Published Wednesday, June 21, 2000, in the Miami Herald
Cuba panel rejected
Plan linked to defense bill
By Ana Radelat. Special to The Herald
WASHINGTON -- Senate supporters of the movement to ease commercial and diplomatic relations with Cuba failed to win approval Tuesday for a bill that would require the White House to create a panel to review U.S. policy and recommend changes, if needed.
The Senate voted 59-41 to reject the proposal, which was sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.
Several Senate Republicans who backed the proposal voted to kill the measure after the plan's main champion, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., abandoned his efforts to include the legislation in the bill.
Warner, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he continued to be ``ideologically committed'' to the formation of a Cuba policy panel, but felt his amendment would hinder approval of the bill that maps out Pentagon spending for next year. He said he planned bring up the issue again.
But Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., a longtime supporter of U.S. sanctions on Cuba, argued that Cuba policy should not change until Cuban President Fidel Castro initiates democratic reforms. ``We do not abuse Cuba,'' Torricelli said. ``Fidel Castro abuses Cuba.''
Sen. Connie Mack, R-Fla., called the idea of a Cuba commission ``so blatantly political that it borders on being silly.''
Meanwhile, a deadlock continued in the House over legislation that would ease restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba and other nations under U.S. sanctions. Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., sponsor of a bill to exempt the sale of food and medicine from the trade embargo, hoped to
fashion a compromise that would allow the sales on a cash-only basis.
An aide to Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., said the lawmaker is asking the House to insist on other restrictions.
Jailed Cuban doctors urge families `not to worry'
Conditions worsen as prisoners are moved to undisclosed cells
By Sandra Marquez Garcia. smarquez@herald.com
HARARE, Zimbabwe -- In their first public statement since they managed to slip a desperate plea for help into the hand of an airline employee, the two Cuban doctors jailed in Zimbabwe wrote Tuesday to their families, telling them they loved them and urging them ``not to worry for us.''
The note -- scrawled on a piece of plain stationary -- was handed to a visitor at the prison where the doctors are being held under what appear to be increasingly harsh conditions.
It was written by Leonel Córdova Rodríguez, 31, and signed on behalf of himself and Noris Peña Martínez, 25.
``We are fine, do not worry for us,'' the note states. ``We love you and we miss you.''
But even though the message sounded confident, a diplomat familiar with their situation said Córdova and Peñas mental state has deteriorated after being moved to an undisclosed detention center where officials have said the pair deserve to be treated just like other prisoners.
At the Goromonzi Remand Center -- a rural police outpost where pretrial prisoners are held on the outskirts of the capital -- the two were housed in individual prison cells and did not mingle with other prisoners, but this will probably change in their new prison.
For the last four days, the jailed doctors have not been allowed to bathe or brush their teeth. They are only allowed two 15-minute breaks from their cell.
UNHCR officials have tried to lift the doctors' spirits with deliveries of prepared food.
In the note handed to his visitor, Córdova included a personal message for his wife, Rosalba, who was ordered to move out of the familys home in Cuba with their three children after his defection.
``To Rosy, trust in me and do not let yourself be manipulated,'' Córdova wrote.
A part of the note addressed to Peñas parents said: ``I love you with my life. God is with us. Soon you will have news.''
Until recently, the two Cuban doctors were being held at the Goromonzi Remand Center. A spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said that they had been transferred to another facility. But the diplomat following their case said their situation seems to have deteriorated at their
new detention center.
Diplomats are continuing to work for the Cuban doctors' release, but the matter is thought to rest in the hands of President Robert Mugabe and it remains unclear when he will resolve their case.
A directive by Cuban President Fidel Castro, urging Mugabe, a long-time ally, not to allow the doctors to travel to the United States appears to have held up their release.
The two doctors arrived in Zimbabwe in March as part of a contingent of some 150 Cuban medical professionals on a ``doctor diplomacy'' mission to revive the countrys ailing health-care system. They were seized and nearly deported back to Cuba on June 2, but an Air France crew in Johannesburg,
South Africa, refused to board the frantic doctors after they slipped a note to a steward claiming they were being kidnapped.
