Miami Herald
Relaxing sanctions could yield little in short run
Havana lacks financing to purchase U.S. goods
By Juan O. Tamay. jtamayo@herald.com. Published Monday, June 26, 2000, in the Miami Herald
Dollar signs dance before the eyes of American farmers and business people as they lobby Congress to lift the ban on U.S. food and medical sales to Cuba. But how much will Havana really buy?
Cuba analysts believe that Havana will be a profitable market in the long run, with 11 million people so close to Florida that most U.S. exporters would be able to undercut competitors' prices through lower freight costs.
``This is a virgin and natural market for us, said John Kavulich of the New York-based U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council. With normalized relations, he added, U.S. exports to Cuba might eventually reach $2 billion to $2.5 billion.
Many older Cubans still remember and admire U.S. brands from pre-Castro days. A Havana man whose Soviet-made Lada car broke down recently cried out in exasperation, ``When this is all over, I am buying a Studebaker!
``I see a market where people want our products, a golden opportunity, said Jerry Hoskyn, a rice farmer from Arkansas, which produces 40 to 45 percent of the U.S. rice crop and 60 percent of its high-quality long-grain rice.
But in the short run, analysts say, the Cuban market appears to be less promising amid doubts over Havana's real interest in buying U.S. products, the true size of its market, questions about just how competitive the United States will be, and Cuba's ability to pay its bills.
A proposal by Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., and Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., to lift most restrictions on food and medical sales to Cuba would ban U.S. government financing for any deals, in essence making all transactions cash-and-carry.
``Cuba is not a commercially meaningful issue until there are basic changes in U.S.-Cuba relations, said Bill Lane, chairman of Washington-based USA*Engage, which opposes all unilateral U.S. economic sanctions on foreign countries.
Although President Fidel Castro has long insisted that his country would not accept a partial lifting of the 38-year-old U.S. embargo, Cuba has recently given mixed signals on whether it would buy U.S. goods.
`IMPORTANT STEP'
Castro last week praised the Ashcroft-Nethercutt initiative as ``a small but important step forward, while Foreign Trade Minister Raúl de la Nuez told a visiting U.S. business group he was ``interested in any deals.
The recent appointment of de la Nuez, who worked in Canada for many years as an executive with the Sherritt mining company, was welcomed by U.S. business people as a sign of Cuba's rising interest in luring U.S. business.
His predecessor, Ricardo Cabrisas, and Vice Minister María Luz B'Hamel ``are old-line conservatives who think that Cuba's trade partner should be Europe, not the United States, one anti-embargo lobbyist said.
But a Cuban specialist on U.S. relations told Cuban television last month that even if the Ashcroft-Nethercutt initiative is approved, actual deals might be ``unachievable because of remaining embargo restrictions.
``Cuba cannot use U.S. dollars because of the embargo, so we would have to see if the Americans accept payment in barter, said Ana Mayra Rodríguez, pronouncing the congressional initiative ``more symbolic than real.
Cuban politics aside, there is the issue of the true size of the Cuban market even if Congress were to lift most restrictions on U.S. food and medical exports.
NOT HUGE MARKET
Anti-embargo groups that once trumpeted the possibility of $1 billion in annual sales now admit that Havana imported only $700 million in food commodities and $40 million in medicines last year.
``It's not China, but it's a market, Lane said with a shrug.
There is also the question of just how competitive U.S. producers are.
The Arkansas Farm Bureau, which sent a 16-member delegation to Cuba last month, believes the state's farmers have the inside track in the race to sell rice to Cuba.
They produce the kind of long-grain rice that Cubans favored in pre-Castro days, and rice remains a staple of the Cuban diet. They can load shipments aboard barges on the Arkansas or Mississippi river and deliver to Cuba through Gulf of Mexico ports within days of receiving an order.
``Between transportation and price, we believe Cuba will have a savings of as much as 30 percent if it buys from us, said farm bureau government affairs director Rodney Baker, who took part in the May 28-31 visit to Havana.
