The Miami Herald Friday, November 16, 2007

By FRANK CALZON

Why should the U.S. president award a medal to the author of a book written almost 50 years ago? Why give a medal to an economist who already has a Nobel Prize? And why is this nation’s highest honor given to a ”prisoner of conscience” in a small country ruled by political thugs?

Embedded in the name of the award is the answer to these questions. The award is the Medal of Freedom, and it goes to individuals — American and foreign — who are chosen for uncompromising dedication to this nation’s most fundamental principle: liberty.

Freedom is not a one-day value, or a value that belongs to any single era. It is transcendent value. Americans admire those who long ago fought for our freedom. Inherently they know that what others do in defense of liberty helps us even today. We are free because men and women under different skies in different times believed in freedom as ardently as we do today.

Ideal of freedom

That is why presidents, since John F. Kennedy who established the Medal of Freedom as a civilian award, have chosen as recipients individuals whose lives and deeds epitomize the ideal of freedom. Freedom finds its champions and defenders in many guises and many places, and the U.S. Medal of Freedom honors service to our national interests and security, world peace and cultural or scientific endeavors. Service to freedom is broadly defined. Perhaps the best way to understand why is to consider this year’s recipients:

Author Harper Lee’s great novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, clearly defined the character of America and its devotion to justice. She not only defined what this country stands for but also described the courage an individual must summon to stand up for justice, in this instance to challenge the racist prejudices of a majority. Her book shows us an eternal lesson.

Economist Gary S. Becker, who won his Nobel Prize in 1992, continues to study the ways people seek to maximize their personal advantages, applying economic rationales to decisions previously viewed as beyond the reach of economics. Demonstrating why and how people make the choices they do provides an understanding of the inherent need people have for freedom and the choices it permits. ”Enjoying freedom” leads us to strengthen the institutions that protect freedom.

President Bush recognized Gary Becker and Harper Lee as freedom’s teachers. Cuban physician Oscar Biscet, in quite a different guise, is another kind of teacher, one who teaches by example. For many years Biscet practiced medicine while also chronicling and informing the world about political and economic conditions in Cuba. He has been a witness to the world about Fidel Castro’s government. Because of what he has said and written, Biscet has been harassed, beaten and jailed. He has spent most of the last eight years in jail; in 2003, he was sentenced to 25 years in Cuba’s national prisons for ”posing a threat” to the government. Internationally, he is recognized as a political “prisoner of conscience.”

A truly free man

Biscet poses a threat to the Cuban government in the same way that Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., two of Biscet’s heroes, were threats when they peacefully protested the inequitable and segregated regimes under which they lived and demanded change.

For many who are brave enough to label tyranny as such, the only means available to resist is to say No. Biscet symbolizes the many saying No to tyranny and Yes to freedom. These are people imprisoned and dying in countries that most of us will never visit. Still, they fight for all of us. Biscet is not living in freedom, but he is a free man, unlike his jailers.

We are in debt to Biscet and to the other men and women whom Bush recently honored with the Medal of Freedom for showing us that freedom matters, that it is democracy’s bread of life.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C.

Sun Sentinel| November 6 2007

By Frank Calzon

For years, the United States was denounced for befriending Latin American right-wing dictatorships. The critics argued that the criminal repression of Pinochet, Trujillo, the Somozas and Duvaliers could not be sustained were it not for American support.

Gradually, U.S. policy shifted to supporting democracy in Latin America. Yet today, the voices raised are harshly critical of President George W. Bush for refusing to coddle the repressive, left-wing, communist dictatorship in Cuba. The irony – hypocrisy, if you will – is as astounding as it is mystifying.

Eleven million people are suffering under the anti-American totalitarian regime of the Castro brothers, who remain contemptuous of democracy and free markets. The spate of critical commentary of Bush’s speech reiterating American support for democracy in Cuba suggests that his critics neither heard nor read the speech.

The president was accurate when he said: “Cuba’s rulers promised individual liberty. Instead they denied their citizens basic rights that the free world takes for granted. In Cuba it is illegal to change jobs, to change houses, to travel abroad and to read books or magazines without the express approval of the state.”

“The day is coming,” Bush added, “when the Cuban people will chart their own course for a better life,” noting that “peaceful demonstrations are spreading….Cuban dissidents have come together for the first time to issue a declaration for change.” The president spoke the truth about a process that succeeded in Chile, South Africa, Czechoslovakia, Poland and elsewhere and that will likely triumph in Cuba.

While minimizing the reality of Castro’s repression, Bush’s critics, such as Wayne Smith of the Washington, D.C., Center for International Policy, strongly objected to his call for an international Freedom Fund for Cuba “to enlist foreign governments and international organizations” to help reconstruct a democratic Cuba.

What’s wrong with such help? Following World War II, President Harry Truman wasn’t popular when he pushed the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. Still, he was right. President Reagan drew harsh criticism for telling Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. Reagan, too, was right, and the wall came down.

The “blame America first” crowd can be relied upon to ignore history and deny reality. Cuba’s courageous civic opposition refuses to be silenced, though its members have endured public beatings and long prison sentences. Among Europe’s democracies, there is growing support for Castro’s opponents in Cuba.

Bush’s American critics want to dismantle what remains of the U.S. embargo, which they assert will somehow spur economic and political reforms in Cuba. To believe that, one has to ignore the fact that these critics made the same assertions to persuade Congress to authorize the sale of foodstuffs to Cuba. The sales have wrought no reforms, no easing of repression.

As Bush observed: “Cuba’s regime uses the U.S. embargo as a scapegoat for Cuba’s miseries. Yet presidents of both our political parties have long understood that the source of Cuba’s suffering is not the embargo, but the communist system.”

