those years in prison. I can assure you that Fidel Castro will
never make the slightest concession in favor of democracy.
Through the years, Castro himself has consistently said so.
It is inconceivable that after four decades of crimes and
destruction, some are still trying to find in the dictator a
vestige of democracy or human feeling.
What Castro wants and is actively seeking is an
understanding with the U.S. Government, a government to
government deal, based on mutual interests but that will not
affect his control and tyranny over the island--something quite
different from what the friends of the cause for democracy in
Cuba wish.
It is the money and the credits with which to finance his
dictatorship that he is after.
How many years more do politicians need to realize that
Castro just wants everybody to bend and submit to his will and
ego?
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the logical and necessary question
is how can the United States help Cuba move toward democracy?
To me, the answer is clear: Castro's power is based on terror
and that terror relies on maintaining the enormous military
repressive apparatus that enforces it. If Castro's resources
are cut or reduced, he is obliged to downsize that apparatus
and that would give the people of Cuba an opportunity to remove
the dictatorship, or at least obtain a reprieve in the
repression.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The time being what it is, I had hoped that we could have a
little bit more time for questions, but we are running over. I
suggest that we have a round of 7 minutes each.
Please do not make a speech and then ask a question after
the caution light is on. Of course, that's not you [indicating]
and not you [indicating]. You have never done that.
About this baseball game, ladies and gentlemen, I had been
led to understand that the administration was going to insist
that the proceeds from the game go to the Church in Cuba, the
Catholic Church.
Now I am about as strong a Baptist as you ever saw, but I
thought that was a good idea.
Now the administration appears to be backing off on that
position. If anybody will, send word to the administration that
one guy on this committee fervently hopes that the
administration will return to and restore their original
position on this.
The Treasury Department said that ESPN has asked to travel
to Cuba to explore arrangements with the Cuban Government to
broadcast the baseball game on March 28.
It is not yet known whether ESPN will request to pay for
the broadcast rights or how the money will be divided. But the
rumor is that Castro has turned down, thumbs down, on the money
going to the Church after a preliminary agreement had been
entered into by him and others.
Now we need to know exactly where we stand on this thing. I
am not saying that the Orioles cannot go or that I am going to
try to stop them. But I am going to appeal to the baseball
players on the Orioles to examine their own consciences about
whether they ought to go under the circumstances that the
proceeds will go to Mr. Castro.
Now if he is going to get the money, it is a different
proposition, as far as I am concerned, and I will oppose
personally their going. I certainly hope that the management of
the Orioles and the players on the team will examine the whole
aspect, including their consciences.
Now, then, I would have a question for Mr. Calzon. Have the
embassies of the European Union countries been active in
supporting dissidents?
Mr. Calzon. Senator, as you know, I am here on behalf of
the Center for a Free Cuba. I cannot speak for other
governments.
But my understanding is, for example, that at this juncture
the Italian Government has expressed great concerns about what
is happening in Cuba. The same thing applies, to his credit, to
the Canadian Foreign Minister at this time.
In the past, the help or access to Cuban dissidents in Cuba
by other missions, besides that of the United States, has been
limited. But it is a fact that there are several democratic
governments that have, at least, opened their doors to the
human rights activists and to the families of political
prisoners.
The Chairman. Do you know of any embassies which have been
active in trying to help the dissidents?
Mr. Calzon. I do, Senator. But I do not think in an open
hearing it makes a lot of sense to point out who they are.
Otherwise, the Cuban Government will make life even more
difficult.
As as you probably know, the Cuban Government broke into
the U.S. diplomatic pouch a couple of years ago. One piece of
evidence presented by Havana, I am sure the Senators have read,
is George Orwell's ``Animal Farm.'' The Cuban Government
considers Orwell's books subversive so, too, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
So as far as foreign governments are concerned, I think it
would be very helpful for the committee to contact some of
their diplomatic missions in Washington and get a better
appraisal than I can provide about what they are willing to do.
The Chairman. Let me ask the other two of you, because all
three of you--he [Mr. Gutierrez-Menoyo] doesn't think we ought
to do anything--seem to be more together.
What more could our Government do in our interest section
in Havana to help the dissidents or independent journalists
that I referred to earlier?
Mr. Calzon. I have something to say. I think one important
thing is that all the members of the committee, I would assume,
are in favor of baseball games.
I remember as a child in Cuba watching the World Series on
Cuban TV. That was accomplished thanks to a Cuban airplane
placed on the Florida Straits, which enabled the Cuban people
to watch the game.
So those who support the Orioles playing in Havana ought to
support a C-130 in the Florida Straits that will make it
possible for TV Marti to be seen in Cuba at all times, so that
Cubans can watch not only one baseball game, but TV Marti on a
regular basis.
The Chairman. But do you have any suggestion about other
things that our country should do?
Mr. Calzon. Yes, Senator, and I mentioned some of them
briefly in the testimony.
The Chairman. Then be brief because I want to hear from the
others, too.
Mr. Calzon. Yes.
I would urge those, particularly those who favor
constructive engagement or who have been talking about medical
supplies, such as, I think, Senator Hagel and Senator Dodd, to
raise these kinds of issues with the Cuban Government.
You have a lot more influence than certainly those of us
who are critical of the regime. It makes a lot of sense, to me
that you approach the Cuban Government and say that, as long as
these four people are in prison, as long as the rapid
deployment brigade are going around beating up dissidents,
innocent people, very little is going to be accomplished.
Now I'm not talking about free and fair elections under
international supervision. I am simply saying, asking that you
say to the Cuban Government, to the people you talk to all the
time, that as long as they go around beating up dissidents--
mothers, children--as long as they have these people in prison,
that they are not going to have a lot of constructive
engagement from the United States side.
The Chairman. Very quickly, do you have a quick suggestion?
I want to enforce my own time rule on me.
Ms. Montaner. Increasing support to the Cuban dissidents--
not to the group, but to Cuban dissidents in general and to the
journalists.
I have one comment, one short comment.
In 1936, in the Olympic Games, people from the German
Republic will have forever a footnote that they attended the
games for the national regime. These baseball players will have
such a footnote on their resumes for the rest of their lives.
It is very insensitive in their behalf and in the Orioles
owners' behalf to go at such a time when 94 persons were
arrested in 1 day.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Again, let me thank our witnesses for being here today and
for expressing their views.
I do not think there is any disagreement in terms of the
issue of these four who are being tried. I appreciate your
testimony on that, that this is a violation of human rights
down there and that people feel strongly about it and have
expressed themselves on it. Also, other governments have done
so as well. Governments that have diplomatic relations with
Cuba have expressed themselves on the issue.
So I do not think there is much debate, at least there
should not be much debate, on that particular issue. But what I
think could be valuable here--because, as I said at the outset
of my remarks--is too much of our policy over 40 years has been
based on action/reaction, action/reaction. Any suggestion or
any efforts to try to find some different way to improve the
situation in Cuba is met with, at least in many quarters, with
significant hostility, including the proposal, I gather, the
three of you would be opposed to. This is the proposal for the
Orioles to go to play in Havana.
Is that true? Why don't you just give me a quick answer to
that, yes or no.
Mr. Calzon, do you oppose the Orioles going to Cuba?
