|
Yahoo!
Thu Aug 15. By Ken Guggenheim, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Despite President George W. Bush's tough line on Cuba, support
for trade sanctions is crumbling in Congress, with anti-Castro activists
struggling to preserve an embargo that has lasted more than 40 years.
"We're working hard and we know the odds are against us. It's like
David vs. Goliath," said Cuban-born Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican
of Florida.
The House of Representatives in late July approved proposals by two
Republican lawmakers that, while leaving the embargo in place, would effectively
ease travel and trade restrictions. The Senate is considering similar changes.
Last week, House Majority Leader Dick Armey told reporters in Kansas that
the United States needs access to Cuban markets. If economic sanctions continue
for another year, he said, "it will be the last year they last."
His comments dealt a blow to pro-embargo lawmakers who were counting on
Armey to use his office to derail efforts to weaken the sanctions.
"I think because he is an economics professor, he should know better
than to pump money into a failed, totalitarian regime," Ros-Lehtinen said.
Armey, who is retiring from Congress this year, once chaired the University of
North Texas' economics department.
If the changes get through Congress, pro-embargo lawmakers have a big ally
in Bush, who has threatened a veto. Bush has had strong support from anti-Castro
Cubans in Florida and his brother Jeb is seeking re-election there as governor.
But a veto would have consequences beyond Cuba. The proposals to ease the
embargo are part of a Treasury and Postal spending bill. A veto would affect
billions of dollars of unrelated programs.
"We know we're asking the president for a lot," Ros-Lehtinen said.
The embargo is intended to force democratic changes on Fidel Castro's
communist island. It prohibits most business dealings with Cuba and limits
travel to certain categories of visitors, including relatives of Cubans,
researchers and working journalists.
For many years, liberal Democrats were practically the only opponents of the
embargo, considering it ineffective and too harsh on Cuban citizens. But after
the Cold War, with Cuba seen as less of a threat to the United States, some
conservative lawmakers became uneasy about government-imposed travel
restrictions. And farm state Republicans saw Cuba as a potentially lucrative
market for agricultural products.
Congress loosened the embargo in 2000 to allow the sale of agricultural
products on a cash-only basis. Cuba has since become the United States' 54th
largest agricultural export market, importing products from 30 states, said John
Kavulich of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council.
"The issue of Cuba has shifted from being one of politics to being one
of commerce, has shifted from being conservative vs. liberal and has shifted
from Democrat vs. Republican," Kavulich said.
Pro-embargo lawmakers can no longer count on the rock-solid Republican
support they once enjoyed.
"The coalition of the traditional leftists, big business and farm
states is a difficult coalition," said Steve Vermillion, an aide to
Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.
Last year, the House voted to prohibit the Treasury Department, which
oversees the embargo, from enforcing the travel ban for a year. The provision,
sponsored by Republican Rep. Jeff Flake, was dropped in the name of national
unity after the Sept. 11 attacks. But it was included in the 2003 Treasury
spending bill approved last month.
Another Flake proposal approved by the House would lift the dlrs 1,200 a
year cap on what Cuban-Americans can send to relatives in Cuba. And a provision
by Republican Rep. Jerry Moran would allow U.S. private financing of food and
medicine sales.
Ros-Lehtinen said these proposals passed because of heavy spending by
lobbyists.
"Money talks," she said. "Those people are voting because
they know where the money is."
But Wayne Smith, a former U.S. diplomat and longtime embargo opponent, said
lawmakers recognize that the embargo has failed.
"It's not rational. It doesn't serve its purpose," he said.
Even if these provisions are approved, their effect is uncertain. Kavulich
said that most travel to Cuba still would be illegal — only Treasury
wouldn't be allowed in 2003 to penalize travelers who violate the ban.
If lawmakers allow Treasury in future years to enforce the travel ban, it
could go after people who traveled illegally in 2003 — or the companies
that had arranged their trips.
"Few if any U.S. companies would alter the manner in which they conduct
transactions with Cuba and travel to Cuba because of the potential liability,"
he said.
On the Net:
Pro-embargo Cuban American National Foundation:
http://www.canf.org/
Anti-embargo Cuba Policy Foundation:
http://www.cubapolicyfoundation.org/ | 
