7 de Diciembre, 2002 | El Nuevo Herald
by Frank Calzon

Los cubanoamericanos aún celebraban la reelección en la Florida del gobernador Jeb Bush y la recién elegida mayoría republicana en el Senado, cuando empezaron los rumores: el embajador Otto J. Reich no sería renominado para el cargo de subsecretario de Estado para Asuntos Hemisféricos.

Reich es un cubanoamericano prominente. Fue embajador de Estados Unidos en Venezuela, y es crítico abierto de Fidel Castro. Cuando el senador Christopher Dodd, demócrata por Connecticut y presidente del Subcomité del Senado para Asuntos Hemisféricos, se negó a concederle a Reich la consabida audiencia de confirmación el año pasado, el presidente Bush lo nombró interinamente.

Si a Reich no lo nombran esta vez cuando los republicanos asuman formalmente el control del Senado, Castro en La Habana celebrará su despido y el grupo de cabildeo que aquí busca levantar el embargo –el mismo que quiere que el contribuyente norteamericano subsidie el comercio con Castro– se verá revitalizado.

La administración empezó a renominar a otros funcionarios no confirmados anteriormente. Ninguno es cubanoamericano, lo que levanta sospechas entre personas como la señora que me hizo este comentario de pasada: “Si Reich no fuese cubanoamericano, ya lo hubieran renominado”.

Reich se ha destacado en su cargo de subsecretario de Estado para Asuntos Hemisféricos; no hace mucho, la Oficina del Inspector General le dio a su departamento una evaluación sobresaliente. Lo insólito es que lo que entorpece su renombramiento es precisamente su lealtad incuestionable al Presidente, y su tesón en defender la política de la Casa Blanca. Apoyar una política presidencial controversial trae la enemistad y las represalias de ideólogos y burócratas en Washington. A Otto Reich jamás le han perdonado su apoyo a la política centroamericana de los años ochenta de Reagan-Bush, a pesar de que liquidó la subversión soviética en la región.

¿Importa en realidad la no renominación de Reich si la política del presidente Bush hacia Cuba permanece intacta y vigente? La respuesta, al estilo cortante de Washington, es sí: lo que se hace con el personal se hace con la política. Puede que estemos no sólo ante una tragedia personal, sino también ante una tragedia política. En las elecciones presidenciales de 1992, a muchos cubanoamericanos se les hizo creer que no habría gran diferencia entre la política exterior de George H. Bush y la de Bill Clinton. Clinton recibió una cantidad estimable de votos cubanoamericanos. Hoy por hoy, mis compatriotas no creen en ”no habrá gran diferencia”.
Escarmentados de la experiencia Clinton, los cubanoamericanos se volcaron masivamente a apoyar la candidatura presidencial de George W. Bush y a reelegir a su hermano Jeb como gobernador de la Florida.

Los hay en Washington que plantean que, aun con mayoría republicana en el Senado, no hay suficientes votos para aprobar la nominación de Reich en el Comité de Relaciones Exteriores. Pero, ¿quién puede creer que alguien como el secretario de Estado Colin Powell, capaz de convencer a los enemigos de Estados Unidos en Naciones Unidas para que apoyen la política del Presidente hacia Irak, no podría convencer a sus colegas republicanos de confirmar a Otto Reich?

Hacia fines de noviembre, el susodicho comité lo integraban diez senadores republicanos y nueve demócratas. Tres de sus miembros no regresarán al mismo: los senadores Jesse Helms (republicano, Carolina del Norte), Robert Torricelli (demócrata, New Jersey) y naturalmente, el difunto Paul Wellstone (demócrata, Minnesota). Otros senadores han expresado su deseo de integrar otros comités, y Richard Lugar (republicano, Indiana), que preside el comité, quiere reducirlo.

No obstante, los republicanos ocuparán la mayoría de los escaños del Senado. Lograr una audiencia de confirmación en la que Reich pueda rebatir las absurdas acusaciones en su contra debería ser tan justo como sencillo. Además, de seguro algunos senadores demócratas pondrán a un lado las diferencias partidistas, entenderán que Estados Unidos no va a ganar absolutamente nada al comerciar con Castro, y confirmarán la nominación de Reich.

Lo que está en juego es mucho más que la relación entre grupos étnicos y política, o el ”voto cubano”. En el peligroso mundo en que vivimos, no hay como el liderazgo de Estados Unidos. El presidente Bush necesita personas como Otto Reich dispuestas a enfrentar ataques y defender su política. Reich ha demostrado que está capacitado para ambas cosas, y el ejemplo más reciente lo dio durante el intento de golpe en Venezuela. A mucha gente trabajadora, digna y leal en la Florida no la va a convencer eso de que ”no hay suficientes votos para confirmarlo” si ahora la administración no apoya a Otto Reich y lo renomina para este importante cargo. La Casa Blanca debería tener una respuesta más adecuada.

Frank Calzon es el Director Ejecutivo del Centro para Cuba Libre, en Washington, D.C.