Echoing Vaclav Havel’s The Power of the Powerless, Bush told the Cubans: “You have the power to shape your own destiny. You can bring about a future where your leaders answer to you, where you can freely express your beliefs and where your children can grow in peace.” The president also reminded them about Pope John Paul II’s words when he visited the island in 1998: “Do not be afraid.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once counseled that, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” So it is that the Bush administration will be remembered as a friend of democracy in Cuba.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba, an independent human rights organization.

October 31, 2007 | The Miami Herald
By Frank Calzon

According to some analysts, Cuban Americans — depending on their reaction to President Bush’s recent Cuba speech — may be cataloged as hard-line, moderate or appeasers. But can they?

If one were to look beyond the labels, this is what one would find:

• “Hard-liners” are Cuban Americans who believe that the real issue is freedom and not U.S.-Cuba policy. They agree with Bush that the Cuban regime needs to talk to the Cuban people and allow Cubans to talk before negotiating with anybody else, including Washington. In a role reversal, it is Bush — not the Cuban government leaders — who insists that Cubans, not foreigners, decide the destiny of their island.

Why should those Cubans be identified as hard-liners? American civil rights leaders who demanded the dismantling of all segregated facilities — drinking fountains, buses and hotels — were not. Today, neither is Burma’s courageous opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who calls on the outside world not to travel to Burma and for foreign governments to put sanctions on Rangoon’s military regime. And the label, which is sometimes used as synonymous with ”extremists,” was not applied to the South Africans who urged the world to boycott that country’s racist regime in order to achieve change in Johanesburg.

• Some “moderate” exiles demonstrate their moderation by continuing to have illusions about negotiating with the Castro regime. Why do they say so little about the government-sponsored rapid deployment brigades who throw rocks, yell obscenities and sometimes threaten to burn the homes of Cuban dissidents? Is Martha Beatriz Roque, the former Cuban political prisoner and dissident leader from Havana who supports the embargo, a hard-liner?

It is time to go beyond the simplistic question of, Are you for or against the embargo?

If you ask me, ‘Are you for lifting the sanctions in exchange for the release of political prisoners, the relaxation of the Castro brothers’ economic decrees that prevent Cuba from achieving its economic potential, the opening of all segregated facilities to all Cubans where now only foreigners are allowed?” my answer is a resounding Yes.

But if I am asked, ”Are you in favor of lifting the embargo so that American tourists could join other foreigners in Cuba’s segregated hotels, so that the regime continues to abuse and beat not only political prisoners but their relatives, so that Cuban newspapers and radio stations continue to function under the strictest censorship?” I would have to say No.

Cuban-American moderates, as quoted in some articles, want the United States to offer partial lifting of the sanctions in the hope that the Castro dynasty will carry internal reforms. They ignore the fact that the business as usual approach has been tried for years by Spain, Canada and others and has done nothing but help to keep the regime in place.

The Bush administration and other democratic governments want to help the Cuban people rebuild a prosperous, democratic Cuba. The naysayers see a nefarious plan behind the president’s offer; yet only those siding with the Soviet Union described in similar terms the Marshall Plan, which, generously funded by the United States, made possible the reconstruction of a democratic and prosperous Europe after World War II.

• Then there are the “appeasers” — Miami Cuban exiles who broadcast radio programs in Miami taped by the Castro regime in Cuba. Cuban Americans cannot win for losing. If we criticize such outrages we are labeled extremists and hard-liners. If we ignore the Miami pro-Castro radio and TV programs, we are told that Cuban Americans no longer support U.S. sanctions.

Labeling Cuban Americans is a side issue. Cuban-American public opinion can be easily ascertained by looking at the votes of six Cuban Americans of both parties in the U.S. Congress. At the end of the day, Bush and the Central European governments who support the dissidents are right: The issue is neither U.S. policy on Cuba nor the European Union’s policy toward Havana, but the inalienable right of Cubans to get rid of a murderous regime.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Gracias. Buenos Dias. I am pleased to be back at the State Department. I appreciate the work that’s done here. Every day the men and women of this department serve as America’s emissaries to the world. Every day you help our country respond to aggressors and bring peace to troubled lands. Every day you advance our country’s mission in support of basic human rights to the millions who are denied them. Secretary Rice constantly tells me about the good work being done here at the State Department, and on behalf of a grateful nation, I thank you for your hard work and I’m pleased to be with you.

Today, another President comes with hope to discuss a new era for the United States and Cuba. The day is coming when the Cuban people will chart their own course for a better life. The day is coming when the Cuban people have the freedom they have awaited for so long. (Applause.)

Madam Secretary, thank you for your introduction. I’m pleased to be with you and Ambassador Negroponte and all who work here. Thanks for the hospitality. I’m pleased to be here with our Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Carlos Gutierrez — born in Cuba. I appreciate other members of my administration who are here.

I particularly want to thank the members of Congress who have joined us: Senator Mel Martinez, born in Cuba; Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, born in Cuba; Lincoln Diaz-Balart, born in Cuba; su hermanito –(laughter) — Mario Diaz-Balart. I want to thank Chris Smith for joining us, Congressman from Jersey; Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, from Florida; as well as Tim Mahone from Florida. Appreciate you being here.

I thank the members of the Diplomatic Corps who have joined us. I appreciate the Ambassadors to the Organization of American States who are with us. I particularly want to thank the Cuban families who have joined me on the stage.

One country in our region still isolates its people from the hope that freedom brings, and traps them in a system that has failed them. Forty-eight years ago, in the early moments of Cuba’s revolution, its leaders offered a prediction. He said — and I quote — “The worst enemies which the Cuban revolution can face are the revolutionaries themselves.” One of history’s great tragedies is that he made that dark prophecy come true.