Mr. Calzon. No. I am in favor of it as long as the proceeds
go to the Catholic Church.
Senator Dodd. But there are not any proceeds from that
game. Aren't the proceeds really going to come when they play
in Baltimore? That is more likely where the proceeds will come
from.
Mr. Calzon. Senator, if you are in favor of the Orioles
going to Havana, I assume that you have a moral responsibility
to speak out against the fact that some Cuban athletes are not
allowed to play due to their political views.
Senator Dodd. You're not answering my question. Let me ask
the question and you can answer it for me. I listened to you
very patiently during your testimony.
Mr. Calzon. Yes, sir.
Senator Dodd. You are in favor of the team going down? I
just want to get a quick review. Yes?
Mr. Calzon. I am not against the team going to Havana.
Senator Dodd. How about you, Ms. Montaner? Are you in favor
of the Orioles going down to play in Havana?
Ms. Montaner. At this time, I believe it is very
insensitive in their behalf to go now. And I am all for
establishing peoples to peoples contact, to increase that. Yes.
Senator Dodd. OK.
Mr. Zuniga, are you opposed to them going down?
Mr. Zuniga. Yes. I am opposed because it is a tragedy. At a
time when Cuba has so many deaths, prisons, and so on, being in
a joyful way, playing baseball as if nothing happened in Cuba--
no.
Senator Dodd. I understand. I just want to get your views.
How did you feel about the Pope going there? What was your
initial reaction, the organization's reaction to the Pope going
there?
Mr. Zuniga. He did very good. Very good. The Pope's visit
was a shower of spiritualism to the Cuban people.
Senator Dodd. Were you in favor of him going down there
initially, the Pope? Were you in favor of the Pope's visit?
Mr. Zuniga. Of course.
Senator Dodd. All of you were?
Ms. Montaner. Yes.
Mr. Calzon. Yes, I was.
Senator Dodd. Your organization, Mr. Calzon, the Center for
a Free Cuba, how much money do you receive from the United
States Government?
Mr. Calzon. We have a grant that is about half of our
budget, $400,000, similar to those allocated to promote
democracy in Poland, the Czech Republic, and in many other
places around the world, Senator.
Senator Dodd. All right.
I wonder if you might just quickly comment on the notion of
how we might begin to change the dynamic here because that, to
me, is what is critically important. We have relationships with
governments around the world, many of which do not embrace
Jeffersonian democracy. You mentioned China and Vietnam. There
are other governments that have monarchies that are far less
than democratic. I can think of governments in the Middle East
with whom we have major economic relations which do some things
that violate human rights all the time.
Certainly we speak out periodically. But it seems to me we
have to get beyond that in our bid if we are going to try to
create some sort of transition that occurs here.
What do you say to those who raise the issue--and try to
keep your answers brief on this because I only have 7 minutes?
What is your answer to those who say after 40 years of a
policy--37 years, 38 years--of an embargo, where the conditions
have not improved by maintaining a policy of isolation, where
those who have even suggested going to Cuba and trying to
develop any opening here, where nothing has changed?
We make the case in Eastern Europe and other places where,
in fact, a policy of constructive engagement did, at least,
contribute to creating some change that brought about the
results we see today in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
How do you answer the question that a consistent policy
that we have followed for 40 years has not produced anything
but the status quo and your insistence that we maintain that
policy here without any change?
Mr. Zuniga. If you would allow me to answer----
Senator Dodd. Sure.
Mr. Zuniga. I think it is a mistake to say that the U.S.
embargo has failed. I have proof--I am not talking about my
opinion, I am talking about proof. The year 1991 was when
intervention stopped. From that time on is when we can measure
the impact of the embargo because, formerly, Castro was
receiving $3 billion a year and he could waive off any economic
measure.
From then on, 1991 to 1995, the Cuban Government assessed
that they reduced 48 percent of their military budget--48
percent. Besides, here, in 1997, dismantling of her navy
occurred. Cuba has no navy now. They were sinking missile boats
worth $24 million.
Do you know why? It is because the embargo is working.
If the United States were not doing that, Castro still now
would be a threat to the United States. Thanks to the embargo,
Cuba is not a military threat to the United States.
Besides, the dollarization of the Cuban economy, the slight
opening of cracks in Cuba, are the result of Castro's
willingness. Is Castro prone toward democracy? No. It has been
the economic pressure that has done this.
It's the same way that it worked in the Soviet Union, the
same way it worked in Eastern Europe. It's because of the
economic cracking. Otherwise, they would not bend.
Their purpose is quite clear, to stay in power as long as
possible and to have everybody submitting to them. Only when
they lacked the resources to maintain their control did this
happen.
Senator Dodd. Thank you. Let me get to another witness.
Ms. Montaner. I going to reply with a question: can anyone
show me what improvements we have made with an engagement
policy that has been in effect for the past 14 months? The only
thing we see that we can observe is an increase in the
repression on the island. Besides the codes they had there,
they thought they were not enough and they imposed new
sanctions.
It is the only country in the hemisphere where political
problems are in the code, in the penal code, described as
offenses to the Nation. Can you tell me what the engagement has
done to alleviate that condition? Nothing. So both policies
have failed--so far.
The Chairman. Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I, too, wish to
thank our witnesses for coming today and expressing their
views.
Thank you very much.
I have a question that I would like each of you to answer.
Mr. Menoyo, you have gotten off lightly so far. So I don't
want you to feel neglected at your end of the table. The
question is for each of our four witnesses.
In your opinion, what does the recent crackdown tell us
about Castro's regime? Does it mean his regime is weaker,
stronger, or does it make any difference?
Mr. Menoyo.
Mr. Gutierrez-Menoyo [as translated]. It means, first, that
it is the same dictatorship as ever. Second, it means that they
feel cornered by a policy from the United States.
I wish to clarify to all of you since mention has been made
here of human rights violations, that I, who have spent 22
years in Cuban prisons, can assure you that there is no
violation of human rights in Cuba because there cannot be a
violation of what does not exist.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Calzon.
Mr. Calzon. I think what it means is that the Castro regime
has begun to be more fearful of the Cuban people. The Pope went
to Cuba and told the Cubans not to fear. They have begun to
speak out.
But I think the day Cubans begin to speak out, then the
folks here in the Congress will have a responsibility, and that
should not be to make Cuba an exception to the policy of the
President for this hemisphere. We hear about China, we hear
about the Middle East. In this hemisphere, the President's
policy is to promote democracy everywhere--in Haiti, in Central
America, and in Chile. Cuba should not be an exception,
Senator.
Senator Hagel. So you would say--what--that this recent
crackdown has made things--what?
Mr. Calzon. I think the crackdown is part of a long-term
repression of human rights in Cuba. It also shows that the
policy of engagement, as well as the policy of sanctions, has
not worked. This is because there have been two policies in
place for 40 years. Let us remember that. Canada, France,
Mexico, and the others have had a policy of engagement, of
accommodating Castro, of not conditioning things, of dealing
with him, of trying to find reasons to blame the United States
for his crimes. So this policy has failed.
So let's not blame the Canadians for what Castro does to
the Cuban people, nor blame the United States. It is Mr. Castro
who is responsible.