December 4, 2002
by Frank Calzon

Cuban Americans were still celebrating the re-election of Gov. Jeb Bush and resumption of GOP control of the Senate when word spread that Otto J. Reich might not be renominated as assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.
Reich, a Cuban American, is a former U.S. ambassador to Venezuela and an outspoken critic of Fidel Castro. When Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, refused to schedule a confirmation hearing for Reich, President Bush by-passed the Senate in January to give Reich an ”interim” appointment.

If Reich is not renominated — after Republicans formally retake control of the Senate — expect Castro to be celebrating in Havana and the anti-embargo lobby, which wants U.S. taxpayers to subsidize trade with Castro, to be re-energized.
The administration has begun renominating others held back by the Democrats. None has been a Cuban American, which fans suspicions among those who say: “If Reich weren’t Cuban American, he would have been renominated.”

Reich’s performance as top diplomat for the Western Hemisphere has been strong. The Office of the Inspector General recently gave his bureau an ”outstanding” evaluation. Strangely enough, what seems to be stalling renomination is his unflinching loyalty to the president and willingness to defend White House policy. Washington’s bureaucrats have not forgiven Reich for supporting for the Reagan-Bush Central American policies in the 1980s — policies that ended Soviet subversion in the region.
Does it really matter what happens to Reich if Bushs policy on Cuba remains intact? The Washington answer is Yes — Personnel is policy.

We may be witnessing the makings of not just a personal tragedy but a political one as well. In the 1992 election, Cuban Americans were led to believe that there would be no difference between the foreign policy of George H. Bush and Bill Clinton. Clinton received a substantial Cuban-American vote. Few Cuban Americans today would make the no-difference argument; they learned otherwise and provided big votes of support to elect George W. Bush as president and re-elect Jeb Bush as Florida’s governor.

But, even as Republicans reassume control of the Senate, would there be enough votes to get Reich’s nomination out of the Committee for Foreign Relations? Surely Secretary of State Colin Powell, who persuaded some of America’s enemies at the United Nations to support Bush on Iraq, also can persuade fellow Republicans to support Reich’s confirmation.
As of late November, the committee had 10 senators from the majority party, nine from the minority. Three committee members will not be returning: Sens. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., and the late Paul Wellstone, D-Minn.
Incoming Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., wants to reduce the committee’s size, and several senators would like to serve in other committees. Whatever its size, Republicans will hold a majority of the seats. Ensuring that Reich gets a hearing is a simple matter of fairness. Moreover, there’s no doubt that there are Senate Democrats who will put partisanship aside, dismiss the idea that there’s money to be made trading with Castro, and vote to confirm Reich.

HE CAN TAKE THE HEAT
More is at stake than ethnic politics and the ”Cuban vote.” In today’s dangerous world, there is no substitute for American leadership. Bush needs people such as Reich who can take the heat and defend his policies. Reich has demonstrated that he can do both. If Bush wont stand behind Reich now and renominate him, a lot of loyal Cuban Americans will want from the White House a better explanation than “he might not be confirmed.”

Frank Calzon, a longtime friend of Otto Reich, is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C.

September 28, 2002 | United Press International
by Frank Calzon

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 (UPI) — A longtime thorn in America’s side is wilting, and fast. Fidel Castro’s government is broke. Foreign investment in Cuba is down an almost unbelievable 92 percent over the last year. Castro can’t pay his bills, and several of his most important trading partners have sus-pended credits and export insurance to his government.

Yet, like the second-to-last scene of a banal Hollywood western, some are out trying to muster a cavalry to save his desperate regime. This time, the cavalry is American tourist and special farming interests who seek U.S. taxpayers as infantry, but their objectives will only strengthen the Western Hemisphere’s most enduring dictatorship.

At the end of July, the House of Representatives voted on two amendments, each approved by 95 vote margins, to end restrictions on travel and lift restrictions on financing exports to Cuba. The Senate will consider the legislation soon.
President George W. Bush has threatened to veto any legislation that would “bolster the Cuban dictatorship,” but the anti-embargo lobby has argued successfully that trade with Havana means American profits and Cuban prosperity.

Since last year, U.S. companies have been allowed to trade with Castro’s government on a cash-and-carry basis; that is, Cuba must pay for American products, generally agricultural items, with cash only, but not with credit. But the new legislation will extend American export credit and export insurance to Castro’s government – both of which are funded by American taxpayers. Under the proposed policy, when Castro defaults on his purchases American taxpayers will have the burden of picking up his tab. And like the wretched farm bill that passed last spring, this legislation is good for the green triangle, but a raw deal for American taxpayers.

In a July 11 letter to the House Appropriations Committee, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill wrote: “Trade by other nations with Cuba has brought no change to Cuba’s despotic practices, and it has frequently proved to be an unprofitable enterprise.”

