By Howard Troxler. ©
St. Petersburg Times, published July 25,
2001
Repeat after me:
Democrats are soft on Fidel Castro. Republicans are strong on Fidel Castro.
Even when you can't tell the difference between them.
This brings us to a timely comparison between our last president, Bill
Clinton, a Democrat (Boo! Hiss!), and our current president, George W. Bush, a
Republican (Hooray! What a man!).
Both presidents had to make the same decision: whether to allow part of an
anti-Castro law passed by Congress back in 1996 to take effect.
The law is called the Helms-Burton Act, named after U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms of
North Carolina, and Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, both Republicans.
The portion of the law in question said that Americans whose property in
Cuba had been seized by the Castro regime could sue foreign corporations that
have "trafficked" in those assets.
Many other nations, such as Canada, and the members of the European Union,
hate the Helms-Burton Act. If you start trying to boss us around, they warned,
and trying to sue our companies, then you are going to launch an economic war.
We will retaliate.
Congress left some wiggle room in the law. The president could delay the
part of the law that allowed lawsuits for up to six months at a time. On July
16, 1996, Clinton did exactly that -- and did it nine more times, every six
months, until the end of his term.
The Republicans flayed him for being weak on Castro. Let's look back at the
accounts of the Associated Press, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and Miami
Herald to see what the Republicans said of Clinton that day:
"Character of Jell-O," complained U.S. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a
Miami Republican. "Backbone of Jell-O. That's what President Clinton
demonstrated today."
"The truth is," Helms said, "Mr. Clinton has capitulated to
Fidel Castro and his foreign business collaborators, who not only condone
Castro's cruel dictatorship, but want to help it flourish."
Burton said that Clinton "in effect, caved in to foreign countries that
have essentially bought stolen American property."
There was a lot more, but let's fast-forward to last Monday. Notice the date
-- July 16, 2001, five years to the day since Clinton's first waiver.
Bush did the same thing as Clinton.
Like Clinton, Bush said he hoped the step would encourage democracy in Cuba.
Like Clinton, he kept other "tough" sanctions against Cuba in place.
To make the medicine go down, Bush is nominating a strong Castro critic for a
high State Department job. He also favors stronger anti-Castro broadcasts aimed
at Cuba from the U.S. mainland. Wooo.
Was there outrage in Little Havana? Did the leaders of the Republican
Congress excoriate Bush?
What do you think? Let's look at the news reports:
"Certainly," Helms said, "before anybody jumps on the
president for this six-month suspension, it would be wise to consider the other
salutary initiatives that the president is putting into force. The president is,
in fact, taking a very tough line which is certain to make Fidel Castro squirm."
Diaz-Balart agreed. "President Bush reached the conclusion that a trade
war with Europe at the World Trade Organization over a single title of
Helms-Burton at this time would dangerously strengthen the coalition of those
seeking to eliminate the entire embargo."
On the other side, it was the turn of U.S. Rep. Bob Menendez, a Democrat
from New Jersey, to blast Bush for being weak. He accused Bush of a "bait
and switch" and "hollow rhetoric."
In sum, the rules of the Castro game are simple. If your side does it, then
you stand up and cheer. If the other side does it, you decry it as wrong. Party
label takes precedence over principle.
You can reach Howard Troxler at (727) 893-8505 or at
troxler@sptimes.com.
© Copyright 2001 St. Petersburg Times. All rights
reserved. | 