Senator Hagel. So is he stronger or weaker?
Mr. Calzon. I think he is much weaker now than he was 40
years ago when the overwhelming number of Cubans supported him.
I think today he is stronger in the sense that some of his
friends have found their voices to try to blame the United
States. Every time Castro does something terrible, the occasion
is used to try to blame U.S. policy.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Ms. Montaner.
Ms. Montaner. The crackdown is one of the symptoms of the
breakdown. The corruption, the criminality index increasing,
these are symptoms, that in most organizations people are
giving up their ID cards; people are not going to the meetings,
the regulated meetings. These are signs of the breakdown in the
government. The support of the socialist allies they had
throughout the world is weakening by the moment.
As I was coming here yesterday night, the President of the
Senate in the Republic of Dominica told us that they are going
to make a strong statement today criticizing Castro for this
new wave of repression.
Yes, he is weakening and he is more dangerous than ever.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Zuniga.
Mr. Zuniga. For me it is quite clear. Castro is terrified
by looking at the power that is dripping through his fist. He
is looking at his power terminating.
Remember that in the Soviet Union, nobody could envisage
that it was so close to being cracked down. And it happened.
Castro is in the same pattern. He knows that his power is
ending, that he has no more resources to maintain the terror
that he maintained. And, besides, there are deep, profound
cracks inside his dictatorship's apparatus.
So I think that is an evidence of his fear of what is about
to come.
Senator Hagel. Do you believe before the recent crackdown
that there was more independence by journalists, independent
groups, than there is now?
Mr. Zuniga. Well, to speak or to say something about
freedom or independence in Cuba is quite difficult.
Senator Hagel. Well, it is relative, obviously.
My question is has there been more or less since the
crackdown?
Mr. Zuniga. Indeed, there is more because the international
pressure is now awakening. So, for example, even Communists, as
in Italy, are now criticizing Castro. Samarago, the Nobel Prize
winner, also a Communist, is also criticizing Castro. The
socialists in Chile are also criticizing Castro.
I know that is why there is a widening. There is now more
relaxation inside because he cannot keep the fist so tight as
he did before.
Senator Hagel. Does Mr. Menoyo share that view?
Mr. Gutierrez-Menoyo [as translated]. I feel that in Cuba
we can speak of tolerance. There was a bit more tolerance
before, because, without question, Cuba envisages the
possibility of improving relations with the United States. When
this possibility disappears, tolerance disappears as well.
Senator Hagel. I think my time is almost up. To be in full
compliance with the chairman's wishes, I yield the floor.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Torricelli, you can take 8 minutes.
Senator Torricelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to spend one of them complimenting you. The most
important thing about the improvement of human rights and
bringing political change in Cuba is that Castro will never be
able to convince himself that people are no longer watching.
Your holding this hearing is invaluable and we are indebted to
you.
I want to thank Mr. Zuniga for his spirited defense of
American foreign policy through these years. You are quite
right that the American embargo on Cuba has had very real,
lasting, and tangible benefits.
The Cuban army, air force, and navy are a fraction of their
former selves. Ironically, the dollarization of the economy,
Castro's reversal of his position of allowing phone service,
perhaps now mail service, even the greatest irony of all, I
suspect, his invitation to the Pope, he would have found far
too dangerous if he had not been under the economic and
political pressure of the embargo.
The only point that might have been added is that, indeed,
the embargo is not 40 years old. It is 6 years old because,
until we eliminated trade through Western Europe, it was an
unfulfilled promise of an embargo. It had no real meaning.
I greatly regret that the Clinton administration some
months ago, following its predecessors, convinced itself in a
triumph of hope over reality that further concessions to Castro
would yield some result. It is a painful lesson that Jimmy
Carter learned, that I believe George Bush learned. But Bill
Clinton had to learn it for himself.
Can anyone cite, based on the concessions that the Clinton
administration made, any action by Castro that indicates that
we are entering into a reciprocal process where he has
recognized the changes of our policy and he is prepared on any
level to institute changes of his own?
Mr. Calzon. I think part of the answer that sometimes is
heard, Senator is that Castro is willing to talk to some
American Senators and even to some exiles. But he does not
allow the Cuban people to talk among themselves. That is the
real issue.
The issue is not whether the Cuban Government talks to some
of you or the Cuban Government talks to some Miami exiles who
visit Cuba. The issue should be whether the Cuban people in
Cuba, as it occurred in South Africa, Chile, Poland, and
elsewhere are permitted to meet peacefully in order to find
solutions to the problems of the country.
Senator Torricelli. So you share the conclusion, then, that
Fidel Castro gave Bill Clinton nothing for the administration's
concessions on trade and travel.
Mr. Calzon. Castro, I am afraid to say, perceives those
concessions as signs of weakness on the American side.
Senator Torricelli. Let me go further.
I know that the Holy Father went to Havana with the very
best of intentions. I believe, indeed, that 30 or 40 priests
are going to be allowed to follow.
I actually believe that, historically, the Pope's visit may
have profound consequences. I have always believed that,
whoever the next leader of Cuba is, whoever leads democratic
change and a fight for human rights, I suspect that person is a
young person who was in that crowd, heard that Mass, and had a
taste of freedom.
But in the very real and practical sense of the moment, are
there any tangible concessions that Fidel Castro made to the
Holy Father other than the few prisoners?
Mr. Zuniga. Up to now, there is not one that I could
mention.
Senator Torricelli. So then, the last two principal
international efforts at reconciliation with Cuba, those of the
United States Government and by the Catholic Church, have
yielded nothing?
Mr. Zuniga. Nothing really.
Senator Torricelli. These facts, therefore, should be
instructive to the King of Spain as he plans his own trip?
Mr. Zuniga. I think that it will follow the same pattern
that we saw with the Pope.
Ms. Montaner. The same.
Senator Torricelli. Is there then a greater chance of the
King of Spain being used during his visit for propaganda
purposes than any realistic hope that he would be able to get
any concessions?
Mr. Zuniga. Even if a great influence, personality, can't
convince him, even if the words of a Pope could not make any
dent in Castro's iron fist, do you think that a King of Spain
could do that?
Senator Torricelli. I do not. That is why I hope the King,
for whom I have profound respect and a great admiration for his
country, will not allow his position to be used. He has an
opportunity to learn by the experience of the U.S. Government,
which has been so unsuccessful.
Mr. Calzon. Senator, my hope is simply that the King, if he
decides to go to Cuba, will obtain concessions before he goes.
If there are going to be any concessions, they have to be
announced before he goes.
Senator Torricelli. Yes, although I would remind you that I
think the Holy Father was of the impression that he had such
concessions and agreements worked out in advance as well. They
were not kept.
Could I ask your reactions to the usefulness of the
Iberian-American Summit that has been proposed for Havana for
later this year? What reaction do you have as to its prospects?
This must be brief because of my time constraints.
Mr. Calzon. Senator, I would hope that those meetings, all
future meetings, in Havana would be reconsidered in view of
what has happened in Cuba in the last few days.
Senator Torricelli. Therefore, the international community,
recognizing the jailing of dissidents, these new laws on
journalistic contacts, countries should reconsider their
decision?
Mr. Calzon. That is my hope, Senator.