Unprofitable, indeed. France, Spain, Italy and Venezuela have suspended official credits to Cuba because Castro has failed to make payments on its debt, including debt incurred on agricultural purchases. In fact, according to Powell and O’Neill’s letter, two foreign governments have approached the United States to complain that Cuba’s payments of cash for U.S. agricultural products have meant that they are not getting paid at all.

In international capital markets, reputation is everything. So it was little surprise when Reuters reported on July 8 that, “Direct foreign investment in Cuba plummeted to $38.9 million in 2001 from $488 million the year before.” And earlier in the year, despite Castro’s tantrum, Russia closed its spy facility near Havana, which will cost the Cuban government $200 million per year in foregone rent payments.

Castro’s current creditors are far from happy with these circumstances, as many have not received payment on interest of principal credit since 1986. Without even counting Castro’s debt to Russia, which he will not pay because he declares his debt is to a country that “no longer exists,” Havana owes billions of dollars to western banks and former socialist countries.
If this is not enough evidence, the cavalry lobbying for American credits and imminent subsidies should ask the Canadians for their advice. On Aug. 7, 2002, the Montreal Gazette reported that a 15,000 ton Cuban-owned ship has been held in the port of Conakry, the Guinean capital, for the past month “while an Ontario company, armed with legal judgments, pursues Cuba for more than $3 million U.S.” Guinea’s Court of Appeals upheld the ship’s detention, pending the payment of more than $275,000 in debt to the Ontario company.

Imagine U.S. companies chasing down Cuban cargo ships in international waters to collect payment, while American taxpayers sit on the sidelines knowing that they will pick up the bill when the debtor doesn’t pay. Castro pricks America’s side again.
Critics of current policy claim that Cuba is purely a matter of Florida’s electoral politics, but the facts show otherwise. While announcing his “U.S. Initiative for a New Free Cuba” in May, President Bush declared that, “Cuban purchases of U.S. agricultural goods … would be a foreign aid program in disguise.” Current policy toward Cuba has saved taxpayers millions in export insurance, subsidies, and de facto foreign aid.

All, because trade with Cuba does not represent trade with Cuban business owners, entrepreneurs or consumers; Trade with Cuba is trade with the Castro government itself, which monopolizes virtually all enterprises and exploits Cuban workers as their sole employer. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, recently wrote that, “In Cuba, Fidel Castro is still the one man through whom everything has to go. Any trade that goes through Cuba is going to strengthen Cuba’s regime.”

Capital markets lie only when con artists run the show. And forcing taxpayers to subsidize Cuba, which has seen a 92 percent decrease in foreign investment over the last year is a leap from a precipice trumping Enron and WorldCom combined.

But American taxpayers did not have to bail out those companies. Why should we be forced to bail out the head of an openly hostile government – one of seven nations listed by the State Department as state supporters of international terrorism? A Castro bailout under the proposed policy is more a question of “when” than “if.” And policymakers should seek to protect the interest of taxpayers before propping up a regime that is openly hostile to the United States.

Frank Calzon is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes human rights and democracy for Cuba. (“Outside View” commentaries are written for UPI by outside writ-ers who specialize in a variety of important global issues.)

September 16, 2002 | The Miami Herald
by Frank Calzon

Add one more issue to the debate about lifting U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba: the exploitation of Cuban woman and children.
Earlier this year, researchers at the Protection Project, a human rights institute based at Johns Hopkins University, reported: ”Canadian and American tourists have contributed to a sharp increase in child prostitution and in the exploitation of women in Cuba.” A crackdown on sex tourism in Southeast Asia and the lifting of political restrictions on tourism is contributing to such increase, the researchers wrote in their report “Human Rights Report on Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.”

Prostitution exists in many countries, but Fidel Castro’s communist polemics and repressive controls compound the problem in Cuba.

Immediately after seizing power, Castro blamed prostitution on ”capitalist oppression” and American tourists. In his new society, he assured the Cuban people, prostitution and the ”exploitation of man by man” would disappear. Forty years later, the situation is much worse. Not only do Cuban women and children face exploitation by men, but everyone — men, women and children — also face the ”exploitation of man by man” as indentured servants of a government that assigns jobs and housing, sets pay and dictates when and where Cubans may shop and travel.

Cuba no longer has a civil society nor does it have a way to build one. The government owns the media; only if and after Castro himself discovers a problem can it be reported and commented on, and then it’s to blame ”the imperialist monster of the North.”

Independent organizations, which elsewhere can demand protection for women and children, don’t exist in Cuba. Years ago, Castro was forced to acknowledge widespread prostitution; he dismissed it offhandedly declaring that Cuban prostitutes were ”the most highly educated in the world.” He has denied the existence of widespread AIDS in the island. He unlikely will acknowledge the extent of sexual abuse of children; to do so would call into question his revolution’s alleged “special concern for children.”