Cuba’s rulers promised individual liberty. Instead they denied their citizens basic rights that the free world takes for granted. In Cuba it is illegal to change jobs, to change houses, to travel abroad, and to read books or magazines without the express approval of the state. It is against the law for more than three Cubans to meet without permission. Neighborhood Watch programs do not look out for criminals. Instead, they monitor their fellow citizens — keeping track of neighbors’ comings and goings, who visits them, and what radio stations they listen to. The sense of community and the simple trust between human beings is gone.

Cuba’s rulers promised an era of economic advancement. Instead they brought generations of economic misery. Many of the cars on the street pre-date the revolution — and some Cubans rely on horse carts for transportation. Housing for many ordinary Cubans is in very poor condition, while the ruling class lives in mansions. Clinics for ordinary Cubans suffer from chronic shortages in medicine and equipment. Many Cubans are forced to turn to the black market to feed their families. There are long lines for basic necessities — reminiscent of the Soviet bread lines of the last century. Meanwhile, the regime offers fully stocked food stores to foreign tourists, diplomats and businessmen in communism’s version of apartheid.

Cuba’s rulers promised freedom of the press. Instead they closed down private newspapers and radio and television stations. They’ve jailed and beaten journalists, raided their homes, and seized their paper, ink and fax machines. One Cuban journalist asked foreigners who visited him for one thing: a pen. Another uses shoe polish as ink as a typewriter ribbon.

Cuba’s rulers promised, “absolute respect for human rights.” Instead they offered Cubans rat-infested prisons and a police state. Hundreds are serving long prison sentences for political offenses such as the crime of “dangerousness” — as defined by the regime. Others have been jailed for the crime of “peaceful sedition” — which means whatever Cuban authorities decide it means.

Joining us here are family members of political prisoners in Cuba. I’ve asked them to come because I want our fellow citizens to see the faces of those who suffer as a result of the human rights abuses on the island some 90 miles from our shore. One of them is Olga Alonso. Her brother, Ricardo Gonzalez Alonso [sic], has been harassed by Cuban authorities since he was 11 years old, because he wrote things that the Cuban authorities did not like. In 2003, Ricardo was arrested for his writings and sentenced to 20 years in prison. The authorities seized illegal contraband they found in his home. These included such things as a laptop computer, notebooks and a printer. Olga, we’re glad you’re here. Thank you for coming. (Applause.)

Marlenis Gonzalez and her daughter, Melissa, are here. They recently arrived from Cuba, but without Melissa’s father. Jorge Luis Gonzalez Tanquero dared to defend the human rights of his countrymen. For that, he was arrested for crimes against the state. Now he languishes in poor health inside a Cuban prison. Bienvenidos. (Applause.)

Damaris Garcia y su tia, Mirta Pernet, are with us today. Damaris calls the Cuban government “a killing machine” — those are her words. They’ve seen relatives imprisoned for supporting liberty. One beloved family member, Omar Pernet Hernandez, was a poor man who sold candy on the streets of Havana. For advocating freedom, he is serving a sentence of 25 years. He’s 62 years old, he’s emaciated. Yet he remains a determined advocate for human rights for the Cuban people. Bienvenidos. (Applause.)

Also with us is Yamile Llanes Labrada. Yamile’s husband, Jorge [sic] Luis Garcia Paneque, was a surgeon and journalist. He was sentenced to 24 years in prison for daring speak the truth about the regime. Yamile herself was accused of espionage and she feared for the safety of her four children. After Jos ‘s arrest, a mob organized by state authorities surrounded their house. The mob carried sticks and threatened to set fire to the house with the family inside. Earlier this year, Yamile and her children made it off the island. They do not know when they’ll see their father again. Bienvenidos, Yamile. (Applause.)

I want to thank each of you [for] coming today. I thank you for allowing me to share your stories, and I thank you for your courage. I ask that God watch over you and your loved ones. Que Dios les bendiga a ustedes y a sus familias. And I join your prayers for a day when the light of liberty will shine on Cuba.

These are just a few of the examples of the terror and trauma that is Cuba today. The socialist paradise is a tropical gulag. The quest for justice that once inspired the Cuban people has now become a grab for power. And as with all totalitarian systems, Cuba’s regime no doubt has other horrors still unknown to the rest of the world. Once revealed, they will shock the conscience of humanity. And they will shame the regime’s defenders and all those democracies that have been silent. (Applause.) One former Cuban political prisoner, Armando Valladares, puts it this way: It will be a time when “mankind will feel the revulsion it felt when the crimes of Stalin were brought to light.” And that time is coming.

As we speak, calls for fundamental change are growing across the island. Peaceful demonstrations are spreading. Earlier this year leading Cuban dissidents came together for the first time to issue the Unity of Freedom — a declaration for democratic change. They hear the dying gasps of a failed regime. They know that even history’s cruelest nightmares cannot last forever. A restive people who long to rejoin the world at last have hope. And they will bring to Cuba a real revolution — a revolution of freedom, democracy and justice. (Applause.)

Now is the time to support the democratic movements growing on the island. Now is the time to stand with the Cuban people as they stand up for their liberty. And now is the time for the world to put aside its differences and prepare for Cuban’s transition to a future of freedom and progress and promise. The dissidents of today will be the nation’s leaders tomorrow — and when freedom finally comes, they will surely remember who stood with them. (Applause.)

The Czech Republic and Hungary and Poland have been vital sources of support and encouragement to Cuba’s brave democratic opposition. I ask other countries to follow suit. All nations can make tangible efforts to show public support for those who love freedom on the island. They can open up their embassies in Havana to pro-democracy leaders and invite them to different events. They can use their lobbies of the embassies to give Cubans access to the Internet and to books and to magazines. They can encourage their country’s non-governmental organizations to reach out directly to Cuba’s independent civil society.