Senator Torricelli. Mr. Zuniga, do you have the same
position?
Mr. Zuniga. Yes, indeed.
Senator Torricelli. I am curious, by the way. I have lived
in the Americas all my life. The Government that I represent
here represents half the economic activity of the Western
Hemisphere and its largest population and its longest existing
government. I am curious as to why the United States and our
representatives would not be invited to Havana and how there
can be a conversation on the future of the Americas without us.
Ms. Montaner. The Iberian community, the community with
Iberian roots, Spanish speaking and Portuguese speaking
countries, will be at that particular summit. At that
particular one, Portugal will be there and Spain, too.
Senator Torricelli. The United States is now the largest
Spanish speaking Nation in the Western Hemisphere.
Ms. Montaner. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Zuniga. That's correct.
Mr. Calzon. We are, indeed.
Senator Torricelli. I want to make it clear that if Fidel
Castro for this period did respect human rights and were to
reverse his recent proposals, I, for one, would go to Havana. I
would like a chance to tell Mr. Castro what I think of his
government, his repression of his people, and the way that he
has conducted himself. If he wants to have a dialog, he should
invite those who find the greatest critique with his regime.
Let me, finally, Mr. Chairman, if I could, remind members
of the committee and our guests that these actions taken by
Fidel Castro in recent weeks are not about a mounting concern
of the U.S. Government. This is not about the exile community
or international opposition. It is Fidel Castro's fear of his
own people.
In some measure, every time I see that Fidel Castro is
repressing another human rights dissident, betraying promises
to the Catholic Church, passing laws further restricting civil
liberties, I recognize that the embargo policy is succeeding.
Fidel Castro is afraid of his own people. He has stripped
them of all weapons, all power or ability to speak and organize
and he lives in terror.
We are succeeding.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your patience and
again for your leadership.
The Chairman. Well said. Well said.
Let me say, again, that we are delighted to have you on
this committee.
Senator Torricelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me thank each of you for being here. I
know you came under somewhat severe circumstances. One of our
scheduled witnesses, Dr. Omar del Pozo, was unable to come
because of the weather.
Without objection, I shall invite him to submit a statement
to be included in the record of this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Dr. del Pozo appears in the
appendix on page 29.]
Finally, I would make a personal comment. I am afraid that
I may be the only person in this room who remembers Batista. I
was old enough to understand the circumstances in Cuba and how
they differ from today's. He had his critics, he made his
mistakes, and he departed.
But I also remember very well how Mr. Castro was out in the
boondocks and the American media just flocked to him. Night
after night on CBS Edward R. Murrow would proclaim him as being
everything good. He was a nice young fellow, a freedom fighter,
and all the rest of it.
Meanwhile, Herbert Matthews of the New York Times every
morning was telling what a virtuous man Fidel Castro was. I
think the American people assumed that this must be so.
I also believe that by the time Castro got in and
confiscated all of the weapons of his political enemies and put
them in prisons for years, and years, and years, the American
people also had their attention diverted to other matters
involving our own country, and so forth. I think that Mr.
Castro was lucky in that he had an alliance with the Soviet
Union from whom he got billions of dollars every year.
Since that has dissolved, he is in trouble and he is doing
all sorts of things to his own people, confiscating the
salaries or the income of doctors and lawyers, for that matter.
The things that they are having to resort to to feed their
families are just atrocious.
But, in any case, I appreciate your coming. We are about to
wind up on exactly the time I am supposed to conclude this
committee meeting. I conclude it with my sincere gratitude to
all of you.
If there be no further business to come before the
committee, we stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the committee recessed.]
APPENDIX
----------
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Coverdell, U.S. Senator from Georgia
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing today on the
important issue of human rights in Cuba. The title of this hearing,
``Castro's Crackdown in Cuba,'' is certainly fitting, for in the past
several months the Cuban people have been the victim of renewed
repression at the hands of the Castro dictatorship. Recent months have
reminded us yet again of the brutal and repressive nature of Fidel
Castro.
I am sorry to say that Cuba remains an aberration in our
hemisphere. The rest of our neighbors have made historic and permanent
steps toward democracy, respect for human rights, and free market
economies. Yes, there have been setbacks to this progress. Central
America currently faces serious challenges in getting their economies
back on their feet in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch. But democratic
principles and economic opportunity in this region will prevail.
But Castro's Cuba remains a black spot in the forward progress of
this hemisphere. It is the only country in the region, and one of the
few remaining countries in the world, where authoritarianism,
oppression, and fear prevail--and where freedom of association and
freedom of expression have little meaning.
Just over a year ago, Pope John Paul II visited Cuba and encouraged
the island to open itself to the world and urged Castro to permit the
growth of civil society. In the months since, Castro has not heeded the
Pope's advice. To the contrary, repression has increased and the human
rights situation has deteriorated even further. Pro-democracy and human
rights activists continue to be intimidated, and denied due process and
fair hearings. According to many reports, independent journalists are
harassed and detained for reporting any news contrary to the official
line.
If some of us had hoped for visible, significant improvements in
the wake of the Pope's trip, Castro's recent measures have crushed
these illusions. New measures imposed just last month toughen penalties
for political dissent. And, last week, four prominent pro-democracy
activists were put on trial for writing a document criticizing Cuba's
one party system. They had been detained in July, 1997, held for more
than a year without charges, and then finally charged with subversion
and undermining state stability. In this case, the international
community has again seen the true nature of the Castro regime and the
suffering the Cuban people endure on a daily basis.
We in Congress look forward to the day when the people of Cuba once
again prosper in a free and open society, a society where human rights
and human dignity are respected. We look forward to the time, in the
not so distant future, when the people of Cuba freely elect a
government and join the other nations in this hemisphere in realizing a
free and prosperous future.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for calling this hearing and would
like to thank the distinguished panelists for their presence here
today.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Omar del Pozo
I was a prisoner of conscience. The Fidel Castro regime imprisoned
me for creating and organizing a political opposition organization
named National Unity Committee which sought to promote democracy and
the resurgence of a civil society in Cuba. Our vehicle to voice our
ideas to the Cuban people were the popular short wave radio stations
that broadcast from the United States, mainly the Voice of the Cuban
American National Foundation.
For this ``crime'' I was sentenced to fifteen years, of which I
served nearly six, having been released through the intercession of
Pope John Paul II as a result of his visit to Cuba, and subsequently
exiled to Canada. Prior to that, I had served three years for
attempting to seek political asylum while on duty abroad as a doctor.
On September 6, 1991, I was among the protestors who gathered in front
of Villa Marista, the national headquarters of Cuba's dreaded State
Security, and called for freedom on behalf of all political prisoners.
The peaceful protest, which ended in arrests and beatings against the
participants, became a milestone for Cuba's beleaguered opposition, and
sealed my fate as a prisoner of conscience.
As a survivor of the Cuban gulag, I am uniquely qualified to
discuss the plight of political prisoners, including the four authors
of the manifesto La Patria es de Todos [The Homeland Belongs to Us
All]: Marta Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, Rene Gomez and Felix Bonne.