NO MILK AFTER AGE 7
Even in Havana that ”special concern” and the revolution’s ”achievements” are no longer taken at face value. This is a country that suspends the milk ration for children after they turn 7. Parents have little or no say about state-run schools or the enrollment of their high-school age children in the work-study programs that send teenagers to distant rural communities to work on government-owned farms. Pope John Paul II described this forced separation of families as ”traumatic” and warned against the ”profound and negative” effects of increased vulgarity and promiscuity and a lack of ethics. Teens begin having sexual relations in these camps and have easy access to abortions.

The Protection Project’s report notes that Cuba has signed numerous international conventions, but “has not ratified the [International Labor Organization] Convention to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor and not signed the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.”
Public perceptions of Cuba take a while to catch up with realities there. In 1996, the University of Leicester published a report entitled ”Child Prostitution and Sex Tourism: Cuba,” based on in-depth interviews conducted by two British sociologists in Cuba. The report found that “most of the child sexual exploitation that does take place in Cuba is perpetrated by tourists.”

But should the U.S. Congress act as blindly and callously as it debates lifting all restrictions on travel to Cuba? Those asserting that unrestricted, no-questions-asked U.S. tourism will help the Cuban people — not enrich the repressive, exploitive Castro government — would be somewhat more persuasive if they coupled their courtesy toward Cuba’s dictator with demands to end the unspeakable outrages that Castro foists and fosters on Cubans.

Frank Calzon is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes human rights and democracy for Cuba.

Aug. 21, 2002 | The Miami Herald
by Frank Calzon

The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to end restrictions on travel, and to lift restrictions on financing exports, to Cuba. The Senate will consider the legislation soon.
While the White House has threatened to veto any legislation that would ”bolster the Cuban dictatorship,” the anti-embargo lobby is arguing that U.S. tourism will benefit Cubans without strengthening Fidel Castro and that trade with Havana will mean substantial U.S. profits.

Cuban Americans boast about their political power, but they have been out maneuvered and outspent. South Florida Republican Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Díaz Balart, New Jersey Democrat Rep. Robert Menéndez, and Florida’s Democratic Sens. Bob Graham and Bill Nelson tried valiantly to thwart the legislation, but the coalition to lift the embargo is now calling the shots. If the Senate votes as the House did, President Bush will have to accept a weaker policy on Cuba or veto important anti-terrorist legislation.

The coalition to lift sanctions includes some well-meaning people who believe that the embargo is obsolete and that the United States ought to try something new. The trouble is that ”something new” is the failed policy of engagement tried for years by Canada, Spain and other countries.
Cuba’s communist dictator not only spurns foreign leaders’ pleas to reform; he also has backtracked on some of the measures he was forced to implement when he lost Soviet assistance. Castro shows ”economic flexibility” only under severe pressure.

WITH AN IRON HAND
When Castro received millions of Soviet subsidies, he ran Cuba with an iron hand. An influx of American tourist dollars will only strengthen his repressive regime.
Who is working to save Castro’s regime? Admirers of the former Soviet Union and communist Nicaragua are. So are several large, grain corporations who also want U.S. government credits ”to sell” to Castro. Credits mean that U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab if Castro doesn’t pay. This is to which Bush alluded when he said that U.S. financing for Cuba’s purchases of U.S. agricultural goods “would just be a foreign-aid program in disguise.”

In a July 11 letter to Congress, Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that several countries have “suspended official credits, because Cuba has failed to make payments on its debt – including debt incurred while making agricultural purchases from these countries. Two governments have approached the United States to complain that Cuba’s payment of cash for U.S. agricultural products have meant that they are not getting paid at all.”
The inability of the Castro government to pay its debts has sent foreign investment in Cuba plummeting to $39.9 million in 2001 from $448 million in 2000. Associated Press reports that “the European Union excluded Cuba from a multibillion dollar pool of aid because of its poor human-rights record.”

Remittances from exiles are down, and when Russia closed its spy facility, the Castro government lost $200 million in revenues annually. But assuming that the Castro government could pay for what it bought, who is going to make millions in profit? Not U.S. factory workers, who would have to compete with the Cubans whom the Castro government pays $15 a month. Also, how many U.S. companies will relocate to exploit a cheap, educated, submissive labor force in a country that bans independent labor unions and has no environmental constraints?

What about some of those ”moderate” Cuban-American groups subsidized by ”progressive” foundations and U.S. business interests pushing to lift the embargo? Some mistakenly believe that ending the embargo will bring democracy to Cuba. Some have business aspirations (they don’t want to miss Castro’s fire sales). Some are made up of aspiring politicians who think that dallying with Castro will turn them into electable celebrities. Others, no doubt, work for Havana’s security services. While Miami sleeps, many are working to ensure that the misery and repression in Cuba not only continues but is supported by American dollars.

Frank Calzon is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes human rights and democracy for Cuba.

August 11, 2002 | USA Today
by Frank Calzon

Since 1982, when Washington began identifying states that sponsor terrorism, Cuba has been on the list. Moreover, there is a demonstrable relationship between Fidel Castro’s ability to raise money and his support of anti-American terrorism. That’s why the U.S. government works to contain Havana by limiting its access to dollars.

