By Ollie North. MSNBC, April 14, 2000
Clinton’s romance with Cuba: The real agenda over Elian
WASHINGTON, April 13 — The sordid drama continues over Elian Gonzalez, but let’s face facts: No matter how much wrangling occurs between his Miami relatives and the Janet Reno, the boy’s fate is sealed: Sooner or later, he’s going back to Cuba. And Fidel Castro and the
Clinton-Gore Administration can get back into bed — with each other.
FOR FOUR MONTHS, the media maelstrom swirling around the little refugee has been highly troublesome to power brokers in Havana, Washington and Wall Street. Not because they actually gave a hoot about where the child lived, or with whom, but because he was getting in the way of business.
Now that Janet Reno has ridden to the rescue and dispatched with the "Elian problem," they can get back to negotiating an end to U.S. sanctions against the Western Hemisphere’s last communist dictator.
FROM THUG TO PARTNER
For four decades, American presidents — Democrat and Republican — treated Fidel Castro like the thug that he is. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Bush all had to contend with Castro’s routine repression of the 11 million Cuban people. All had to deal
with unforeseen waves of refugees when Castro periodically tightened his iron fist. Some had to deal with direct risks to U.S. security — like Soviet nuclear missiles, bomber bases and intelligence collection sites 90 miles from our shores. Others had to confront Castro’s indirect threats —
Cuban drug running and support for far flung communist insurgencies and revolutions — from Africa to Latin America and the Caribbean. And for nearly 40 years, a bipartisan majority in Congress supported these presidents in maintaining economic sanctions against Cuba and withholding full
diplomatic recognition for the Havana regime. All that is about to end — and not a minute too soon for William The Impeached.
FOR LOVE AND MONEY
Most observers seem to think that the Clinton-Gore campaign slogan, "It’s The Economy, Stupid!" is a domestic policy. It’s not. It’s part of William J. Clinton’s world view: I feel your pain. If I can help you improve your economy, then you’ll be better
off and we can have peace, love and harmony. That’s what was behind his "normalization" of relations with Hanoi in 1994. That’s what is motivating his push for permanent MFN status and WTO membership for Communist China. And that’s why he now wants to end the economic
sanctions against the Castro regime in Havana. And he has some very powerful allies in his cause.
This week, as Janet Reno was wielding the awesome power of the U.S. government to end the sad saga of Elian Gonzalez, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota was saying that the "unique nature of our relationship with Cuba…ought to be revisited." Daschele’s
words were widely ignored. So too was last week’s government-sanctioned trip to Cuba by 150 U.S. entrepreneurs — one of the largest delegations of American businessmen and women to visit the island since the Castro regime nationalized almost all private enterprises in 1959. The business
leaders departed Havana just as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan arrived to address representatives of the so-called G77 nations who came to Cuba to grouse about how much more the American taxpayers should be doing to finance their socialist, and sometimes repressive governments.
FLACKING FOR CUBA
While there, Annan, apparently forgetting that his UN Human Rights Commission had just branded Castro’s government as "…one of the world’s most repressive abusers of human rights," took shots at the American embargo instead: "Notwithstanding the embargo,"
Annan declared, "Cuba’s achievements in social development are impressive…Cuba should be the envy of many other nations ostensibly far richer." Perhaps Annan intends to become a used car salesman in his homeland of Ghana once his stint as secretary general is up.
The problem for Clinton, Annan — and the American business leaders who see the island of Cuba as a "market" and a "labor pool" — is the law. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act, better known as Helms-Burton, was enacted in 1996 to
promote three objectives: to strengthen international sanctions against the brutal Castro government; to support and encourage a free and independent Cuba and to protect the interests of Americans whose property was confiscated by Castro’s government.
But even if the law was somehow changed and sanctions were lifted, what would it do for the people of Cuba? Frank Calzon, Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, says that those who argue for American investment in Cuba are well intentioned, but misguided. Castro’s
government will benefit, not the Cuban people. Calzon told me: "All the companies that do business in Cuba pay the Cuban government $9,500 a year per worker, and then the Cuban government pays the Cuban worker $20 a month."
THE REAL AGENDA
And lifting sanctions on Cuba won’t permit the good people of the island to avail themselves of U.S. made consumer products. Unless the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank bail out the Castro regime with billions in U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, they can’t afford
our computers, refrigerators, cars, trucks or even tires. Madeleine Albright’s own State Department admits as much: "The Cuban economy is still recovering from a decline in gross domestic product of at least 35 percent …due to the loss of Soviet subsidies." So, if the Cuban
people don’t have cash to buy American products, why are American businesses so eager to get into Castro’s island paradise? Simple. They want access to cheap, government-controlled labor so they can produce goods more cheaply and ship them back to the U.S. market.
How dare little Elian get in the way of business?
Ollie North served on the staff of President Reagan’s National Security Council and played a major role in the Iran-Contra affair. He is co-host, with Paul Begala, of "Equal Time," 6:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday on MSNBC cable.
For opposing view, Paul Begala |