Here at home we can do more, as well. The United States Congress has recently voted for additional funding to support Cuban democracy efforts. I thank you all for your good work on this measure — and I urge you to get the bill to my desk as soon as we possibly can. (Applause.) I also urge our Congress to show our support and solidarity for fundamental change in Cuba by maintaining our embargo on the dictatorship until it changes. (Applause.)

Cuba’s regime uses the U.S. embargo as a scapegoat for Cuba’s miseries. Yet Presidents of both our political parties have long understood that the source of Cuba’s suffering is not the embargo, but the communist system. They know that trade with the Cuban government would not help the Cuban people until there are major changes to Cuba’s political and economic system. Instead, trade with Cuba would merely enrich the elites in power and strengthen their grip. As long as the regime maintains its monopoly over the political and economic life of the Cuban people, the United States will keep the embargo in place. (Applause.)

The United States knows how much the Cuban people are suffering — and we have not stood idle. Over the years, we’ve granted asylum to hundreds of thousands who have fled the repression and misery imposed by the regime. We’ve rallied nations to take up the banner of Cuban liberty. And we will continue to do so. We’ve authorized private citizens and organizations to provide food, and medicine, and other aid — amounting to more than $270 million last year alone. The American people, the people of this generous land, are the largest providers of humanitarian aid to the Cuban people in the entire world. (Applause.)

The aid we provide goes directly into the hands of the Cuban people, rather than into the coffers of the Cuban leaders. And that’s really the heart of our policy: to break the absolute control that the regime holds over the material resources that the Cuban people need to live and to prosper and to have hope.

To further that effort, the United States is prepared to take new measures right now to help the Cuban people directly — but only if the Cuban regime, the ruling class, gets out of the way.

For example — here’s an interesting idea to help the Cuban people — the United States government is prepared to license non-governmental organizations and faith-based groups to provide computers and Internet access to Cuban people — if Cuba’s rulers will end their restrictions on Internet access for all the people.

Or the United States is prepared to invite Cuban young people whose families suffer oppression into the Partnership for Latin American Youth scholarship programs, to help them have equal access to greater educational opportunities — if the Cuban rulers will allow them to freely participate.

We make these offers to the people of Cuba — and we hope their rulers will allow them to accept. You know, we’ve made similar offers before — but they’ve been rejected out of hand by the regime. It’s a sad lesson, and it should be a vivid lesson for all: For Cuba’s ruling class, its grip on power is more important than the welfare of its people.

Life will not improve for Cubans under their current system of government. It will not improve by exchanging one dictator for another. It will not improve if we seek accommodation with a new tyranny in the interests of “stability.” (Applause.) America will have no part in giving oxygen to a criminal regime victimizing its own people. We will not support the old way with new faces, the old system held together by new chains. The operative word in our future dealings with Cuba is not “stability.” The operative word is “freedom.” (Applause.)

In that spirit, today I also am announcing a new initiative to develop an international multi-billion dollar Freedom Fund for Cuba. This fund would help the Cuban people rebuild their economy and make the transition to democracy. I have asked two members of my Cabinet to lead the effort — Secretary Rice and Secretary Gutierrez. They will enlist foreign governments and international organizations to contribute to this initiative.

And here’s how the fund will work: The Cuban government must demonstrate that it has adopted, in word and deed, fundamental freedoms. These include the freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of press, freedom to form political parties, and the freedom to change the government through periodic, multi-party elections. And once these freedoms are in place, the fund will be able to give Cubans — especially Cuban entrepreneurs — access to grants, and loans and debt relief to help rebuild their country. (Applause.)

The restoration of these basic freedoms is the foundation of fair, free and competitive elections. Without these fundamental protections in place, elections are only cynical exercises that give dictatorships a legitimacy they do not deserve.

We will know there is a new Cuba when opposition parties have the freedom to organize, assemble and speak with equal access to the airwaves. We will know there is a new Cuba when a free and independent press has the power to operate without censors. We will know there is a new Cuba when the Cuban government removes its stranglehold on private economic activity.

And above all, we will know there is a new Cuba when authorities go to the prisons, walk to the cells where people are being held for their beliefs and set them free. (Applause.) It will be a time when the families here are reunited with their loved ones, and when the names of free people — including dissidents such as Oscar Elias Biscet, Normando Hernandez Gonzales, and Omar Rodriguez Saludes are free. (Applause.) It will be a moment when Cubans of conscience are released from their shackles — not as a gesture or a tactic, but because the government no longer puts people in prison because of what they think, or what they say or what they believe.

Cuba’s transition from a shattered society to a free country may be long and difficult. Things will not always go as hoped. There will be difficult adjustments to make. One of the curses of totalitarianism is that it affects everyone. Good people make moral compromises to feed their families, avoid the whispers of neighbors, and escape a visit from the secret police. If Cuba is to enter a new era, it must find a way to reconcile and forgive those who have been part of the system but who do not have blood on their hands. They’re victims as well.

At this moment, my words are being transmitted into — live into Cuba by media outlets in the free world — including Radio and TV Marti. To those Cubans who are listening — perhaps at great risk — I would like to speak to you directly.

Some of you are members of the Cuban military, or the police, or officials in the government. You may have once believed in the revolution. Now you can see its failure. When Cubans rise up to demand their liberty, they — they — the liberty they deserve, you’ve got to make a choice. Will you defend a disgraced and dying order by using force against your own people? Or will you embrace your people’s desire for change? There is a place for you in the free Cuba. You can share the hope found in the song that has become a rallying cry for freedom-loving Cubans on and off the island: “Nuestro Dia Ya Viene Llegando.” Our day is coming soon. (Applause.)