Secretary of State Colin Powell recently wrote Congress reaffirming U.S. policy: “Cuba has refused to cooperate with the global coalition’s efforts to combat terrorism. Unrestricted tourist travel to Cuba would benefit the government of Cuba more than the Cuban people. (And) the administration is determined to oppose any policy action that would bolster the Cuban dictatorship.”

There are other reasons as well: Castro provides a safe haven for more than 70 fugitives from U.S. justice, including several accused of killing U.S. police officers. Cuba’s tourist facilities ? hotels, beaches, medical clinics ? remain off-limits to most Cubans, an internal apartheid that defeats meaningful “people-to-people” contact.

Also, a Johns Hopkins University report says, “Canadian and American tourists have contributed to a sharp increase in child prostitution and exploitation of women in Cuba (due to) a current drop in political restrictions on travel to Cuba and a crackdown on sex tourism in Southeast Asia.” Castro allows most foreigners to get away with it.

Foreign investment has plummeted to $38.9 million in 2001 from $488 million in 2000. One-third of the island’s sugar mills are closed. The Associated Press reports that “the European Union excluded Cuba from a multibillion-dollar pool of aid because of its poor human-rights record.” Exiles’ remittances are down. When Russia closed its spy facility near Havana, Castro lost $200 million a year. All of this has weakened him.

Yet, like a bad scene out of a Hollywood movie about the Old West, there are Americans trying to muster a cavalry. In this instance, it’s a cavalry of U.S. tourists to rescue the regime, extend the repression and misery it wreaks on the Cuban people and provide the wherewithal for the country to continue its support for anti-American movements and dictators around the world.

click here to read this article on the USA Today website.

Frank Calzon is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes human rights and democracy for Cuba.

June 19, 2002 | The Miami Herald
by Frank Calzon

Critics of the Bush administration’s Cuba policy, including Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Ct., have blasted John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, for a May 6 speech in which Bolton warned: “Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort . . . [and] has provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states.”

Bolton’s standing with Dodd didn’t improve when Secretary of State Colin Powell recently refused to permit Bolton to testify about his statements. Instead Powell sent Carl W. Ford, assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research.

The debate over Havana’s capability is somewhat reminiscent of the old political debates about the Soviet Union’s capabilities and intentions. In an address to the Heritage Foundation, Bolton spoke about the threat posed not just by Cuba but by several other countries as well. No one in Congress is demanding that the administration produce a ”smoking gun” to prove its assessment of the threat posed by Libya, North Korea or Syria. The credibility of the Bush administration’s bio-weapon assessments is attacked only when it speaks out about Fidel Castro’s Cuba.
Publicly Dodd insists that the issue ”is a very serious matter, and we in the U.S. Senate would refrain from the temptation to play politics with it. So, too, should the Bush administration, in my view.” Those good intentions notwithstanding, the hearing itself clearly demonstrated that debate over the administration’s Cuba policy continues to be mired in the acrimonious cultural wars of America’s political elites that mysteriously deem communist Cuba’s despot to be “different.”

Dodd wondered whether the charges against Cuba were substantiated by the facts and ”whether President Carter’s visit to Cuba had anything to do with the timing of [Bolton's] speech.” The senator even characterized Ford’s testimony as evidence that the Bush administration had begun ”downplaying” and was ”backpedaling” from Bolton’s statements.

The political culture on Capitol Hill discourages administration witnesses from challenging anyone as powerful, articulate and committed as Dodd. Bureaucrats inevitably respond in nuances and refrain from blunt, unaccommodating replies. But did Ford ”play down” Bolton’s earlier warnings?

Ford stated that on March 19, several weeks before Bolton’s speech, he had told the committee that ”the United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited developmental, offensive, biological-warfare research and development effort” and that Havana ”has provided dual-use technology to rogue states” that could support biological-weapon programs. ”That assessment and our concerns have not changed in the intervening 2 1⁄2 months,” he said.

DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE
He noted that ”Cuba’s sophisticated denial and deception practices” make ”even more difficult” the task of procuring incontrovertible proof that it is engaged in illicit biological-weapons research, production, weaponization and stockpiling. He said that his remarks in an open forum would be necessarily limited, but he volunteered to ”discuss the evidence we do have in a closed session or to leave behind a classified statement for the record.” The administration has ”a sound basis” for its judgment on Cuba, he assured.

Questioned by Sen. Lincoln Chaffee, R-R.I., Ford added: ‘We feel very confident about saying that they’re working and have been working on an effort that would give them BW [biological weapons] — limited BW offensive capabilities. And that’s serious enough to tell you about it. If we didn’t think it was important, if we didn’t think that was a dangerous thing, we would have looked at the evidence, said, ‘This is all bogus, and there’s nothing here worth reporting.’ I wouldn’t have given it in my March 16 speech. I wouldn’t be back here today telling you it [Cuba] had limited offensive BW capability if I didn’t think that was a pretty important thing for you to know.”