County tries to save Cuba policy
By Don Finefrock. dfinefrock@herald.com
Stunned by a Supreme Court ruling that effectively guts the county's ban on business dealings with Cuba, its artists and trading partners, Miami-Dade commissioners sought Tuesday to salvage as much of that policy as possible.
``We are not going to stay quiet,'' vowed Miami-Dade Commissioner Javier Souto, who is one of seven Cuban Americans on the 13-member commission and a veteran of the Bay of Pigs. ``There are probably a million Cubans who came here because of a guy who violates all the human rights principles. . .
. It is sad and cruel to see this county use the [tax] money paid by these same Cubans to help rich companies get richer by doing business with the Communist dictatorship of Cuba.''
The commission met on the heels of a Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar law in Massachusetts that banned business dealings with Myanmar, formerly Burma. All nine justices said that law encroached on federal policy.
Although the ruling did not address the Miami-Dade rule, attorneys for the county said the decision spelled the end of the local policy.
Miami-Dade business leaders said Tuesday they doubt the ruling will have much practical effect on county contracts. But people in arts organizations funded by the county or hoping to use county-owned halls welcomed the chance to bring Cuban artists to South Florida.
Laura Quinlan, director of the Rhythm Foundation, said she hopes to present Los Muñequitos de Matanzas, Cuba's most famous traditional rumba group.
``I have chills. I'm going to call the agent now,'' Quinlan said. ``I always wanted to do Muñequitos, but I never even thought about it, because why think about things you can't do.''
Souto raised the issue late Tuesday before the commission in hopes of resurrecting some portion of the county's policy, but attorneys held out little hope.
First Assistant County Attorney Murray Greenberg said commissioners had few options.
``This commission could urge the congressional delegation and Congress to remove the preemption,'' he said. ``That is about the best we can do.''
Another option: The county could divest itself of any investments in companies with links to Cuba. But Greenberg said he knew of no such holdings.
Souto had another suggestion:
The county could ask companies bidding on Miami-Dade contracts to volunteer information on their business dealings. Commissioners would then be free to vote their conscience, he said.
``What is going to stop us from asking in the bid documents we require, where are your goods made, for instance, and where are your goods sold,'' he said.
``What I do with my vote is my business.''
But Greenberg cautioned that the strategy could run afoul of the ruling.
``You can vote any way you want,'' he said. ``The problem becomes if the record that goes up to the court shows that we are asking questions that are legally prohibited . . . we are going to have a legally indefensible policy.''
Assistant County Attorney Robert Cuevas said the ruling appeared to prohibit a return to the more lenient Cuba policy in effect prior to 1996. Under that policy, the county asked companies bidding for its business whether they were in compliance with the federal embargo of Cuba.
The chief problem: The previous county policy imposed additional sanctions on companies or individuals that violated the embargo, by denying them the right to bid on county contracts. That appears to be illegal under the new ruling, Cuevas said.
The commission tightened the policy in 1996 to ban all county business dealings with companies that had ties to Cuba, not just those that violated the embargo.
The federal law carves out several exemptions to the embargo, for telecommunications, food and medicine, and cultural exchanges.
Under the 1996 policy, the county refused to support arts groups that had ties to Cuba, or to allow promoters who wanted to promote Cuban artists to rent county facilities.
The broader reach of the 1996 angered many, especially leaders in the arts community. Several arts groups recently went to court to challenge the county policy.
Beth Boone, executive director of the Miami Light Project, had already decided to go ahead with plans to present Grupo Vocal Desandan, a Cuban music group descended from Haitians, next season. Because she thought the Cuba policy might still be in effect, she had prepared a version of her budget
without county grants.
Now she said she would put them back in.
``Person to person contact and exchange is at the heart of why art and cultural exchange was always exempt from embargo,'' she said.
Although the 1996 policy had wide repercussions for local arts groups, the impact on county business dealings was less sweeping.
Cuevas, the assistant county attorney, could recall only one instance in which a company was disqualified from bidding on a county job because of its ties to Cuba.
Allders International of the United Kingdom was disqualified from bidding on a duty-free contract at Miami International Airport prior to 1996 because of its business links to Cuba. Allders protested the ruling and lost.
Although Cuevas could not recall another instance, the policy may have had a broader impact. County officials could not say how many companies declined to bid on county jobs because of the policy.