Pedro Alvarez, head of the Cuban government's Alimport food-importing monopoly, told the group that he might buy 50,000 metric tons of rice from U.S. growers -- a small part of the 377,000 tons a year that Cuba now imports from China and Vietnam.
``I said, well, give us three or four years and we'll have all the 400,000, bureau President David Hillman, who was along on the trip, said with a wink and smug smile.
But it's not that simple.
COMPETITION LOOMS
China and Vietnam sell rice at about $170 a metric ton, far lower than the U.S. price of $255 for higher-quality long-grain rice and the world market price of $237. And those two countries are believed to provide low-cost financing for their communist brethren in Havana.
Transportation would indeed be cheaper from Arkansas, but perhaps not enough to offset the lower price and cheap financing, said one U.S. businessman who monitors Cuba's imports and exports.
Alvarez also told the Arkansas delegation that while Cuba might agree to the 30-day financing terms that are usual for food commodity deals, it would prefer one-year financing because of its shortage of hard currency.
Said José Cárdenas, Washington representative for the Cuban American National Foundation: ``The fact is, American farmers can't find one economist who knows Cuba and can explain how it is that a bankrupt Cuban government will be able to pay for one grain of Arkansas rice.
So why would Alvarez say he was interested in Arkansas rice?
``Well, they have a growing tourism industry there, said one Arkansas farmer, hinting that the higher-quality rice might be destined not for Cubans but for tourist hotels where guests pay in desperately needed dollars. ``We're not going to dictate to them who gets the rice.
GRAIN PURCHASES
Similarly, Cuba now buys 78 percent of the one million tons of wheat and flour it imports from France because Paris offers subsidized financing for up to $180 million a year, said the U.S. businessman who monitors Cuban trade.
Canada and Argentina, which offer lower prices and about equal transportation costs but no special financing, supply only 14 and 6 percent of Cuba's imports, he added.
``In the short term, some of the talk about U.S. sales to the Cuba market is symbolic, because what Cuba really needs for significant trade deals is U.S. financing, USA*Engage's Lane said.
And that's the other rub.
Cuba defaulted on its foreign debt in 1986, and has been living hand-to-mouth since the Soviet Union collapsed and ended its subsidies of $4 billion to $6 billion a year to the island.
Cuba has since negotiated individual refinancing deals with six of its largest or most friendly trade partners, such as Spain and Canada, but still has a $10 billion foreign debt. It has no access to low-cost World Bank or International Monetary Fund credits because of U.S. vetoes.
PAYMENT QUESTIONS
Its trade is carried out largely on short-term commercial bank terms -- often as high as 20 percent for financing imports needed for the sugar harvest -- and the island has a reputation for paying late.
``They always pay, but it might take longer than negotiated while the Cubans figure out where to rob Peter to pay Paul, said a Spanish lawyer involved in several trade deals with Cuba.
One cautionary tale for the Arkansas rice farmers: The government of Thailand announced last month that it had canceled an agreed sale of 100,000 metric tons of rice to Alimport, officially part of the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade.
Thai officials had announced the deal in February, saying that Alimport agreed to pay $225 a metric ton for monthly deliveries of 10,000 to 20,000 tons until the end of 2000, with financing terms of 365 days.
But Alimport never provided a letter of credit for the deal, the Thai announcement said. It was not clear whether the Thais had delivered any rice to Cuba before the deal broke down, or whether Cuba had paid for it.
``In the short term, the prospects may be limited, said Pamela Falk, a New York lawyer who specializes in Cuba trade issues. ``But the bigger picture is unlimited for these two countries just 90 miles apart.
Raul Castro tells children Cuba is proud of them
Posted at 12:13 p.m. EDT Sunday, June 25, 2000
HAVANA -- (AP) -- Raul Castro, President Fidel Castro's brother and his presumed successor, sent a handwritten message of support to Cuba's children and young ``pioneers'' who have rallied to bring home Elian Gonzalez.
``We are proud of all of you and we congratulate you for this grand demonstration of patriotism,'' said the letter, published Sunday in Juventude Rebelde, the official newspaper of Cuban youth.