As an old Spanish aphorism puts it: A buen entendedor, pocas palabras bastan. (A word to the wise is sufficient, enough said.)

Frank Calzon is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes human rights and democracy for Cuba.

19 de junerio de 2002
por Frank Calzon

Los críticos de la política hacia Cuba de la administración del presidente Bush, incluyendo al senador Christopher Dodd (demócrata por Connecticut), han arremetido en contra de John Bolton, subsecretario de Estado para el Control de Armas, por un discurso que emitiera el pasado 6 de mayo en el que advirtió que “Cuba tiene, como mínimo, un aparato montado para el estudio y desarrollo de guerra biológica ofensiva… [y] le ha suministrado biotecnología de doble utilización a otros países enemigos”.

La opinión de Dodd sobre Bolton no mejoró para nada cuando recientemente el secretario de Estado, Colin Powell, no dejó que Bolton testificara ante el Senado sobre sus aseveraciones. En vez de enviar a Bolton, Powell mandó a Carl W. Ford, subsecretario de Estado para Asuntos de Inteligencia e Investigación.

La controversia sobre la capacidad bélica de La Habana nos recuerda los viejos debates sobre la capacidad y las intenciones de la antigua Unión Soviética. En su discurso ante la Fundación Heritage, Bolton no sólo habló del peligro que representa Cuba, sino también del peligro de otros países. Nadie en el Congreso le está exigiendo a la administración del presidente que muestre el “olor a pólvora” como prueba del peligro que se calcula Libia representa. Ni tampoco nadie duda de la credibilidad de la administración cuando se refiere a la capacidad similar de países como Corea del Norte y Siria, a quienes Bolton también mencionó en su discurso. La credibilidad de la administra-ción de Bush en materia de armas biológicas sólo se pone en tela de juicio cuando se refiere a la Cuba de Fidel Castro.

A los efectos públicos, el senador Dodd insiste en que el tema “es sumamente serio, y nosotros en el Senado de Estados Unidos controlaremos la tentación de jugar a la política con ello. En mi opinión, la administración de Bush debe hacer lo mismo”. A pesar de las buenas intenciones, el hecho de que se realizara dicha audiencia es prueba fehaciente de que el debate sobre la política para Cuba de la administración de Bush sigue empantanado en la rancia contienda cultural que aún libran las élites políticas norteamericanas, para quienes el déspota comunista de Cuba es “diferente”.

El senador Dodd indagó sobre si había data empírica para validar las acusaciones contra Cuba, y también sobre “si la visita del presidente Carter a Cuba había determinado el momento escogido para el discurso [de Bolton]“. Dodd sugirió, incluso, que el testimonio de Ford mostraba que la administración de Bush estaba “minimizando” y “dando marcha atrás” con respecto a las declaraciones de Bolton.

El protocolo de conducta que debe seguir un testigo de la burocracia de gobierno ante una audiencia pública del Congreso obliga a que los funcionarios no reten o cuestionen la opinión de un personaje tan poderoso, elocuente y firme en sus convicciones como el senador Dodd. Inevitablemente, los funcionarios responden indirectamente, y se abstienen de dar respuestas abruptas e infranqueables. Cabe preguntarnos si Ford le restó importancia a las advertencias anteriores de John Bolton.

El testimonio de Ford comenzó por recordarles a los allí presentes que el 19 de marzo, semanas antes del discurso de Bolton, ya él (Ford) le había informado al comité que “Estados Unidos sostiene que Cuba posee, como mínimo, una capacidad limitada para el estudio y desarrollo de un programa de guerra biológica ofensiva”, y que La Habana “le ha suministrado tecnología de doble utilización a países enemigos” que puede sostener el desarrollo de armas biológicas. “Esa evaluación, y nuestra preocupación al respecto, no han cambiado en el transcurso de los últimos dos meses y medio”, añadió.

También mencionó que “los sofisticados métodos de Cuba a la hora de negar o desinformar” sobre este o aquel tema “dificultan enormemente” la labor de producir pruebas claras e irrefutables de que Cuba está involucrada en la investigación, producción, construcción y acumulación armamentista ilícita de armas biológicas. Dijo, además, que sus declaraciones ante un foro público semejante eran obligatoriamente limitadas, pero se ofreció para “discutir las pruebas que tenemos en una sesión a puertas cerradas, o someter un informe clasificado” para la documentación oficial del comité. Antes de terminar, les aseguró a todos que la administración de Bush tiene “bases sólidas” que informan su juicio sobre Cuba.