To the ordinary Cubans who are listening: You have the power to shape your own destiny. You can bring about a future where your leaders answer to you, where you can freely express your beliefs and where your children can grow up in peace. Many experts once said that that day could never come to Eastern Europe, or Spain or Chile. Those experts were wrong. When the Holy Father came to Cuba and offered God’s blessings, he reminded you that you hold your country’s future in your hands. And you can carry this refrain in your heart: Su dia ya viene llegando. Your day is coming soon. (Applause.)

To the schoolchildren of Cuba: You have a lot in common with young people in the United States. You both dream of hopeful futures, and you both have the optimism to make those dreams come true. Do not believe the tired lies you are told about America. We want nothing from you except to welcome you to the hope and joy of freedom. Do not fear the future. Su dia ya viene llegando. Your day is coming soon. (Applause.)

Until that day, you and your suffering are never far from our hearts and prayers. The American people care about you. And until we stand together as free men and women, I leave you with a hope, a dream, and a mission: Viva Cuba Libre. (Applause.)

Read this article from The White House Website

The Miami Herald October 3rd, 2007

BY FRANK CALZON

The ”Stockholm syndrome” describes the phenomenon of hostages who identify, cooperate with and, finally, defend their kidnappers. The longer they are held, the more victims are likely to be affected by the syndrome, because they are totally dependent on their abusers. The control over every aspect of life convinces the victim that he or she is alone, there will be no help from others; resistance is useless and only makes things worse.

That’s the kind of control Fidel Castro, and now his brother Raúl, exercise in Cuba.

There, everything comes from Castro and his government. The regime wants the Cuban people to believe they have no other friends. And, alas, even foreign diplomats and their dependents stationed in Havana begin after time to feel this intimidating dependency and to become reluctant to protest outrages directed at them because “it only results in more abuse.”

Castro’s abuse — his ability to order windows smashed or call out street demonstrations — becomes ”revenge” for inviting unapproved Cuban guests to the embassy, for reaching out to engage ordinary Cubans in ways not preapproved by Castro’s government.

Foreign observers in Cuba seem to have great difficulty imagining what the regime will do next. One reason why is that they keep looking for logical reasons to explain the regime’s actions. Yet the reality is that much of what has happened in Cuba over the last 50 years cannot be explained, except as the whim of a man whose only goal is to be in control of everything Cuban. Castro has a lot in common with Stalin.

The Castro regime simply deems any independent action — however small — to be a challenge to its totalitarian control. Thus, inviting Cuba’s political dissidents to an embassy event is ”a hostile act.” To give a short-wave radio to a Cuban national is, curiously enough, ”a violation of human rights.” Any Cuban daring to voice support for change in Cuba is ”a paid agent” of the United States.

What to do in a situation such as this? The principle that should guide foreign governments is that they should show Cubans that they have friends on the outside.

Foreign governments can start by, at the very least, always insisting on reciprocity in the freedom allowed Castro’s diplomats and embassies to operate in their capitals. This is not what happened. Foreign missions — America’s among them — accede to Castro’s restrictions on how their diplomats and embassies function in Cuba.

Cuba’s diplomats take full advantage of their freedoms in the U.S. capital. They attend congressional hearings, have access to the American media, develop relationships with businessmen and ”progressive” activists, host student groups, speak at universities and enjoy tax-exempt status. Yet U.S. diplomats in Cuba have no similar privileges in Havana. They are subject to petty harassments. The Cuban government goes so far as to detain shipping containers of supplies sent to the U.S. Interests Section in Cuba and has broken into the U.S. diplomatic pouch.

Attempting to appease Cuba’s kidnappers will backfire, as it always has. It is instructive that the refugee crises in 1980 and 1994, which involved 125,000 and 30,000 Cubans respectively, and the 1996 murder of Brothers to the Rescue crews over the Florida Straits occurred at times when Washington actually was trying to improve relations.

Eventually, Cuba’s long nightmare will end. If governments around the world would also shake free of ”the Havana Syndrome,” they might hasten Cuba’s democratic awakening.

Fidel and Raúl Castro will attempt to turn their day of reckoning into a negotiation with Washington — a negotiation excluding dissidents and exiles. Yet it is Cubans who must decide the fate of Cuba. All evidence indicates that President Bush will remain firm. If the Department of State does not flinch, Cuba’s interim president and new leaders will have to talk with and listen to their political opponents. That is what democracy means and that is what the world community should boldly support today.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C.

The Miami Herad Monday, August 27th, 2008

By Frank Calzon

Who in Washington is thinking about Cuba? It’s a simple but politically freighted question. For one thing, we’re headed into an election, and Cuba policy is more complex than most candidates recognize when they start trolling for Cuban-American votes. Every president since JFK has had to get personally involved in the making of Cuba policy. Lastly, President Bush is adeptly keeping the pressure on the Castro brothers. Bush isn’t yielding his authority.

With so many issues to confront — the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan; North Korea’s nuclear ambitions; the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy; the sometimes-testy relations with Russia, China and Europe; stalled immigration reform — it would be easy enough for the president to turn Cuba back to the bureaucrats of the State Department. But Bush just doesn’t think Cuba can be ignored, not given Fidel Castro’s longtime support for international terrorism, his new alliance with socialist-minded Hugo Chávez of Venezuela or Castro’s ability to provoke a new refugee crisis. To Bush, these are national security issues, ergo his commitment to veto any effort to weaken U.S. sanctions against the Cuban regime. That pretty much answers the question, ”Who is thinking about Cuba?” The president is thinking about Cuba, although critics accuse him of ”pandering” to Cuban Americans.