The simply-written letter was directed to the young participants in Saturday's 400,000-strong rally for Elian in Holguin, about 730 kilometers east of the capital, Havana.
Raul Castro, 69, headed the rally, as he has at several other demonstrations that have taken place each Saturday across the country in the months since 6-year-old Elian was found off the Florida coast in November. Children have figured prominently in the rallies, either as participants,
speakers, singers or dancers.
On June 12, the government organized a rally specifically for children in which an estimated 150,000 students demonstrated in Havana for the return of Elian.
``In this great battle, all the Cuban pioneers have participated with the rest of the country,'' said the letter, which was signed by Raul Castro -- ``a Holguin pioneer converted into an adult.''
Fidel Castro has endorsed his brother, the No. 2 man in both Cuba's Communist Party and the government's ruling Council of State, as well as head of the armed forces, as his successor.
Elian, who was rescued after his mother and 10 others perished in a sea journey to the United States, has been living in the Washington area since he was reunited with his father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez on April 22.
On Friday, a federal appeals court refused to review again an appeal by Elian's Miami relatives who are trying to keep him in the United States, and said the stay keeping him in the United States would expire on Wednesday.
The relatives have said they would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Full court rejects Elián asylum plea
By Jay Weaver, Eunice Ponce And Andres Viglucci. aviglucci@herald.com. Published Saturday, June 24, 2000, in the Miami Herald
The politically charged seven-month custody battle over Elián González drew closer to an end Friday, when a federal appeals court in Atlanta firmly rejected the latest legal pleas from his Miami relatives and cleared the way for the boy's return to Cuba next Wednesday.
Only the U.S. Supreme Court now stands in the way of Elián's departure from the United States. Independent legal experts, however, said the chances of high court intervention in the case are remote.
Lawyers for the boy's Miami relatives said they planned to ask the Supreme Court on Monday for an emergency order blocking Elián's departure, but acknowledged they are running out of options and time.
``If the Supreme Court injunction is denied, there is nothing to prevent Elián from being removed to Cuba very quickly,'' said Kendall Coffey, the relatives' lead attorney. ``It's a process of a finite number of days.''
In Washington, Gregory Craig, the attorney for Elián's father, said he planned to meet with his client over the weekend to discuss his plans. Juan Miguel González, who has been living in the capital with Elián during the appeal process, felt ``grateful'' for Friday's court
decision, Craig said.
``He's looking forward to resuming a normal life with friends and family,'' Craig said.
Friday's ruling marks the fourth legal setback for Lázaro González in state and federal courts.
In a short opinion, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider the June 1 ruling that upheld the INS decision to deny Elián a political asylum hearing.
INS HAD AUTHORITY
Writing for the same three-judge panel that issued the earlier ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge James L. Edmondson again rejected the relatives' contention that INS officials had overstepped their authority in deciding that only Elián's father could apply for asylum on behalf of the 6-year-old
boy.
In their appeal, the relatives' lawyers said a recent Supreme Court involving a Texas labor law case was a precedent showing that the court could overturn the INS decision. But Edmondson wrote that the Texas case, Christensen v. Harris County, was irrelevant.
``We thought that Christensen -- which involved no immigration law, no foreign policy considerations, and no kind of agency adjudication -- was noncrucial to this case,'' the ruling said.
Edmondson said an order by the appeals court that kept the boy in the United States will expire at 4 p.m. Wednesday, leaving Juan Miguel González free to take his son home.
RELATIVES HAVE HOPE
The boy's Miami relatives, once vehemently vocal about their desire to keep Elián in the United States, made no public appearances or comments. A spokesman for the family, Armando Gutiérrez, said they would persist in their effort to block the boy's return to his communist
homeland.
``They are confident in God. And they believe God will save him, just as he did in the water,'' Gutiérrez said. ``They are not going to give up hope.''
Elián's return to Cuba would end a drawn-out saga that bitterly divided his family, provoked angry demonstrations and a civil disturbance by Cuban exiles in Miami, traced rare common ground between the Clinton administration and Cuba's Communist government, and dominated media coverage
for weeks on end.