I know what life is like in Castro's prisons, where there is no respect
for the human condition; where hunger, isolation, and beatings abound;
where the total lack of medical attention and hygiene compounds
needless suffering and promotes the proliferation of diseases in
epidemic proportions, and where one's physical and spiritual strength
is constantly tested by a prison system specifically designed to break
one's resistance and resolve, a cruel system enforced by prison
authorities who are typically no better than the dangerous common
inmates political prisoners are forced to cohabit with.
In Castro's man-eating prisons, lives are swallowed, mangled, and
spit out in what can only be described as his revolving-door of infamy.
Some may claim that the fact that I am able to stand before you here
today is because I am a product of engagement with Castro. While I am
certainly grateful for the international outcry that created pressure
on Castro to release me, it would be negligent of me not to recognize
that as long as the dictator remains in power, there will continue to
be political prisoners who are destined to become pawns to be handed
over as tokens depending on the occasion. I benefited from early
release and from the support given to my case by human rights organisms
such as Amnesty International, but my release in no way benefited the
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of men and women who were left behind. Men
like Julio Cesar Alvarez, who was 23-years old when he was charged with
me in 1992 and sentenced to 19 years; men like Jorge Luis Garcia Perez,
who's release the Holy Father also requested, but was denied, now
entering his ninth year of tortured existence in Fidel Castro's hell
holes; courageous women like Migdalia Rosado, and Maritza Lugo, who as
we speak is on hunger strike in Havana's Manto Negro prison for women,
\1\ having left her fifteen and seven-year-old daughters in the care of
relatives, because her husband, Rafael Ibarra, is imprisoned too,
serving a 20-year sentence. Maritza was imprisoned because she refused
to remain silent as to the mistreatment and injustices heaped upon her
husband who has been confined in the remote prison of Kilo 8, one of
Castro's most notorious, since 1994. And still others, like my
colleague Dr. Oscar Biscet, a peaceful man who took his anti-abortion
and death penalty message to the streets of Havana. Contrary to what is
generally being reported, not all the activists who were arrested
during the most recent crackdown were released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The official name of the prison is Prision de Mujeres de
Occidente. The name Manto Negro, or Black Shroud, was given by the
thousands of women political prisoners who were confined there during
the sixties and seventies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many more like them are serving political sentences in Cuba? No
one truly knows with any degree of accuracy. For the last 15 years
there has been no in-situ inspection by international human rights
monitors of Cuban prisons. In a country with well over 200 prisons, and
a penal code that establishes such outrageously arbitrary laws as the
Law of Dangerousness, which calls for sanctions of up to four years in
prison for individuals, who have committed no crime, simply because
they demonstrate, and I quote, ``. . . behavior that manifestly
contradicts the norms of socialist morals'', it is clear how easy it is
for the Cuban State to conceal political prisoners by charging
individuals with common crimes. They may not get away with it in the
case of well-known dissidents, but for scores of nameless others, the
political nature of their so-called offense remains hidden under a
shroud of delinquency.
Forty years have passed, and a new millennium dawns, and still
political prisoners exist in a country only 90 miles from the shores of
the freest nation on earth. The Cuban people and especially the members
of the political opposition are living through extremely difficult
times. As if the situation were not bleak enough, Cuba's sham of a
parliament just recently enacted tougher sanctions against independent
journalists and dissidents who dare speak out.
In the confusion of cliches Cuba has become in the mass media:
Castro and cigars, Castro and tourism, Castro and baseball, the
terrible tragedy of Cubans and their legitimate needs and desires takes
a backseat to the priorities set by the Comandante en Jefe and his
regime. The truly tragic part is that there are some who, in the name
of profit, are willing to compromise justice and play by his rules,
with no regard for the welfare of the Cuban people. Up to now, they
have excused their behavior by saying that trade and investment will
create other cracks in Castro's stone wall. In light of the most recent
crackdowns and political trials lacking due process, where Castro's
unwillingness to change is, yet again, more than manifest, I can't help
but wonder what arguments they will turn to next to continue to excuse
the inexcusable.
These past days, I have heard even experienced Cuba observers
question why Castro has raised the level of repression at this point in
time, considering the many gestures of goodwill he has received
internationally prior to and following the Papal visit. The only
possible answer is that it is the nature of the beast. Castro can not
help it any more than he can help being a totalitarian dictator. It is
who he is and will always be. It is because he is motivated by one
thing and one thing alone: absolute power. He wants to continue to
stand on the backs of the Cuban people and he will persecute, torture
and kill in order to accomplish his goal of being Cuba's ``dictator for
life''. By now, everyone knows who Castro is and what he is capable of.
From this point on, the field can only be divided between those who are
willing to overlook his crimes and those who are not.
The Cuban people do not want empty gestures. They want true
solidarity and allies in the struggle for freedom and human dignity. In
this regard, the United States will continue to be looked upon for
leadership in a world contaminated by half-heartedness and less than
noble intentions. The United States should and must support the cause
of freedom and democracy and the political opposition movement in Cuba
as well as continue to actively seek international consensus on this
issue. It may very well be the best contribution to peace, not only in
Cuba, but in the rest of the hemisphere.
______
Prepared Statement of Eloy Gutierrez-Menoyo
for a new policy toward cuba
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee; Honorable Members of
Congress: I appear before you with deep respect and humility. I would
like to assure those of you who do not know me that I am absolutely
committed to the concepts of liberty and democracy. With your
permission, I will explain why I cannot be otherwise.
I am Cuban by inclination and by dint of my efforts in the long and
painful struggle against a dictator known as Batista. In 1959, I was
the first commander of the Revolution to enter Havana. It was a popular
triumph, full of jubilation and hope.
I had headed the second guerrilla front in the central mountains of
the Island, with more than three thousand rebel soldiers under my
command. My brother Carlos had died heroically in the fight against
Batista.
My childhood had been steeped in love for liberty and democracy.
When the Revolution triumphed, when it captured Havana after 25 years,
these two terms were not new concepts or just vague words to me. Before
leaving Europe to settle in Cuba, my brother Carlos had been recognized
as an anti-fascist hero. He fought in Spain against the dictator
Franco, and if you reviewed the documents and photos of that era, you
could see how he extended his struggle to the occupied countries,
entering Paris in a tank, next to General Leclerc, on the glorious day
of liberation.
This is part of my family's and my history. We are children of a
father who loved liberty and democracy, a social democratic physician.
We were born in the midst of the Nazi threat. At the age of 8, I
learned first-hand about the pain of war: my brother Jose Antonio, just
16, died fighting against Franco's troops on the Majadahonda front.
Liberty and democracy. And their high price in sacrifice and pain!
When we felt the Revolution was not prepared to honor these concepts,
at least as we understood them, we broke with the government of Fidel
Castro.
In 1961, with most of my General Staff, I left the Island for the
United States. I did not take part in the Bay of Pigs invasion backed
by Washington. I did not join the ranks of the Central Intelligence
Agency. I did not join in the terrorism against Cuba.
After several years of ``commando''-type attacks from the
Caribbean, in an honorable, independent, and small-scale war, I again
disembarked in Cuba. After several engagements with more than 20,000
Cuban government troops, I was captured and spent 22 years in Cuban
prisons.