The truth is that Democrats, Republicans and every president since 1960 have courted Cuban-American voters, just like they seek the support of Irish-American, African-American, Polish-American and Jewish voters. When, why and how did taking into account the views of ”hyphenated Americans” who care and stay informed about what goes on in their homelands come to be regarded as ”tainting” U.S. foreign policy?

Collectively, Cuban Americans not only have a lot more information about what happens in Cuba than other Americans, but they also follow the debate over U.S. policy toward Cuba a lot more closely. Their voices and opinions should be heard and respected. In fact, U.S. policy and concerns have been shaped more by Havana’s actions than any political wooing of Cuban-American voters.

The Bush administration gets credit for continuing to articulate its concerns and support for Cuban democracy not only in Florida, but elsewhere. For example:
At the U.S.-European Summit in April, Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel jointly declared their support for ”human rights, freedom of the press and free speech” in Latin America and “in particular [for] the Cuban people as they seek to exercise these same rights.”

In Madrid two months later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointedly and publicly disagreed with Spain’s new policy of accommodation with Havana.

In Prague on June 5, Bush called for European solidarity with the Cuban people: “Cubans are desperate for freedom — as that nation enters a period of transition, we must insist on free elections and free speech and free assembly.”

In Gdansk, Poland, on June 8, Bush said: “It is inspiring for the people of Cuba who want to live in a free society to hear voices from Europe such as yours.”

In Rhode Island on June 28 — with no Cuban Americans in sight — Bush said, ”It is in our interests that Cuba becomes free and it is in the interest of the Cuban people.” When Castro dies, the United States “needs to use the opportunity to call the world together to promote democracy as the alternative to the form of government they have been living with.”

Some consider such statements meaningless or irrelevant. That’s not so in Havana. Cuban officials weigh them carefully and often respond with insults to the United States and our allies. Last week, for example, Havana denounced Hungary as ”an accomplice to the Empire” after that country agreed to grant asylum to Cuban refugees who were at the Guantánamo Naval Base.

Bush has stood up to Castro and developed policies that have thwarted Havana’s periodic threats to unleash another mass exodus of refugees. Around the world, Bush has made it clear that U.S. trade and travel policies will change when Cuba changes, when Cuba releases its political prisoners, demonstrates a respect for international human rights and takes steps to move toward representative democratic government. Castro’s communist regime is also on notice that the United States is as committed to promoting democracy in Cuba as it was in Eastern Europe.

These are the messages — repeated around the world — that give Cubans everywhere hope and that strengthen democracy’s advocates in Cuba.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C.

Sun Sentinel| July 25, 2007

By Frank Calzon

When the U.S. told Havana recently that it will cutback the number of visas issued to Cubans to 10,724 from 20,000, the regime responded as it usually does. It generated a propaganda circus covering up the issues and complaints leading to the United States’ diplomatic protest.Havana is good at manipulating the world’s media. While The Washington Post.com headlined its Reuters story, “U.S. says Cuba obstructing consular work,” most of the world’s headlines reflected Havana’s spin: “Cuba accuses US over entry visas”; “Cuba says U.S. issuing visas too slowly” are representative of the coverage.

A review of the episode presents a different story, and the fault does not necessarily lie within the media. Here is what happened:

•The U.S. informed the Cuban authorities that it would be reducing the number of visas allocated for Cubans. Havana, predictably went ballistic and blasted the U.S. News wires and international media reported Havana’s charges.

•The State Department, which is clearly in the right, was suddenly playing defense. The Administration has informed Congress that Havana is not carrying out its obligations under the migration accord: the Castros severely limit the ability of the U.S. mission to carry out consular and other functions in Cuba by denying visas to American diplomats and regularly harassing those assigned to Cuba. Havana also fails to honor the understanding that American diplomats would be allowed to visit Cubans returned by the U.S. Coast Guard to make sure they are not being punished for trying to escape.

So it is important to ask: Why can’t the U.S. State Department get the facts out to the American public and the world, before Havana spins them in a self-serving way. Even as the Department carries out President Bush’s policy, some diplomats remain so concerned about not giving offense or “antagonizing” Havana despite the regime’s clear breaches of established protocol. But no amount of looking the other way will make the Castro brothers change their hostility toward America.

Cuban officials have broken into the U.S. diplomatic pouch, but the U.S. filed no official protest. Efforts to intimidate American diplomats have included breaking the windshields of their cars, puncturing their tires, burgling their homes, blackmail attempts and scattering excrement inside one diplomat’s locked apartment. In one incident, a cat was taken from the locked home of a diplomat, hammered to death and left on the diplomat’s doorstep.

U.S. officials need to vigorously counter Castro’s propaganda with the facts. Unfortunately some argue that to defend the United States plays into the propaganda strategy of America’s enemies so it is better to “take the attack” and wait for a better day. But that allows Castro’s apologists around the world to pickup his refrain and blame the United States for “failing to meet its obligations” and “triggering” a new crisis with Havana.

In this instance, immediately after notifying Havana, the U.S. Interests Section in Cuba should have called a press conference to announce and explain the cutbacks.

The Castro brothers have a lifetime of anti-Americanism. They are miffed because the Congress won’t this year lift the embargo and President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently denounced in Brussels, Prague, Panama, and Madrid the brutalities of the regime. It is not an easy task to deal with Cuba’s anti American ruthless dictators and cohorts in Caracas and elsewhere, but President Bush’s Cuba policy, to have a chance to succeed, requires the full hearted support of U.S. representatives on the front line in Havana. Anything less is a disservice to the nation they represent.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba, an independent human rights organization. fcalzon@cubacenter.org

The Miami Herald
By CARLOS ALBERTO MONTANER

President Bush summoned just about everyone to the State Department. He wanted to issue an important statement to the Cubans on the island. The ceremony on Wednesday had a feeling of urgency. He was flanked by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, the Cuban-American members of Congress and other notables. His was not an election-year message directed at Florida voters. Those are made while clad in a guayabera and delivered as in a rally. This was something a lot more serious.