González has sought the return of his son to Cuba since Elián was rescued at sea on Thanksgiving Day last year. The boy, found floating on an inner tube off Fort Lauderdale, was one of only three survivors of an ill-fated journey from Cuba that claimed the life of his mother and 10
others.
TEST OF WILLS
But Elián's great uncle in Miami, Lázaro González, waged a legal and political battle to keep the boy, rallying fervid support from the exile community against the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which ruled that only his father could decide his fate. The test of
wills culminated in an April 22 raid on González's Little Havana home by armed federal agents, who reunited Elián with his father in Washington.
Although the Miami relatives asked that the full 12-member appeals court reconsider the case, none of the judges requested a vote on taking up the question, Edmondson wrote -- an indication that the full court regards the matter as closed, legal experts said.
``The fact that not a single judge on the 11th Circuit favored even polling the court on rehearing the case is an indication of how much consensus there was behind this decision,'' said Stephen Legomsky, a professor of immigration law at Washington University in St. Louis. ``The arguments in
favor of the 11th Circuit's decision seem invincible.''
Legomsky said the relatives are unlikely to fare any better at the Supreme Court, which rarely hears appeals unless they pose a conflict with other decisions across the country, or raise new or unusual legal questions with potentially broad impact.
COURT PROCEDURES
A single justice can grant a stay barring the boy's departure, or refer the question of a stay to the full court. Four of the nine Supreme Court justices must then agree to hear an appeal. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is assigned to hear emergency matters from the 11th circuit.
The relatives' case, however, may prove of little interest to the court because it was decided along long-established legal precedents, Legomsky and others said.
Federal judges have long recognized that the INS has broad discretion to enforce immigration laws and are reluctant to second-guess agency decisions unless they are clearly arbitrary or unreasonable.
In Elián's case, three federal opinions have said, the INS acted reasonably and within its legal authority in deciding the boy was too young to press an asylum claim over his father's objections.
In their latest plea, the Miami relatives' legal team attempted to raise a new argument by relying on the Supreme Court decision in the Texas case, which pitted sheriff's deputies against Harris County over use of compensatory time. The U.S. Department of Labor issued an opinion letter
supporting the deputies.
The high court said the letter carried little legal weight because it was not based on a formal regulation -- a conclusion the Miami relatives' lawyers said undermined the INS position in Elián's case.
Because immigration law does not address how a 6-year-old child can apply for asylum, the INS essentially had to tailor its policy to the case. The relatives' lawyers argued that such improvised policy is open to judicial scrutiny.
On Friday, the appeals court strongly disagreed.
Edmondson wrote that the Labor Department's part in the Texas case, Christensen v. Harris County, was peripheral, unlike the INS's central role in Elián's case.
The relatives' appeal to the Supreme Court will likely raise the argument anew.
The Miami relatives' legal team may also raise a secondary argument: that an unadmitted alien such as Elián has a constitutional right to apply for asylum, even though the 11th Circuit concluded in a 1984 case that such aliens ``have no constitutional rights with regard to their
applications.''
That decision, involving the detention of Haitian refugees, was upheld by the Supreme Court on nonconstitutional grounds the following year.
On Friday, Edmondson dismissed the constitutional issue in a footnote, saying the 11th Circuit Court was ``bound'' by its earlier decision.
Herald staff writer Frank Davies contributed to this report.
Cuban exiles sadly resigned to Elián's fate
Protest vote against Democratic White House urged in November
By Elaine De Valle. edevalle@herald.com. Published Saturday, June 24, 2000, in the Miami Herald
Reaction in South Florida's Cuban-American community to the latest Elián González court decision -- or defeat, in the view of many -- was subdued Friday.
By late afternoon, there were no protests. No flag-waving on the corners. No traffic blocking or work stoppages. Not even a lot of bristling on Miami Cuban radio.
Only WWFE-La Poderosa (670 AM) talked about the judges' ruling not to grant the family an appeal of an asylum request denial. And commentators did so without calls to block the streets or paralyze the airport. Their biggest weapon, they said, would come in November -- with the vote to oust the
Democratic administration from the White House.