This is, in part, my origin. Today, you know that Cambio Cubano--
the organization I represent--supports a peaceful solution on the
Island and believes that, for this to occur, Washington's policy toward
Havana and Havana's policy toward Washington and the Cubans themselves
must change.
Ladies and Gentlemen of this Committee: you are in the process of
again reviewing America's policy toward Cuba. Let's not fool ourselves!
This means that the policy contains fundamental flaws and errors, even
for those who have defended tightening the embargo.
But let me tell you something else: 40 years of isolation have
failed. So, with your permission, I'll ask you: Why are we here today?
To multiply to infinity the misfortunes of eleven million Cubans? To
satisfy a specific pressure group, which is becoming less and less
powerful and more and more discredited, in the south of Florida?
You will have heard, you will hear, the pained voices of some of my
compatriots. Many of them respectable, although I believe they are
mistaken. Others, of questionable independence.
My fear is that this discordant exercise will result in a return to
the ``deadlock'' policies that have only achieved two things: on the
one hand, providing a skillful politician like Fidel Castro with a
formidable pretext; on the other hand, allowing him, cloaked in that
pretext, to prolong his control over the country.
My appearance here occurs at an opportune time. Cuba is in the
throes of a serious economic and social crisis. It is, perhaps, the
Cuban government's worst political moment. After clear signs of
opening-up following the encouraging Papal visit, there is now growing
pressure against certain groups of so-called dissidents. On the one
hand, there is the reality of this conflict; and on the other, the
selfish desire of some to magnify this episode.
If the intent of the political hyperbole is to try to connect these
events with a desire to foster the supposed need for confrontation, it
seems to me that this Committee should carefully look after the best
interests of the United States. Confrontation is not advisable for the
United States, or for anyone . . . and if it were advisable for anyone,
perhaps it would be--in a very oblique way--the Cuban government, since
it would reinforce its best pretext: ``if we dig in our heels and do
not permit opening-up, it is precisely because of pressure from
Washington.''
I am appearing before you in the hope that my testimony will be of
specific use, both for the resolution of the dispute between Cuba and
the United States, and for a favorable resolution for all Cubans.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee: because I hope this testimony
will be useful, I have decided to make some disclosures here, to the
extent caution permits.
In June of 1996, I was received in Havana by President Fidel
Castro. This unusual meeting, apparently of two opponents ``to the
death,'' turned into a frank dialogue in which Castro shared with me
some of his desires, concerns, and fears about what a possible
political opening-up on the Island could lead to, but he left the door
open for calm, responsible diplomacy on Washington's part. Let us start
from the assumption that the policies towards Cuba that have been tried
since 1959 have not been exemplary. A clear and uninhibited
confrontational route, paved with covert operations, attacks, and
conspiracies of various kinds, has prevailed. This is public knowledge.
Castro told me I should fear extension of this route by other
means. He is shrewd.
In recent weeks we have read important and revealing reports in
this country's press: How much did certain American authorities know
about the danger represented by the flights of small light aircraft
over Cuba? Why, then, were they authorized to fly? What was being
fostered with these risky provocations? Why is that kind of
inexplicable synchronism between here and there so amazing to us?
With the shooting down of the light aircraft--enormous stupidity on
Havana's part--what we had achieved in our first meeting with Castro
was ended. We had agreed to the possibility that a space would open up
for Cambio Cubano: first, an office; then, we would see.
The shooting down of the light aircraft resulted in the Helms-
Burton Act. It was inevitable.
Pardon me, Messrs. Helms and Burton, your law is an insult to
Cubans, offends the world, and puts this country in a paradoxical
position: how to change the Cuban government with a law it can use as a
tool to invoke nationalism and keep itself in power?
Constructive rapprochement was yesterday, is today, and will be
tomorrow and always, the best solution for conflicts.
Fidel Castro is looking for clear signals to initiate an effective
and calm diplomacy in which it is clear that the United States
renounces, in word and deed, any desire for hegemonic dominance over
Cuba. Believe me, this is his feeling and this is his hope.
I am not speaking--believe me--as an ambassador from Havana. I did
not participate in the alliance with Moscow, or the political
executions, nor was I a tool of American policy. Years ago, having just
been released from the political prison, I was invited to Geneva, along
with the U.S. delegation, to report on human rights violations in Cuba.
For those of us who have insisted on the need to re-Cubanize the
opposition, it seemed to me ethical and a good idea, at that time, to
also ask for respect for human rights in the Paraguay of the dictator
Stroessner.
The person addressing you, then, is an absolutely independent
Cuban. So much so, that I am excited about being able to think of a
day, in the future, when true democracy will prevail in Cuba; a day
when Cubans and Americans see each other as good neighbors, without the
fear that the one will become masters and the other, servants.
Is this possible? We know it is, but only if we cast off the failed
policies of interference. Recently, a group of well-known Democrats and
Republicans proposed the establishment of a Bipartisan Committee to
sensibly assess the state of American policy toward Cuba and the
possibility of finding new alternatives.
We support that initiative, which seemed encouraging to us.
Is it possible to change the minds of the most stubborn? Yes, it is
possible. In 1949, a young politician named Richard Nixon was
tormenting the Truman administration--and the Democrats in general--for
having permitted the defeat of the Nationalist Chinese. I invoke the
name of Nixon because his position in favor of a government in Taiwan
and his radical opposition to Communist China could not then presage
what in 1971 would be a true foreign policy achievement, spearheaded by
Henry Kissinger, who is today asking for the Bipartisan Committee. (By
the way, I would like to remind you that the same Nixon left, in his
memoirs, clear advice on the need to change foreign policy toward
Cuba).
The United States, through confrontational rhetoric and by means of
its laws--first, Torricelli; then Helms-Burton--is insisting on the
need to foster a civil society in Cuba.
The ingredients of harassment, however, inherent in those laws,
tend to create conditions for an internal explosion. What is it that is
sought, perhaps a repetition of the Hungary of 1956? To top it off, the
most recent law even violates the most basic rules of
extraterritoriality in relation to other countries.
So the United States has been forced to enact a law that annoys the
rest of the world, hatched under pressure, blackmail, and the delusions
of certain Cuban elements who are distinguished by their anti-popular
elitism, corrupt lives, and determination to use Washington as a
vehicle for their dreams of power.
How removed those elements are from the feelings of 11,000,000
Cubans! When will you, all of you, stop thinking about that corner or
miniscule area of Miami and begin to think productively about the
Island, 90 miles from your shores, and about the United States' true
interests? Do you know the feelings of the extremely large Black and
mestizo population that cannot have money sent because they do not have
relatives in the diaspora?
Is the United States aware of the message it sends to the poorest
Cuban people when it allies itself with the rancorous, arrogant extreme
right?
American antagonism has been giving Havana an irreplaceable excuse
to explain, more or less rationally, its absolute control. After nearly
forty years of use and abuse, the romantic notion of ``David versus
Goliath'' seems to remain useful to Fidel Castro.
It is useful to him domestically and yields him benefits in the
international arena. Why do some of you insist on helping to perpetuate
this state of affairs? Why prolong policies that do not work and that
intrinsically entail the danger of an adverse ending of incalculable
proportions?