A las preguntas del senador Lincoln Chaffee (republicano por Rhode Island), Ford añadió: “Es con plena confianza que decimos que [Cuba] está desarrollando, y ha estado desarrollando, armas biológicas que le darían [a Cuba] una capacidad ofensiva bioarmamentista. Y que dicho esfuerzo es lo suficientemente serio como para que ustedes lo sepan. Si no lo fuera, si no lo considerásemos peligroso… hubiésemos estudiado la evidencia y llegado a la conclusión de que ‘esto es puro cuento, y aquí no hay nada que reportar’. No lo hubiera mencionado en mi dis-curso del 16 de marzo, ni estaría aquí de nuevo diciéndoles a ustedes que Cuba tiene capacidad ofensiva bioarmamentista limitada, si yo no pensara que la información es lo suficientemente importante como para que ustedes lo sepan”.

Como dice el viejo refrán: “¡A buen entendedor, pocas palabras bastan!”

Frank Calzon es Director Ejecutivo del Centro para Cuba Libre, en Washington, DC.

May 24, 2002 | El Nuevo Herald
Por Frank Calzon

Para Fidel Castro, todo aquel que no piense como el es un “lacayo del imperialismo” y un traidor. Nada de lideres opositores ni adversarios politicos. En la mente totalitaria no se conciben los desacuerdos honestos en materia de politica.
Al igual que Mussolini, Castro resulta a veces una persona encantadora. Asi se ha comportado con David Rockefeller, con Danielle Mitterrand, con Gabriel Garcia Marquez y asi lo ha hecho ahora con el ex presidente de Estados Unidos, Jimmy Carter.

Para recibir a Carter, Castro hizo tocar el himno nacional de Estados Unidos; este agradable anfitrion es el mismo personaje que le da proteccion a norteamericanos que figuran entre los “fugitivos de la justicia” del FBI. En 1998, Castro celebraba un informe del Departamento de Defensa de Estados Unidos que decia que La Habana ya no era una amenaza para Estados Unidos. Segun Castro, el documento era “un informe objetivo hecho por gente seria”. Cuando Christopher Marquis –que escribia entonces para The Miami Herald–, revelo las conclusiones de aquel informe antes de que se hiciera publico oficialmente, la informacion avivo la campana a favor del levantamiento del embargo.

El informe alegaba que el poderio militar cubano habia sido ampliamente reducido, y restaba importancia al peligro que las armas quimicas o biologicas de Castro podian representar. Varias organizaciones que abogaban entonces por el levantamiento del embargo se hicieron eco del informe.

Pero la semana pasada, el funcionario norteamericano de mas alto rango en el area de control de armamentos y seguridad internacional declaro que el susodicho informe habia sido un habil trabajo de desinformacion por parte de los servicios de inteligencia de Castro. Anadio el funcionario que la principal analista sobre Cuba en la Agencia de Inteligencia para la Defensa “que tuvo que ver con la redaccion del informe” era una espia de Castro. Ana Belen Montes se ha declarado culpable de espiar para Cuba.

Lo que nos trae de nuevo a Jimmy Carter, uno de los hombres mas decentes y honestos que pueda haber ocupado la Casa Blanca, cuya campana a favor de los derechos humanos le ha brindado esperanza a millones de personas en el mundo. Carter demostro ser menos diestro en lidiar con lo que el presidente Reagan calificaba, y ahora el presidente Bush, califica de “regimenes del mal”, como le sucedio con la crisis de los rehenes que lo enfrento a Iran. No en balde Carter no logro ser reelecto presidente de Estados Unidos. Ahora resulta que ha cruzado el Estrecho de la Florida con sus prejuicios politicos a cuestas y ha llegado a La Habana, desde donde ha declarado que Castro no esta involucrado en ese asunto de las armas bioquimicas.

Segun Carter, el experto del gobierno norteamericano que le preparo para el viaje dijo no saber nada sobre ese tema. Pero, quien dijo que Carter y sus asesores tienen que depender de informacion secreta del gobierno norteamericano? El Centro Carter cuenta con un ejemplar del libro Biohazard, de Ken Alibek, publicado por la editorial Random House en 1999, donde el que fuera vicedirector del programa sovietico para el desarrollo de armas bioquimicas revela que “Cuba cuenta con un programa de armas biologicas activo”.

Apenas unos dias antes del viaje de Carter, el periodico The New York Times informaba lo siguiente: ‘Jose de la Fuente, ex director de investigaciones del Centro de Ingenieria Genetica y Biotecnologia de Cuba, escribio el ano pasado en la revista Nature Biotechnology que estaba ‘profundamente preocupado’ con la venta [por parte de Cuba] de tecnologia de ‘doble proposito’ a Iran”.

En una vista ante el Congreso el pasado mes de octubre sobre el tema “Combatiendo el terrorismo: Hacia una valorizacion de la amenaza de un ataque con armas bioquimicas”, Alibek declaro que luego que el periodico The Miami Herald citara sus declaraciones en 1999, “la situacion se torno muy confusa… el Departamento de Estado dijo que no tenia informacion sobre ningun programa cubano de ofensiva de armas biologicas, al tiempo que la Agencia de Inteligencia para la Defensa incluia a Cuba en la lista de paises activos en el area de armas biologicas”. Puede que aquella confusion del gobierno norteamericano se debiera a la labor de la ahora notable Ana Belen Montes.