In fact, the only action planned by Friday night was one on the other side of the issue. The Antonio Maceo Brigade, an anti-embargo group that supports the Castro government, planned a demonstration today in front of the Immigration and Naturalization Service building on Biscayne Boulevard to
``demand that Elián González be allowed to return immediately to his home in Cuba.''
Anti-Castro groups had no immediate plans for protests.
At the Little Havana headquarters for Brigade 2506, some still hoped that a higher court would reverse the decision. ``I don't think the community should do anything until we hear from the Supreme Court,'' said member Ernesto Silla.
SENSE OF LOSS
But some radio commentators told frustrated and saddened listeners that they had to be realistic. The general expectation was that the exile community had already lost their case.
Miami-Dade Mayor Alex Penelas, while personally disappointed, agreed with that summation.
``Personally, I had hoped not only for the sake of Elián, but for the sake of other similarly situated children in this country, that the court of appeals would have looked at the case,'' said Penelas, who added that he had not heard of any planned protests for the weekend.
``I think most people have already accepted the fact that any further judicial relief is somewhat of a long shot,'' he said. ``A lot of people were holding out hope but I don't think they are surprised by the ruling. Disappointed, but not overly surprised.''
In cafeterias, beauty salons and gas stations from Hialeah to Westchester, people expressed a feeling of loss. The decision Friday seemed like an anticlimax to the federal raid that swept the boy from his Little Havana home exactly two months earlier.
ELIAN CASE A SYMBOL
Only four people -- outnumbered by journalists -- quietly stood in front of the Little Havana home where the boy's relatives used to live, where huge congregations of hundreds of supporters showed up the day of the raid, and for days after.
One man carried a sign that read, ``Reno Resign Now.''
Ramon Raul Sanchez, founder of the Democracia Movement and one of the Cuban exile leaders who regularly starts demonstrations, said his group had no plans to protest the decision.
``What we are doing is working on a campaign for the reunification of the Cuban family and the reintegration of the Cuban people to their island,'' Sanchez said. ``Elián González is only a symptom of a much larger problem: the division of the Cuban family by the intolerance of the
Cuban government.''
Democracia members are also organizing a flotilla, Sanchez said, to follow Elián home if he is returned to Cuba.
The flotilla -- the group's first since December -- would come a few weeks after Elián is returned to Cuba, Sanchez said.
Court's ruling
Published Saturday, June 24, 2000, in the Miami Herald
Here is the 11th U.S. Circuit Court's ruling in the Elián González case:
Our decision of 1 June hung largely on two ideas: (1) that the policy adopted by the INS in this case -- a policy developed in what we called ``informal adjudication'' -- was due ``some deference'' because 8 U.S.C. 1158(a) was silent on the precise question at issue and because the INS had the
duty to set how the statute was to be applied when the statute was silent, and (2) that the level of deference due the INS policy was strengthened -- becoming ``considerable'' -- when we also took into account the foreign policy implications of the administrative decisions dealing with immigration.
Among other things, our opinion spoke of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc. (1984).
When our opinion was written, we knew of Christensen v. Harris County, (1 May 2000), a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) decision. But no lawyer in this case had cited or argued Christensen to us. More important, we thought that Christensen -- which involved no immigration law, no foreign policy
considerations, and no kind of agency adjudication -- was noncrucial to this case. So, we never mentioned Christensen.
Now in the petition for rehearing, Plaintiff stresses Christensen. Therefore, we will write briefly about it.
First, Christensen involved an opinion letter from the Department of Labor giving advice to Harris County, Texas. The letter, in itself, did not decide Harris County's rights; it did not stop and did not purport to be able to stop Harris County from acting against the advice given. The letter
was in no way binding on Harris County. And later when Christensen arose as active litigation, Harris County was not sued by the Department of Labor, but by private citizens: county employees who contended that Harris County was misconstruing the FLSA. The Supreme Court said that the administrative
position taken in the opinion letter was not due Chevron deference. As we read it, the Supreme Court's opinion also indicated that the view of the pertinent statute taken in the opinion letter was wrong and unreasonable: ``this view is exactly backwards.''