The Cuban conflict is quite complex. Castro is strengthened by the
awkward policy of the exiled extreme right. But he is also strengthened
by the new internal elements, who are encouraged to engage in useless
confrontation, sometimes from abroad, sometimes by the Cuban
government's own security mechanism.
It is time for the United States to abandon this conflict and move
ahead with a policy of constructive rapprochement.
It is time for the United States to cast off the role of zealous
and selfish pariah and begin to work with the countries of the region
and the European community.
You could help if you understood that there will only be political
space for an opposition in Cuba when the independence of the activists
and the non-destabilizing nature of their activity are guaranteed.
You could help if you understood that the civil society that will
emerge in Cuba will have its own characteristics and not those dictated
or imposed from abroad.
You could help if you understood that to the extent the U.S. and
Cuba make progress in discussing transparent agendas, the Cuban
government will not need to avoid sitting down and having discussions
with the opposition.
I do not pretend to have a monopoly on pain, but I believe 22 years
in prison and an entire life of struggle entitle me to seek peace
between you and Cuba, and peace among all Cubans. If I did not, I would
be sharing guilt with those who test, in an irresponsible and sinister
manner, the dangers of widespread anarchy on the Island, with its
inevitable consequence of battles between factions and unstoppable mass
exodus, capable of destabilizing the entire Caribbean region and a good
part of the United States.
Some would ask themselves: What mystical revelation has converted
this man, who seems to have lived war since his childhood, to pacifism?
Ladies and Gentlemen: Precisely because I lived through the Spanish
Civil War as a child, I do not want anarchy to take possession of Cuba.
I recall horrible scenes I do not want to be repeated. Hungry children,
running after a rat, I do not want this to be repeated! Children armed
with sticks and knives, furiously attacking adults for a little
something to eat, I do not want this to be repeated!
The United States has always been a country of prodigious
imagination for creating ideas that help humanity. Not far from the
south of Florida there is an Island that demands respect, calm
analysis, and a good dose of the compassion which for years has been
the best component of the American nations character, and without a
doubt, its people's most admirable trait. Eleven million Cubans await
that compassion. It is up to you.
Thank you very much.
______
European Investment in Cuba Before Human Rights Crackdown
Submitted by Senator Jesse Helms
(Prepared by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Staff)
``Four European nations--Italy, Spain, England and France--account
for the bulk of foreign investment in Cuba, with about 50 percent, . .
. Marta Lona, Assistant Minister for Foreign Investment, said.
``Cuba Expects Foreign Investments''
CubaNet News, June 6, 1998
``The Netherlands Caribbean Bank nc, a joint venture that includes
the Dutch ING Bank, is the first foreign bank to be represented in
Cuba, said Carel Lopez, the Havana representative of the Netherlands
Bank . . . it [ING bank] is involved in the financing of export and
import ventures in Cuba . . . `we have seen significant additional
investments recently,' observed Lopez, particularly from companies in
Western and Eastern Europe . . . Talks are under way with a Swedish
company for a fast ferry service between Cuba and Mexico, said [Silvio]
Calvez, [advisor to the minister of transport].''
``Invitation to Cuba''
Traffic World/lexis-nexis, December 14, 1998
``European firms, such as the $29 million (United Kingdom) Beta
Gran Caribe Fund, have raised hundreds of millions [earmarked for Cuba]
. . . Today's steps suggest the U.S may ease its embargo in the not-
too-distant future, said Peter Scott, the chief executive officer at
Beta Funds Ltd., the London-based firm that runs Beta Gran Caribe, the
only fund that invests exclusively in Cuba . . . For now, European
firms like Beta `are able to cherry pick investment projects in Cuba
without competition from what should be the major source of
competition--the United States,' Scott said . . . Spain's Sol Melia SA
manages nine hotels in Cuba. Italy's Telecom Italia SpA owns 29 percent
of the Cuban national phone company, Etecsa.''
``For Now, Cuba Remains Phantom Market for Many Investors''
CubaNet News, January 1, 1999
``Companies from Canada, Britain, France, Sweden and Spain, in
partnership with Cuba's state oil company Cupet . . . have been hunting
for oil in 22 offshore and onshore blocks . . . Britain's Premier Oil
is planning to drill its first well this year in central Cuba . . .
Sheritt, accompanied by Canadian, Swedish and Spanish partners, was the
operator in three exploration blocks off Cuba's south-eastern coast,
where an exploration well was drilled last year.''
``Lure of a big find draws oil companies to high-risk
Cuba''
Financial Times, lexis-nexis, April 16, 1998
``Two ventures involving developers from Monaco and Spain are
currently selling units of apartment complexes being constructed in
Havana's Miramar district . . . A third residential property venture,
which will also build apartment homes, has recently signed by a British
investment fund. Several other projects have been approved and many
more are under negotiation . . . Through a joint venture with a Cuban
company, British and Canadian investors have established a Havana
office of RE/MAX, the North American real estate franchise giant, which
will market new apartments and offices in Cuba. `Demand is high. We
anticipate selling over 500 home units in the first 12 months,' Stephen
Marshall, the British co-owner of the RE/MAX Havana franchise, said . .
. `The market is good irrespective of the absence of the law,' said
Simon Hodson, Chief Investment Officer of Havana Asset Management
Limited, which runs Beta Gran Caribe, a British-based investment fund
specialising in Cuba. The fund, through its Guernsey-registered
Caribbean Property Corporation, recently set up a joint venture in
Cuba, called Trinidad S.A., with Inmobiliria Cimex, a Cuban real estate
company . . . The total potential investment could exceed $l00m . . .
Two other joint venture projects are already selling homes. Most
advanced is the Monte Carlo Palace, a 31-apartment complex on Mirimar's
Fifth Avenue due to be completed this year. This belongs to Real
Inmobiliria, a venture between a Monaco-based group Pastor, and Lares
S.A., another Cuban property company . . . Other investors are reported
to be queueing up for a share in Cuba's residential property market.
The list of presented projects includes Canada's Sherritt International
Corporation, Fransabank of the Lebanon, Portugues group Anorim,
Britain's Railton Internationl and US group Lincoln Property Company,
operating out of its Mexico office.''
``Latin America and the Caribbean''
Financial Times, lexis-nexis, July 14, 1998
``. . . [Cuban Economy and Planning Minister Jose] Rodgriguez said
that at present there are 340 foreign association agreements in effect
and that the trend is to increase because there are investors from
Europe . . . who are prepared to negotiate because they are guaranteed
a profit.''
``Minister says foreign investment is growing despite US
pressures''
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, lexis-nexis, June 30, 1998
``. . . Most . . . investments are in light industry, tourism,
foods, agriculture and construction . . . Four European nations Italy,
Spain, England and France account for the bulk of foreign investment in
Cuba, with about 50 percent . . .''
``Cuba Expects Foreign Investments''
AP Online, lexis-nexis, June 15, 1998
``[Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation Minister Ibrahim
Ferradaz] pointed out that 40 countries have businesses on the island,
mainly Spain, Italy, Canada, Netherlands and France . . . To date,
there are joint ventures in 34 sectors, mostly in petroleum, mining,
tourism and telecommunications.''