Bush talked to all Cubans, but especially to the ruling clique. The Americans have vital and precise information: A huge majority in the apparatus of power wants major changes. A hundred reports have been issued about the debates conducted in Cuba over the problems affecting the country, and the results are almost unanimous: Practically nobody wants to keep the current regime. They begin, timidly, by asking for economic changes and, before you know it, they’re demanding political changes and individual freedoms.

Life beyond communism

That makes sense. How can anyone believe in the virtues of the single party and collectivism after half a century of failures and misery? A huge majority of citizens wants the restoration of property rights, democracy and pluralism. Among the intellectuals, artists and students, the clamor is almost unanimous. The only person who remains convinced of the virtues of communism is Fidel Castro, and his death, preceded by senile dementia, cannot be far off.

Not even Raúl, who was a communist before Fidel, believes in that mumbo-jumbo. That’s why Bush didn’t mention him in his speech. He wanted to leave all options open. That’s why he addressed the armed forces and the security corps. Those who welcome the wishes of society and initiate or facilitate the transition to democracy will have all the support they need from the United States. There is life beyond communism.

There is another key element in Bush’s speech. He prefers freedom to stability. He does not admit the cynical argument (defended by some U.S. military officers) that it is preferable to have a tyranny on the island, keeping things quiet to prevent a massive exodus of Cubans, rather than run the risk of a possibly turbulent transition to democracy. That’s called learning from history.

Throughout the 20th century, the United States sided with repugnant dictatorships while seeking stability and ended up the loser. Upon that twisted reasoning lay the censurable links with Somoza, Trujillo, Batista and Pinochet. The left condemned Washington for that stance. Now, Bush stands on the ethical side of the conflict with Castro’s dictatorship, and the left, mindless of its own contradictions or its lack of democratic values, continues to condemn him.

In turn, Bush and his advisors realize that the interests of the United States can be guaranteed only if a democratic regime with an efficient economic system is installed in Cuba. Prolonging the dictatorship, even if it is an imitation of the Chinese model, only extends the problem; it does not resolve it. Better to have a country shaken by a tumultuous change — as happened in Eastern Europe — than allow in Cuba what happened in Russia. There, there were no mass conflicts, but an anti-American mob of mafiosi and policemen took over the Kremlin.

What the United States prefers is to see a future Cuba that resembles the Czech Republic or Hungary, not Russia or China. Fortunately, that’s exactly what almost all Cubans want.

How will Cuba pay for its needs during the change? Bush also described that: Washington will create an international fund for that purpose. When the time comes, there will be no shortage of funds, advice and support. The idea was put forward two years ago at Princeton University by former Uruguayan President Luis Alberto Lacalle. He even gave it a name: the José Martí Fund.

Petrodollars or starvation

The idea was picked up by FAES, a think tank presided by former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, who incorporated it into a document called ”Latin America: An agenda for freedom,” coordinated by deputy Miguel Angel Cortés. Then, hand-carried by Aznar, the idea entered the White House. The Cubans will not find serious economic obstacles when they transform the dictatorship into a democracy and pass from collectivism to the market and private property.

That part of the message is very important. Fidel Castro is dying, but he’s trying to bequeath to the Cubans a replacement caudillo: Hugo Chávez. And the way to persuade them to accept Chávez is by not giving them any other option: Either they accept the Venezuelan’s leadership, with his petrodollars and multimillion-dollar subsidies (about $3 billion per year), or they starve to death.

But that blackmail is over. There is a way to emerge from the abyss in which El Comandante will leave Cuba. Chávez, whom Cubans detest, can go somewhere else to spout his delirious 21st-century socialism. The Cubans lived their 20th-century version intensely and learned their lesson forever.

©2007 Firmas Press

Sun Sentinel| March 10, 2007

By Frank Calzon

Mario Chanes de Armas, who spent more than 30 years as one of Fidel Castro’s political prisoners, died recently in Miami among the free Cubans where he lived out his last years. He had paid dearly for his love of freedom and defense of democracy.

Still, his heart never left Cuba. That’s where his parents and his son are buried. Imprisoned, he could not watch his son grow up and was denied the right to attend the young man’s funeral when he refused to obey Fidel Castro’s order that he wear the prison uniform of a common criminal.

At one point, Mario Chanes had supported the Castro Revolution. On July 26, 1953, he joined the military uprising that marked the beginning of the revolution against the Batista regime. For that he was sentenced to 15 years in prison, but was included in a 1955 amnesty.

Upon his release, he rejoined the revolutionary movement that achieved victory on Jan. 1, 1959. He believed that date was a new dawn of freedom, but gradually came to realize that Castro was an iron-fisted dictator.

His opposition led to a 30-year prison term, which he served until the very last day. They were years of solitary confinement, beatings, nakedness and coercive denials of food and water, family visits, correspondence and even glimpses of the sun. Ramiro Valdés, the official responsible for the mistreatment of Chanes and thousands of other political prisoners in the ’60s and ’70s, resurfaced recently when he was appointed by Gen. Raul Castro, Cuba’s acting president, to the Council of Ministers.

Chanes was one of the plantados, the unyielding political prisoners held by the Castro government, who refused to participate in the political indoctrination sessions though they were told it would lessen their hardships. Instead the plantados waged numerous hunger strikes, which unfortunately received little notice beyond the island, and other protests.