In our case, the INS did directly decide Plaintiff's specific right to file certain asylum applications under the pertinent statute and did so after receiving and weighing some evidence. The INS acted in the context of an actual and concrete dispute with and before that agency. The INS decision
was final and binding on Plaintiff unless he, in effect, appealed it to a court. The sovereign power of the United States -- per the INS and the Attorney General -- had determined that neither Plaintiff himself nor Lázaro González could file for asylum on Plaintiff's behalf over the
objections of Plaintiff's father. This kind of administrative decisionmaking -- which we think no one can seriously question was the deliberate and official position of the pertinent agencies of the executive branch of our government -- is substantially different from and more than the opinion
letter in Christensen. We considered the administrative decision making in this case to be adjudication and to be outside Christensen's scope. In our view, to apply Christensen to this case would not be following Christensen, but would be an extension of Christensen.
Second, we thought, even when Christensen does apply, administrative decisions of agencies are still due some deference. And we believed that under Chevron or Christensen, when the foreign-policy impact of immigration law was added as aseparate source of judicial deference, we were justified in
exercising the judicial restraint that marked our opinion. In addition, we did conclude that the executive branch decisions under section 1158 were reasoned and reasonable.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED; and no member of this panel nor other Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court bepolled on rehearing en banc, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
The mandate of this court will issue on Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 4:00 in the afternoon (Atlanta time). A filing of a motion to stay the issuance of the mandate will not extend the time for the issuance of the mandate. Expect no motions to stay the issuance of the mandate to be granted. All
injunctions in this case will dissolve on Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 4:00 in the afternoon (Atlanta time). All further requests for stays or for injunctive relief should be directed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Farmers fuel drive to repeal sanctions
Big business eyes sales to Havana
By Juan O. Tamayo. jtamayo@herald.com Published Sunday, June 25, 2000, in the Miami Herald. First of three parts
STUTTGART, Ark. -- Rice grower David Hillman may not know much about Cuba, but his business acumen and bedrock belief in American democracy have made him join a blossoming campaign to ease the U.S. embargo on Havana.
The 50,000 metric tons of rice that Cuba might buy from U.S. growers could mean a $20 million sale, Hillman said, plus higher overall rice prices at a time when prices are depressed and part of last year's record crop is sitting in silos.
``And when Cubans see what Americans have, they will want the same. We'll be bringing sunlight there, added Hillman, a fourth-generation farmer from Stuttgart -- population 10,420, ``The Rice and Duck Capital of the World.
Right or wrong, it is people like Hillman who are helping to give the anti-embargo lobby unprecedented strength in the battle to widen existing holes in the sanctions and punch new ones.
For the first time, an American icon, the farmer, has joined big business in attacking the sanctions. For the first time, the anti-sanctions lobby appears to be outspending the anti-Castro lobby. For the first time since the era of President Jimmy Carter, from 1977 to 1981, the White House is
strongly encouraging U.S.-Cuba contacts.
On Capitol Hill, the decades-old debate on lifting or keeping the embargo has shifted fundamentally to a search for common ground on policies that help the Cuban people while isolating President Fidel Castro's government.
Republican conservatives like Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., and Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., are now pushing to lift most restrictions on food and medical sales to Cuba. Even anti-communist crusader Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., voted recently for Ashcroft's proposal.
Meanwhile, President Clinton's decision this month to allow food and medical sales to North Korea, the congressional debate on giving China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status and the debate over the Elián González case have combined to remind Americans that U.S. policy toward
Cuba remains an anachronism of the Cold War, an unresolved dilemma.
Few believe the embargo can be completely lifted until the 73-year-old Castro leaves power. But even supporters of the sanctions admit the new dynamics of the battle are making their work much more difficult.
"The farm lobby and `big business' coming together have definitely altered the political landscape. . . . For the first time, there is a stalwart, bona fide movement against sanctions, said Jose Cardenas, Washington representative for the Cuban American National Foundation.