``Minister gives details of foreign investment in Cuba''
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, lexis-nexis, January 27, 1998
``. . . the state-run Cubanacan tourism concern and Italy's La
Casina and Simset Spa agreed to build a $18 million pair of hotels in
the resort area of Varadero and Saint Lucia Key east of Havana . . .
The French tourism giant Accor has announced that it will administer
two new hotels and an apartment complex currently under construction in
the exclusive Miramar district of Havana.''
``Lured by Sun and Socialism, Tourists Flocking to Cuba''
The Washington Post, lexis-nexis, January 9, 1999
``Italian companies are among European investors in Cuba. They
include the Italian telecommuncations company Stet, now Telecom Italia,
which avoided being penalised by the Helms-Burton law by striking a
deal with ITT, the former US owner of the nationalised Cuban telephone
system in which Stet had invested.''
``Cuba `need not fear' US-EU deal HELMS-BURTON Italy Sees
No Threat''
Financial Times, lexis-nexis, June 12, 1998
United Kingdom
``Britain has `no hang-ups' over trading with Communist-run Cuba
and is eager to catch up with other European nations doing more
business with the Caribbean island, a senior British government
official said . . . [Trade Minister Brian] Wilson said Britain was
attracted to Cuba as a market of 11 million people with `very
significant potential for the future' . . . Britain has lagged behind
other European nations like Spain, Italy, France, and Germany in doing
business on the island . . . some 30 British companies were represented
at the trade fair and . . . his visit was intended as a `strong signal
that we do want to find a way through.' ''
``Britain has `no hang-ups' over trading with Cuba''
CubaNet News, November 3, 1998
United Kingdom
``A British trade mission made up of mainly small firms voiced
optomism on Thursday about Cuba's investment potential and said it
hoped to boost the relatively low levels of U.K. business on the
Communist-ruled island . . . `The doors have been very open as always .
. . There are very good investment opportunities here,' mission leader
Trevor Jones, of security printing company De La Rue, told a news
conference in Havana . . . tangible results here included the opening
of a commercial office for Petroplastics & Chemicals Ltd., further
participation in the financial sector for De La Rue, and a likely joint
venture between khaleej Cars Ltd. and the Cuban state to build beach
buggies here for internal use and export . . . Britain has so far
lagged behind some other nations from the European Union . . . in
taking advantage of Cuba's opening to foreign capital since the early
1990's . . . British Embassy officials said the United Kingdom ranked
in the top 10 investors, but was still well short of Cuba's leading
partners Canada, Spain, Italy, Mexico and France . . . Bilateral trade
in 1997 was about 34 million pounds ($55 million) in 1997, with 22
million pounds ($36 million) of British exports to Cuba, and 12 million
pounds ($19 million) in the other direction, according to the British
Embassy. But in the first three months of this year, U.K. exports to
the island have risen 96 percent, compared to the same period of 1997,
to 12 million pounds ($19 million), and Cuban exports 45 percent to 5
million pounds ($8 million).''
``British businesses seek more investment in Cuba''
CubaNet News, June 11, 1998
United Kingdom
``Britain's Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) has begun
negotiations on possible support for a power project by Canadian firm
Sherritt International Corp. The project is an expansion of the Energas
venture, which produces power using natural gas produced from the
Varadero and Jaruco fields . . . ECGD reportedly is discussing
guarantees that would allow the venture to buy turbines and other
equipment from Scottis firm Kvaerner Energy Ltd. The expansion
reportedly included the construction of one or more barge-mounted
generating facilities . . . Sources say that British Development Corp.,
which also has an office in Havana, is also interested in a role in the
project . . . One reason the ECGD has begun to hold talks with the
Cuban government is that British businesses have been complaining that
they are at a disadvantage when competing against companies from other
countries because they cannot tap government export credits or
guarantees. By contrast, export credit agencies from France, Spain, and
Italy are providing cover in Cuba. Trade between those countries and
Cuba has increased faster than with the United Kingdom.''
``British export credit agency may reenter Cuba for power
project''
CubaNews, February 1999
Portugal
``The agreement with Portugal to mutually promote and protect
investments was the ninth of its kind signed so far by Cuba with member
states of the European Union . . . `Portuguese investments are starting
up in Cuba, especially in tourism,' Jaime Gama, Portugal's Foreign
Minister, said . . . `This means that as a result of this accord,
European companies have much greater facilities to do business with
Cuba,' the Portuguese foreign minister said . . . the large Portuguese
business group Amorim announced that in partnership with the French
leisure group Accor it was undertaking a major investment project to
rehabilitate or build 10 tourist hotels on the island.''
``Portugal says EU-U.S. pact helps EU-Cuba business''
CubaNet News, July 7, 1998
United Kingdom
``. . . companies active in Cuba include U.K.-based Premier oil . .
.''
``Foreign Firms Help Cuba Double Crude Production in 9
Years''
CubaNet News, January 27, 1999
Spain
``Spain is Cuba's main trade partner and one of its main foreign
investors.''
``Fidel Castro says Cuba anchored in the future;
drugs accord signed with Spain''
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, lexis-nexis, November 13, 1998
Spain
``Spain is now Cuba's largest commercial partner and one of its
major foreign investors. The normalization of bilateral relations will
benefit Spain and Cuba commercially and provide more venture capital.''
``Cuban, Spanish ties continue to improve''
Xinhua News Agency, lexis-nexis, November 5, 1998
Spain
``Last year, Cuba traded 41 percent with Europe . . . Spain was the
single biggest trade partner . . .''
``Cuba wants investments, if it's right kind''
Sun-Sentinel, lexis-nexis, September 11, 1998
Spain
``Of the more than 300 deals involving foreign investors at the end
of 1997 . . . Spanish companies accounted for around 60.''
``Canada's Chretien has marathon talks with Cuba''
Caribbean Update, lexis-nexis, June 1, 1998
Spain
``The international Textile Association of Canary Island, Spain,
and Cuba's Ministry of Light Industry signed a textile agreement.''
``Canary Island, Cuba Sign Textile Agreement''
Cuba News, April 20, 1998
Belgium
``Cuba and Belgium signed an agreement on reciprocal protection and
promotion of investments . . . in Brussels. The accord would contribute
to their relations and investment growth between the two countries,
said Ibrahim Ferradaz, Cuban Minister of Foreign Investment and
Economic Collaboration. During his visit to Belgium, Ferradaz also
discussed investment opportunities with companies from Belgium and
Luxembourg.''
``Cuba, Belgium sign investments accord''
Xinhua News Agency, lexis-nexis, May 20, 1998
Czech Republic
``. . . Cuba is presently interested in creating an influx of
foreign investment, some of which could come from the Czech Republic .
. . some of the projects that are interested in foreign investment
include the metal components producer Metal-mecanica ESTIL, which is
looking for an investment of $4m to augment its production of cast-iron
an bronze elements for machine tools, and the Cuban state meat
producer, which is looking for $700,000 to modernise its freezing and
production capacities. Other profects looking for foreign investors are
the installation of a Tetra Brick packaging line in the Food Ministry's
fruit and vegetable processing company, as well as purchases and
renewals of technical equipment in a factory of the state Geominera
company . . .''
``Cuba Interested in Investments from Czech Republic''
CTK Business News Wire, lexis-nexis November 2, 1998
-