The issue often popped up in contract discussions before the board and the commission always reiterated its unwavering support for the policy.
In the most recent example of that, the commission debated in May whether to award a lucrative contract for pay telephones at Miami International Airport to AT&T, which provides long distance service to Cuba.
The Cuba policy was waived for AT&T -- the only time officials could remember in which the county explicitly agreed not to enforce it.
Frank Nero, head of the Beacon Council, Miami-Dade's economic development agency, said the county law seemed to have had a minimal impact on businesses making relocation decisions to Miami.
``It's never really been an issue, because unless they are seeking some sort of incentive or county support, they weren't subject to it,'' he said.
Herald staff writers Jordan Levin and Gregg Fields contributed to this report.
Feds ask court to reject appeal by Miami family
By Jay Weaver. jweaver@herald
The federal government Tuesday asked a federal appeals court in Atlanta to reject the latest appeal by the Miami relatives of Elián González to let him seek political asylum, so the boy can return with his father to Cuba as soon as possible.
U.S. immigration officials urged the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to file its ruling from earlier this month right away so its injunction barring the boy's removal from this country can be lifted.
The 11th Circuit set no timetable for deciding whether to hear the Miami relatives' new challenge, which followed their loss to the government in the June 1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the same court.
A majority of the court's 12 judges must decide whether to rehear the case, which seeks to force the Immigration and Naturalization Service to give Elián an asylum hearing.
It has been an elusive goal sought by the boy's relatives in Little Havana almost since last Thanksgiving Day, when the 6-year-old was rescued from an inner tube off the South Florida coast.
SEVEN-DAY WAIT
If the 11th Circuit decides not to rehear the appeal, it is customary for the court to wait seven days before entering its final judgment. That would lift its injunction barring Elián's removal from this country, unless the relatives obtain another one from the U.S. Supreme Court.
But if the 11th Circuit chooses to rehear the appeal, oral arguments would likely be set for later this summer.
The relatives' appeal pivots on two claims: Immigration officials exceeded their authority in Elián's case, and that under federal law the boy has a constitutional right to apply for asylum.
The relatives' Miami legal team argues that the trio of appellate judges gave too much leeway to the government in reviewing Elián's asylum claim and that a new Supreme Court decision on ``judicial deference'' should compel the full 11th Circuit to rehear their challenge.
``That contention is unsound,'' Justice Department lawyers wrote in their 10-page response filed Tuesday.
They claim that immigration officials -- backed by Attorney General Janet Reno -- had the authority to decide against hearing Elián's asylum petition made on his behalf by his great-uncle Lazáro González.
The agency acknowledged that the boy had a due-process right to apply for asylum, but considered him too young to file an application.
In turn, the INS found that only his Cuban father, Juan Miguel González, had the right to speak for him.
González, who is now staying with his son in Washington, D.C., immediately asked the agency to withdraw his son's application.
OPTIONS
In a four-page court response filed Tuesday, the father's attorney, Gregory Craig, said that Lazáro González's persistence in the courts has taken its toll on Juan Miguel González's family.
``The driving force behind Lazáro González's petition for rehearing is to prolong Elián González's stay in this country as long as possible,'' Craig wrote. ``Every day, of course, is another day of interference with Juan Miguel's ability to raise his child as he sees
fit.''
The relatives' legal team challenges the legal underpinning of the Atlanta panel's decision: Federal courts have only limited authority over executive branch agencies like the INS because of the principle of ``judicial deference.''
The lawyers say a Supreme Court decision last month determined that the courts could review the decisions of federal agencies if they were based only on informal policies, not formal regulations.
In this instance, Harris County, Texas, wanted to require its deputy sheriffs to use up their accumulated compensatory time rather than save it.
The U.S. Department of Labor joined forces with the sheriffs, after writing an opinion letter to the county supporting their position.
But Justice Department lawyers countered that the Labor Department's role was of a supporting nature -- unlike the central parts played by the INS and Reno in Elián's case.
David Martin, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School and former INS general counsel, credited the Miami legal team with coming up with the Harris County case.
But he said it was not analogous to Elián's: the INS conducted research here and in Cuba while developing an official policy found to be reasonable by the federal courts in Miami and Atlanta.
Copyright 2000 Miami Herald |