FLUCTUATING POLICY
Since President John F. Kennedy imposed trade and travel sanctions on Cuba on Feb. 3, 1962, the embargo has been periodically eased or tightened by U.S. presidents in what amounted to much movement but little change.
Initially designed to punish Castro for seizing U.S. properties in Cuba, embracing the Soviet Union and trying to subvert many of his Latin American neighbors, the embargo over time appeared to become more of a tradition than a policy.
Even the end of the Cold War in 1989 failed to change its status as a secondary issue for U.S. foreign policy, usually fought over only by the Cuban exile lobby and liberal politicians and church groups.
``The biggest success of the embargo may be that it kept people from thinking about Cuba, said Bill Lane, chairman of USA*Engage, a Washington group pushing to end all unilateral U.S. sanctions on foreign nations.
All that has changed, however.
SANCTIONS AT ISSUE
Driving the burgeoning anti-embargo lobby today is the campaign by farmers, agricultural industries and big business to lift all unilateral U.S. economic sanctions, but especially those on Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Sudan.
The Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, has estimated that sanctions on 26 nations in 1995 alone cost U.S. producers at least $15 billion in lost sales and 200,000 jobs.
Cuba is a small part of that loss, with a population of only 11 million, total 1999 imports of $3.8 billion, and government coffers all but empty since the end of massive Soviet subsidies in 1991.
Hillman, the Arkansas grower, said the possible 40,000-ton rice sale that Cuban officials mentioned when he and 15 other Arkansans visited Havana last month ``may mean my paying off a tractor in six years instead of seven.
But compared to pariah nations such as Iraq and Iran, Cuba is seen by the anti-sanctions lobby as ``the weakest link in the chain, said Dan Fisk, a former Helms aide now with the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.
BUSINESS ALLIANCES
Farm and industrial equipment makers Caterpillar and Ingersoll-Rand back USA*Engage, while General Electric, Citibank, Boeing, pharmaceuticals manufacturer SmithKline Beecham, the Carlson travel agency and the Radisson hotel empire also have joined the anti-embargo lobby.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce helped found Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba with backing from David Rockefeller, chairman of his family trust, and Dwayne Andreas, head of food giant Archer Daniels Midland.
Andreas is also a top member of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, a New York group that monitors business and investment opportunities on the island.
More importantly, big business has put big bucks behind the anti-embargo campaign.
"Big business has been dumping tons of money into this, said Katie Donahue, a Washington consultant who works with anti-embargo groups. Cardenas, of the Cuban American National Foundation, added, ``They are vastly outspending us.
A USA*Engage official said the group has spent $1 million a year on a lobbying, public relations and educational campaign against the embargo since it was founded in 1997 -- close to the $3.2 million that CANF members and political action committees were reported to have donated to political
candidates from 1981 to 1997.
Agri-business contributions to candidates for the 1999-2000 electoral cycle have been estimated at $25.3 million -- only a tiny part of it for anti-embargo lobbying, but a big punch nevertheless.
AN OPENING TO CUBA
Meanwhile, the Clinton administration's encouragement of increased U.S.-Cuba contacts has sparked a significant increase in the number of Americans visiting the island and fueled the anti-embargo lobby.
One reason for the rising opposition to the embargo, said John Kavulich, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, has been the U.S. government's change in attitude ``from discouraging U.S. business contacts with Cuba, from saying, `Why would you want to?' to asking, `How can we
help you?' ''
While the visits' impact inside Cuba remains uncertain, most visitors have returned home persuaded that the embargo is hurting the Cuban people, not the Castro government, by denying them access to U.S. goods.
``After seeing Cuba, I am firmly convinced that you can have the embargo for 1,000 years and it will hurt no one but the American farmer and the Cuban people, said Hillman, the rice grower, now also president of the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation.
Critics of Clinton say that's what he secretly wants -- to boost anti-embargo forces so they will force Congress to ease the sanctions. ``This president has moved away from a policy of confronting Castro to one of mollifying him, said Fisk of the Heritage Foundation.
Copyright 2000 Miami Herald |