La historia del siglo XX esta llena de ejemplos de peregrinos politicos bien intencionados. Un hombre tambien decentisimo como Chamberlain, el primer ministro britanico, regreso a Londres luego de su reunion en Munich asegurandole a todos sobre las buenas intenciones de Hitler. Walter Durante, periodista de The New York Times, ganador del premio Pulitzer, califico de propaganda antisovietica las noticias de la hambruna organizada por Stalin que cobraria millones de vidas.

En 1958, otra luminaria de The New York Times visito a Fidel Castro en la Sierra Maestra. Herbert Matthews reportaria en aquel entonces para el diario neoyorquino que Castro contaba con unas fuerzas rebeldes de envergadura. Hoy sabemos que Castro orquesto estos efectos especiales con un punado de hombres a quienes dio ordenes de moverse en diferentes direcciones durante la noche para crear un efecto de intensa actividad.

Y como sabemos esto? Pues de la misma manera que sabemos lo que hablaron por telefono en calidad confidencial el dictador cubano y el presidente Vicente Fox de Mexico: Fidel mismo lo conto. Si a Castro se le ocurre algun dia revelar los secretos de la visita de Carter a La Habana, podemos imaginarnos de antemano el brillo macabro en sus ojos cuando hable de Carter como otra “gente seria” que toco el tema de las armas biologicas.

No obstante, el ex presidente Jimmy Carter no es ni Chamberlain, ni Durante. En ultima instancia, puede que sus palabras sobre libertad y democracia logren socavar el poder de Castro.
Director ejecutivo del Centro para una Cuba Libre.

Frank Calzon es el Director Ejecutivo del Centro para Cuba Libre, en Washington, D.C.

May 22, 2002 | The Miami Herald
by Frank Calzon

Carter in Cuba
Fidel Castro cannot conceive of honest political disagreements. He insists that those who think differently are neither opposition leaders nor political adversaries. They are ”lackeys of the imperialists” — and traitors.

But, like the Italian fascist Mussolini, Castro can be quite charming. To that David Rockefeller, Danielle Mitterrand, Gabriel García Márquez and now former President Jimmy Carter can attest. Castro also can be masterfully disingenuous.

In 1998, Castro was praising a Defense Department report that declared Havana posed no threat to the United States, calling it “an objective report by serious people.”

The reports findings were revealed by Christopher Marquis, then writing for The Herald, and are now being cited by those campaigning to lift the U.S. embargo. The report stated that Cubas military had been greatly reduced and minimized any danger posed by chemical or biological weapons.

But last week, John Bolton, the top U.S. official responsible for arms control and international security, said the report was a clever treatise of disinformation by Castros intelligence service. The senior Cuba analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency ”who had a hand in drafting” it was Ana Belen Montes, who pleaded guilty in March to spying for the Castro government.
That brings us back to Carter, one of the most decent fellows ever to sit in the Oval Office, whose human-rights crusade has brought hope to millions.

Less adroit at dealing with what President Reagan and now President Bush call ”evil” regimes, Carter was not re-elected after the Iran hostage crisis. He went to Havana, where he said Castro has nothing to do with biochemical weapons.
Carter says the government expert who briefed him claimed ignorance of the subject. But Carter and his staff do not have to rely on classified information. The Carter Center has a copy of Ken Alibeks book, Biohazard, published by Random House in 1999, in which the former deputy director of the Soviet biochemical weapons program reported, “Cuba had an active biological weapons program.”

A few days before Carter’s trip, The New York Times reported that, “José de la Fuente, the former director of research at Cubas Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, wrote in the journal Nature Biotechnology late last year that he was `profoundly disturbed about Cuban sales of dual-use technology to Iran.”

At a congressional hearing focusing on ”Combating Terrorism: Assessing the Threat of a Biochemical Weapons Attack” last October, Alibek said that, after he was quoted in The Herald in 1999, the situation became quite confusing. “The State Department said that they had no information about any Cuban offensive biological-weapons program. But at the very same time, the Defense Intelligence Agency included Cuba in a group of countries involved in biological-weapons activity.”

Perhaps the confusion in the government had to do with the work of the now-notorious Montes. The history of the 20th century is replete with examples of well-meaning political pilgrims. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, also a very decent chap, returned home after Munich assuring everyone of Hitlers good intentions.
Walter Duranty, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist from The New York Times, dismissed the famine engineered by Stalin — which took the lives of millions — as anti-Soviet propaganda.
The long, sad litany proves not only how strong totalitarian regimes can become but also how willing Westerners are to leave skepticism behind when they travel abroad.

Still, Carter is neither Chamberlain nor Duranty. Some of what he has told the Cubans about freedom may, in the end, help to undermine Castro. Click here to view original article on Miami Herald web site.

Frank Calzon is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes human rights and democracy for Cuba.