In 1986 Alain Jaubert published an extraordinary book, Commissariat Aux Archives: Les photos qui falsifient L’Histoire, of photographs that Stalin, Mao and Castro had “doctored,” or altered, to deny and recast history. In the book, which was published in Paris, original and altered photographs are printed side-by-side. Chanes was in prison when the book was published.

One of the original photographs captures the moment of political amnesty when a young Chanes is shown walking out of the Isle of Pines prison alongside Fidel Castro. Yet Chanes’ image magically disappeared from the photograph when it was published by the Cuban government as part of its continuing campaign to rewrite history. Another photo of a group of Castro revolutionaries was harder to alter; Mario Chanes’ face remains in the photo, but his name has been deleted from the caption.

Eventually, after years of neglect, the world began to take notice of Cuba’s political prisoners. Among the human-rights groups that focused its efforts on Chanes was Of Human Rights, a small organization founded by Cuban-American students at Georgetown University. Their work resulted in several members of the U.S. Congress calling for Chanes’ release.

While Chanes remained in prison, his family met with then President George H.W. Bush seeking his assistance. When Mario Chanes was released, President Clinton greeted him at the White House. Chanes also met with other world leaders, including former Czech President Vaclav Havel.

When he arrived in the United States, Chanes continued working for the freedom of Cuba. Leading a group of plantados, he traveled to Geneva for the annual sessions of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

I last talked with Chanes about two years ago, I asked him then about his exemplary life. He talked with sadness about his son, the son that he never got a chance to embrace.

But despite the torture and the suffering he experienced, he said that he never regretted having dedicated his life to the defense of human rights and the building of a better homeland. It never occurred to him that in exchange for better treatment in prison, he could concede and ignore the regime’s crimes, its debasing and taking away the rights of the Cuban people.

He remains an example of the strength and resilience of the human spirit and the unquenchable desire for freedom.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C.

Orlando Sentinel| February 15, 2007

By Frank Calzon
Special to the Sentinel

A recent article in the Sentinel (“House Bill Eases Travel to Cuba”) reports that several members of Congress are introducing legislation to allow Cuban-Americans “to visit their relatives in Cuba as often as they wish and take as much money as they want.”

The congressional sponsors, no doubt, mean well, but in reality an influx of millions of dollars into Havana’s coffers mostly benefits Cuba’s repressive communist regime and will likely delay much needed economic reforms in Cuba.

That’s not a speculative opinion; it’s a reflection on the history of the Cuban regime. When the perennial economic crisis hits Cuba, the regime initiates a few economic reforms to assuage unrest. When the economy improves, the government revokes the reforms.

Facing food shortages in the 1980s, Castro freed farmers to establish “free markets” and independently sell vegetables. When production rose and hunger eased due to these successful policies, Castro shut down the markets. From the perspective of Cuba’s ruling class, securing the island’s food supply will never be as important as quelling the potential threat of successful farmers challenging the government.

When Soviet subsidies ended, Havana authorized opening home restaurants, called paladares. The restaurants could seat no more than 12 people, but the families who ran them could keep the proceeds (after taxes). The government also began licensing independent carpenters, plumbers and other workers. These reforms, however, were aborted with the arrival of European tourists and their new money. For foreigners, it is a sad footnote that Cubans who do not work in the tourist industry are banned from the resorts and beaches. More recently, Hugo Chavez’s government in Venezuela has begun subsidizing Cuba.

It may be counterintuitive to the American mind, but the pattern is well established in Cuba: When tensions ease, reform is scratched. If Americans want to relieve the suffering of the Cuban people, we must continue to link our assistance to economic reform in Cuba.

America’s “Cuba policy” is not stagnant; it has been evolving for some time. U.S. corporations annually sell hundreds of millions of dollars in foodstuffs to the Castro brothers. Those sales are on a “cash and carry” basis because the president and Congress have wisely refused to extend U.S. credit or provide “export insurance.” Cuba already owes billions of dollars to European banks and foreign governments. The real question is whether to extend U.S. credit, whether to put the American taxpayer in the position of subsidizing repression 90 miles away.

Current American policy aims to keep hard currency out of the pockets of Castro’s henchmen. Experience demonstrates that hard currencies tend to flow to Cuba’s privileged ruling classes and are used to finance repression, anti-American propaganda and violence against Americans.

Even so, Cuban-Americans visiting and putting money directly into the hands of relatives have long received special consideration. We can travel to Cuba — if Castro allows it — once every three years to attend to family emergencies and can send $100 a month to relatives. That $100 is five times the average monthly salary paid in Cuba; these remittances have made Cuban-Americans the largest source of humanitarian aid to Cuba.

Family remittances to Cuba don’t have a multiplying economic effect. When Mexican Americans send money to relatives in Mexico, the dollars pass through many hands. Mexicans can buy and sell goods, establish businesses, hire people, buy new or used vehicles. Until that sort of independent economic activity is allowed in Cuba, a surge of dollars only puts money in government coffers.

There is nothing wrong with making periodic adjustments in U.S.-Cuba policy. While considering what adjustments should be made, however, consider too that the current restrictions were imposed in response to undeniable abuse.

The ban on tourist travel should remain. A procedure for licensing Cuban-American travel as exists for journalists, scientists and several other categories of people, may be warranted. Certainly a Cuban-American who goes to visit a seriously ill relative should not have to wait for three years to request another travel license to attend a funeral.

Foreign policy is always a balancing act among conflicting interests. The generosity and humanitarian impulses of the American people are admirable, but those wishing to give Castro the benefit of the doubt must be reminded that the issue has never been the U.S. embargo, but rather Cuba’s freedom from communist tyranny.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.